Reading this was more entertaining than all of the referenced movies combined.
where one would goto watch Bollywood movies?
not really actors acting, a lot of digital comp effects..
To give a bit more flavour to the review, here's a short 17 second YouTube clip about the movie. Thanks for the write-up! http://bit.ly/NkBvZH
I just saw Catfish on HBO docs, and I too was taken in by the story of this incredible 8 yr old artist...I wanted to believe it was Megan on that mp3..I believed Angela Pierce until they visited the horse farm. Call me a "true believer" or a "dweeb", but I was disappointed when they Angela opened the door too. This was NOT to "coffee elite" or "metropolitan" for a country girl from KY to watch and enjoy, and the way they ended the film in kindness was nicely done if maybe a bit contrived. He is still friends with Angela at the end of this piece. That may also be contrived, but what a great way to leave it.
The Chitauri invasion is something forecast in, I dunno, the first scene of the movie, so that's hardly a spoiler. Hope I didn't give anything away by letting you know Iron Man and Hulk are in it, too.
I can't wait to see this one. Huge Stillman fan. Really haven't loved some of the recent outings by his media-appointed protege Noah Baumbach, so this is a real treat for me. Hope he keeps it up.
nice skrull spoiler, thanks a bunch....maybe you should stick to mumblecore so you won't give anything away. pathetic.
Thanks, "marsmark." I actually did mention Metcalf and would have been happy to cite not just Adam Brody but also fine turns by Hugo Becker (Xavier), Aubrey Plaza (Depressed Debbie) and Nick Blaemire (Freak Astaire).
Unfortunately, the print space I had didn't permit the well-deserved individual shout-outs. That's not a problem online, obviously.
One thing I noticed from reading the press notes about this fine ensemble is that a number of them have trained with Upright Citizens Brigade, the improv company in New York and California.
Loved and agreed with your review David. I might have added a word or two about the third act twist of Brit-snob Rose's (Megalyn Echikunwoke) character and that the performances by the underachiever boys Fred (Ryan Metcalf) and Fred Packenstacker / Charlie Walker (Adam Brody) were equally quirky and up to the comic timing necessary to carry off the over all tone of the film.
I felt that this film tried to do too much. While the perspective was fresh, it would have exelled had it stuck to the primary theme. It became distracted with subplots and derivative concepts that did little or nothing to further an already lengthy film. More of In Darkness should have found its way to the cutting room floor.
Mr. Kuranski, your comment basically trots out the same anti-semitic diatribe as Stalin's Jews, a pamphlet published alongside such notable anti-semitic works as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Jews made up about 5% of Bolsheviks, the same as their numbers in the population at large. Yes, there were some Jewish leaders of Stalin's secret police organizations but to say 39% of Stalin's helpers were Jewish and they "gleefully carried out the orders to murder in cold blood millions of Slavic people" is a lie. Your comment perpetrates anti-semitic myths and is dreadfully shameful.
Why isn't their a film that talks about, as one Israeli newspaper called them, "Stalins Jews"?
According the Israeli newspaper Ynet, 39% of the Soviet helpers of Stalin were Jewish. They gleefully carried out the orders to murder in cold blood millions of Slavic people.
If this movie does not talk about Stalin's Jews, it is not giving the full and accurate context of anti-semitism in Slavic Europe. Most anti-semitism in Slavic Europe was a result of Jewish Communist atrocities against Slavic people.
If you like hip-hop, you might like my blog, Rhymes and Reasons. It’s a series of interviews with hip-hop heads who discuss their lives and a few songs that matter to them. Pretty powerful stuff. Check’em out here:
Not mentioned in the review due to time and space constraints but worth noting: On Tuesday, Jan. 24, Glenn Close received an Oscar nomination for best actress while Janet McTeer received a best supporting actress nomination.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your take but disagree. I thought it was stunning and very effective. Fassbender and Mulligan were both cheated out of Oscar nominations--though that's a different issue entirely.
"Secondly, does this child running all over NYC also address the notion the parent is in fact absent? Another assertion the reviewer made without regard to that being an overly obvious interpretation of the boy being unsupervised for such lengths of time."
Speaking of predetermined...once you see the film (I'm presuming from this comment that you haven't) you'll realize why this particular critique is off-base and why, IMO, my original criticisms hold up. However, for the record, I truly didn't consider your screed a personal attack on me or my skill set.
Thank you, andersone, that ending comment is what got to me. Otherwise, though I have not seen the movie, I personally found your thoughts interesting to consider, particularly regarding the absent parent and the unsupervised child. Thanks for joining the conversation!
Ouch, my bad... I reread my original comment and guess the ending was not entirely polite! My sincere apologies for the slip. I felt the reviewer was being equally unfair in the criticism of creative talent of the creator and thus expressed so rather emotionally. My only defense, not being the professional.
Mea Culpa for the perceived personal attack. However, I do not believe my comments where any more personal than those of the reviewer. Honestly, I do not see how my criticism was considered a personal attack rather than a comment intended to question this professionals review by pointing out several very specific assertions they made which are not entirely accurate, but used to justify a rather negative review. This just seemed more than slightly predetermined or based more on their view of how things should be rather than on the merits or the work. My point being they were not being professionally objective.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation