I don't even have a blurb for you because I thought I'd be watching the usual Hallmark channel fluff but it turned out to be "A Christian Romance" complete with dry alcoholic and a 30 year old in a bad wig playing the over 60s housekeeper.
It was free on Amazon Prime. Feh.
13 April 2013
11 April 2013
P.S. I Love You
Poor man's Julia Roberts surrounded by fake Irish accents.
or
To Gillian on her 37th Birthday remake with roles reversed
This could have been a cute little tear-jerker flick but there is absolutely NO chemistry between Swank and any of the cast except Bates who plays her mom. This is coming from someone who likes bad romantic dramedies. I actually turned is off halfway thru because facebook was more entertaining.
or
To Gillian on her 37th Birthday remake with roles reversed
This could have been a cute little tear-jerker flick but there is absolutely NO chemistry between Swank and any of the cast except Bates who plays her mom. This is coming from someone who likes bad romantic dramedies. I actually turned is off halfway thru because facebook was more entertaining.
05 April 2013
John Carter
Too much CGI
or
actors talking to air
I'm all for sci-fi CGI in moderation, it's great to show vast spaces (though Hollywood used to paint amazing vistas and background using painters and set designers...) and things flying and to make monsters look massive, etc, but when it replaces people, so that the actors in the film are talking to air, when the actors aren't getting the feedback of the give and take of saying lines to another person, it is noticeable. The nuances of body language, inflections and tone get lost and make for a wooden film. The actual live sequences between real actors like Carter and the Princess are full of life, but when they turn to talk to the CGI, their eyes don't match up, their gestures are stilted, and their timing is off.
These are things that viewers notice mostly on an unconscious level, they may not realize that is why they aren't liking the movie. It's not that the acting is bad, per se, but that the CGI is.
or
actors talking to air
I'm all for sci-fi CGI in moderation, it's great to show vast spaces (though Hollywood used to paint amazing vistas and background using painters and set designers...) and things flying and to make monsters look massive, etc, but when it replaces people, so that the actors in the film are talking to air, when the actors aren't getting the feedback of the give and take of saying lines to another person, it is noticeable. The nuances of body language, inflections and tone get lost and make for a wooden film. The actual live sequences between real actors like Carter and the Princess are full of life, but when they turn to talk to the CGI, their eyes don't match up, their gestures are stilted, and their timing is off.
These are things that viewers notice mostly on an unconscious level, they may not realize that is why they aren't liking the movie. It's not that the acting is bad, per se, but that the CGI is.
02 April 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)