Thanks, you're right. I kept notes watching this but it's hard to keep track, especially when I occasionally can't read my own hand writing. I wish I were kidding.
Nice review, but Nick was not one of the privileged kids. He was "Nick the farm boy." He went to a one-room school house, not a private school, although he did end up at Oxford. He's also the only one who moved to the U.S. and the only one who earned a Ph.D.
I am a big fan of Tarantino........having said that, the review of Django is excellent.
I had the exact same reaction to the film.
Despite some wonderful acting and scenes, it was disappointing.
Giving back to the community indeed Ms. Karen Brown...More like scavenging on what's left of it..
Art houses and book stores and record shops ... you will be missed.
Ugh. Another damn review lauding the film for being "unflinching."
The problem with Zero Dark Thirty isn't that it's "amoral," as Morris claims. It's that it claims the mantle of journalistic integrity, then mucks with the very critical fact that torture, according to every public report we have available, demonstratively DID NOT produce any information which lead to the killing of bin Laden. Changing that critical fact, to my mind, obviates any grittiness or "realism" that Bigelow and Boal achieved.
Bigelow fully earned her Oscar snub. You can't claim the mantle of a journalistic eye and then change facts. And if the allegations prove true that this was changed as a sop to the CIA's PR department in exchange for access, she deserves not an Oscar, but a Congressional subpoena.
Want to know the true story of the real-life events that inspired the film? Then check out my book, Hot Dogs and Cocktails: When FDR met George VI at Hyde Park on Hudson, on Amazon. (www.amazon.com/Hot-Dogs-Cocktails-George-e…
The story is ludicrous - any reading of Geoffrey Ward's book, "Closest Companion," which tells their story through her letters and diaries, indicates no intimate relationship. I have been writing and lecturing on FDR for decades and I have not seen the film. From reading countless reviews and seeing outtakes I have no doubt that this film is more of a parody and its conclusions should not be taken with any seriousness. FDR was a powerful personality that attracted women admirers for decades. He was also an incredibly private individual who kept his inner thoughts to very few people. These few people did not keep notes, few wrote any memoirs (Louis Howe, Missy LeHand, Harry Hopkins and others wrote nothing) and the ones that did, knew little of his relationships and inner thoughts. That era was fraught with romanticism and life was quite fragile, relationships were close, warm and very often not intimate in the least. The idea that anyone could hear, report or remember even fragments of private conversations they were not part of is specious.
Historians and fiction writers make conclusions that are quite often totally unsupported by the facts. FDR kept no diary, his letters were not ones of intimacy and there are volumes of them to peruse. Margaret “Daisy” Suckley liked to listen, had no romantic relationships in her long life, and never bothered FDR with details, demands or pressure. He was able to relax with her and he often would give her insights and updates on some of the events that had unfolded or were about to happen. She, like the president, was quite discreet. Even her siblings didn’t even know that she knew the president.
He was very careful about what he wrote and he almost never revealed any clue of his intentions. I have over 400 books on FDR, thousands of articles, artifacts and collectibles and have devoted 27 radio broadcasts over six years on FDR, the New Deal, Eleanor Roosevelt and related subjects.
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
WVOX 1460 am radio
New Rochelle, NY
ELIJAH - In the movie, they specifically refer to the explosive as "dynamite," which wasn't yet invented.
Fellerath is wrong both about the explosive and the rifle used in the long distance kill neither of which he believes was invented at the time the movie was set.
1. It of course wasn't dynamite which had not been invented: it was gunpowder which was invented by the ancient Chinese and which was the basis of mixtures widely used for mining prior to dynamite. In the movie Django in fact acquires the explosive from transporters employed by a mining company.
2. Fellerath found the long distance kill unrealistic because the rifle employed was not available in 1858. Wrong, the gun was a Sharp Co. rifle which came out in 1848 The Sharp was very accurate and did have a very long range.
Dont you have anyone check facts? Often wrong, never in doubt
Mr. Fellerath: Tough to walk the critical line between art and exploitation, you did it well with your fair-minded assessment of Django. The bloodfest described in the last hour of Django reflects a pornography of violence that too many are quick to dismiss as art for the greater good. I'll pass on Tarantino this year. Thanks.
Hm, guess I'll save my money, unless you you think it could be the butt of a burst of many future jokes. Which, in hindsight, was the best reason to go see avatar.
One of the top ten documentaries of 2012.
Searching for Sugar Man is one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. What an awesome and inspiring story. I would suggest this movie to anyone! It's got a very good chance of being in the running for best documentary in the academy awards. Sixto Rodriguez is such a humble and thankful person. Even though he hasn't had the best of luck in his succes as a musician, he is thankful for the life he has. And now he deserves all the success that's coming to him. We really enjoyed having Sixtoin our studio to perform, check him out and go see the movie! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5PF8ykKUWE
Loved it but I thought Affleck's acting was the weakest part. Plus Mendez was Hispanic. Would it have killed him to employ an actor of color?
Can't wait to see it! Found this cool video of No Diggity played entirely by saxophones - yeh even the drums! It's called Saxapella - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dRrhDPGcto.
Fair point, caab.
And jw9788a, I *wanted* to like WALTZ. Glad Sarah Polley, Michelle Williams et al. found a more receptive viewer in you.
I think her having three occupations is pretty accurate for a 30-something today - a lot of my friends do more than one thing and I have lawyer, band manager/vocalist, and blogger on my list of income streams...
Love the angle you took on this review, but I really liked Waltz!
One more note on this. I received very firm text messages from Indy photographer Jeremy Lange about this review, which read in part:
Lauren Greenfield "has made her career tackling female body issue topics from child beauty pageants to bulimia... She is one of the preeminent photojournalists of the last 20 years. Not war, but serious projects on domestic issues mostly as they relate to women."
Again, the insufficient characterization of her work in the review is my doing, not the writer's.
This is a wonderful film, by the way.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation