Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I seem to be the only person on earth who found The Dark Knight ludicrously over-rated and at least 45 minutes too long.
I thought it slightly overrated and about 10 minutes too long.
I didn’t have a problem with the action scenes in either of Nolan’s Batman efforts, except the car/van chase in Dark Knight (just prior to the truck flip part, I think), which was a bit Bourne-lite.
There was a big argument amongst critics in the US last year around The Bourne Ultimatum, shot on handheld and edited to hell. It gives you an adrenalin rush or a jolt but you simply can't get a sense of who's doing what where and to whom. Action should be about choreography -- these films are like shooting a 30s musical in a bunch of handheld close-ups with no wide shots of the whole chorus line.
I don’t entirely agree – or at least I’d say that that “action verite” style of the likes of Paul Greengrass can be appropriate. Also, Greengrass’ execution of that approach was a cut above Forsters. The chase/fight scene in Morocco midway through Bourne Ultimatum was far superior to any of the action scenes in Quantum of Solace.
That Bordwell piece sounds interesting, Philip. I’ll check it out when I have the time. (I’m meant to be working now.)
-
You're right about Bond -- it's a confidence trick played on the movie-going public every two years. Those are very ordinary action movies at best.
True. A largely overrated franchise that dates badly. Having said that, Casino Royale was better than average. It had some really good action scenes and one classic (the crane set piece). Like almost all the later bond movies it saves its weakest action set piece for the end. I always come out of Bond films feeling let down by the end. Come to think of it, Goldeneye wasn’t too bad either, and had one of the more satisfying final confrontations. Martin Campbell’s Bond seems to be about as good as it gets.
The Forster effort was okay-ish, but you’re right about the action directing – or at least some of it. The car and boat chases near the start were pretty clumsy.
-
would I Am Legend have done US$77m in its first weekend if it starred Joe the Plumber
It might have been more popular with Republicans.
Generally Steve you're right. But that Kidman film Australia is a different kind of movie and pitched at a different audience -- older, women generally, and less likely to go to the movies every weekend and see whatever's just opened and has a lot of CGI in it. So stars matter for those films.
Yeah, true. It’s kinda funny that in a way the supposedly more serious fair is often more dependent on ‘big names’ than the “fantasy/comic-book adaptations aimed at teens”-type stuff. What could be more superficial than that?
-
I wonder the same thing as Mark. Hasn't the success of films like 300, Transformers, LOTR et al shown that you don't need big name stars to deliver at the box office?
-
you’re all about the humour.
At least he brings the funny.
New rule for this thread: from now on we all write in Buffverse idiom.
-
I do want to point out how utterly delicious it is (like the sweetest fruit on the vine) that the left are arguing for market mechanisms and the creation of tradable property rights in carbon emissions.
So what? Most of the left aren’t against market mechanisms per se. They also aren’t against state intervention per se. The left are pragmatic about those issues. There’s no contradiction. It’s libertarians who are dogmatic about the “free market”.
…and so humourlessly too.
Heh. Whereas you’re all about the humour.
-
The annoying thing is, the rest of Coddington's column is fair argument. That's not to say that I necessarily agree, but it's totally legit for a commentator to make that kind of case (and understandable from a libertarian). So why finish with such a cheap, dumb comment? Did she think the play on words around 'shot' would be funny?
I have a bit of time for opinion columnists making outlandish or poor taste comments now and then, but at least make them witty.
-
[from that link]In a line-up that otherwise consists mainly of bowlers who specialise in keeping the runs in check, Bond provides the firepower that is so critical to a good one-day side. Among bowlers who've bowled at least 2000 balls, Bond's strike-rate of a wicket every 26.5 balls is the best, even better than the likes of Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar and Allan Donald.
-
We don't have any players of real international class in the side (we could argue about Vettori),
Yeah Vettori's pretty close. A very respected spinner, very good bat in his 8 position, and a good captain who will likely improve. But we will really miss Flemming in the batting line-up, and especailly Shane Bond in the bowling department.
-
I was impressed with Johnson. He was getting just enough swing for a left arm quick to be dangerous. He was pretty acurate when I was watching, and he was fast. His bowling speed was regularly in the 140s. He was about as fast as Lee. Not saying he's as good as McGrath, but most aren't.
Glenn McGrath (Tests): 563 wickets in 124 tests
Bowling ave: 21.64, Econ rate per ov: 2.49, Strike rate: 51.9 balls.That's amongst the undoubted greats.
Mitchell Johnson: 56 wkts in 14 tests
Ave: 30.50, Econ: 3.12, strike rate: 58.5That's pretty good. It's better than Vettori's figures and comparable with Kapil Dev's.