Lightwizard and Larry, thanks for the info. I'll use it.
LW, You are right. I, too, have learned not to put too much stock in the critic's or reviewer's opinion until I've seen the film and have decided what I think of it. Several times I've found that I enjoyed a movie that got panned. Also, in the case of Ebert, who I've read more than anyone else, he likes certain types of films that I don't care for. I disregard his opinion in such cases.
I have to read critics who generally follow my taste but I don't always do that. I will often go to see a film because of that director's past efforts. I was put off seeing "Gangs of New York" when it was first released but now that I've seen it, I agree that Scorcese has some curious problems with period pieces -- I found "The Age of Innocence" to be boring and unfullfilling (rather read the book). I will also go just for entertainment even if it's a popcorn movie that wouldn't leave me thinking about the film after I've seen it. I've liked very few films that appear at the bottom of the list with critics but with the list on the other thread -- the Premier 2002 critic's choices, that certainly can get muddled.
Back to Altman, I understand the mainstream critics just didn't get this film at the time. It is a character study of the highest order with a script that could easily be turned into a novel (Altman was also the principal writer). Altman, incidentally, came out of television (involved with such gems as "Surfside Six" but also "Maverick" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents.").
Since Lightwizard is always touting SIGHT AND SOUND I bought the current issue to have something to read on the train back from D.C. tonight...what a bland, soporific, dull magazine it is. Not one writer shows any passion for or even deep interest in film. The reviews are no better than an intelligent college film newspaper critic could produce. And the practice of prefacing them with detailed plot synopses seems totally wrongheaded to me. There was a feature story on FAR FROM HEAVEN which read as though it had been rewritten from a studio press release. Honestly, if this is the best the Brits can do, they should stick to cricket.
LW - I agree with you about Gosford Park - it is a very rich film indeed - on many levels. The way in which it realised the mores and customs of the era was, I think, revealed in fulness by the shock experienced by the audience when the maid who is having the affair intervenes in the dinner table conversation. I shall enjoy the DVD you mention. When I get a DVD player!
McCabe and Mrs Miller I have not seen for so long that I cannot comment - but you make me wish to see it again.
I thought Howard's End was very well done, indeed - and also, although less well I think, "A Room With a View".
Can anyone tell me if the recent version of "Portrait of a Lady" was any good? I love the book - and I do not wish to see a mangled film.
I enjoyed Gosford Park but do not consider it a masterpiece.
The Altman I like best, besides McCabe & Mrs. Miller is Three Women, The Player and Images.
I am not keen on James Ivory. I find his films pretty, but uninvolving.
I shall look for the others you mention, Fbaezer.
"The Player" is as great a film as "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," I think the best film commenting on the machinations and intrigue of Hollywood. A brilliant satirical eye and my favorite Tim Robbins performance. "The Bad and the Beautiful" and "The Barefoot Contessa" are vintage films about Hollywood that I still enjoy, although "Barefoot" would have to be a guilty pleasure.
(I love the theme music, kind of a take on Ravel's "Bolero").
"Portrait of a Lady" is a reasonably good version, perhaps as good as one could expect of Henry James. Ebert's review:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1997/01/011704.html
I doubt it would spoil the reading of the book but please remember that it's rare that a film will come up to expectations.
I think you'd love both, dlowan.
"Images" has to do with psychology, the thin line that separates reality from imagination.
"Three Women" is a strange dreamlike film, about strange relationships among, yes, sensible women who are better without unsensible men.
heehee - I am off to lunch and to see "Chicago" soon! Somewhat different film, nicht wahr?
Chicago and Nashville, two very different American cities. Hmmm
Dlowan, THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY is a pretty good James adaptation. It is not the best James ever put on film, but it is more than adequate. Malkovitch is not quite what I had in mind for Gilbert Osmond, but that caveat aside the cast is splendid. An even better recent James adaptation is THE WINGS OF THE DOVE starring Helena Bonham Carter, which captures a more difficult novel to film almost perfectly.
I happen to have watched The Player this afternoon. This is a film that held my attention every minute. All the major parts were beautifully acted. Tim Robbins was perfect in his part. The story is filled with characters with a deep self serving narcissism. It would be hard to imagine a culture more loaded with cynicism. Glad I'm not part of the hollywood scene.
What do you all think of Altman's film Short Cuts? I watched it because I'm interested in Raymond Carver. Carver was pretty will mutilated (I hesitate to say carved up). But that's to be expected. Parts of the film were fairly funny: the three guys who went fishing and found a body; the telephone sex lady; and the Tim Robbins cop. I like Carver as a short story writer, but I'm not sure his stories are suitable for the movies. Most of them are about common place events in the lives of the characters. There will usually be some subtile irony or curious twist, but not much real action.
I liked "Short Cuts" more than some of the critics seemed to. Altman is always inventive and one of those directors who comes across as genuinely inspired even when the effort falters on the screen as in "Quintet" and "Popeye." The format is almost entirely original and very cinematic in "Short Cuts" and spawned several films since including "Magnolia." Innovation is really what sets the great directors apart from those who are merely gears in the Hollywood machine. "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" was a bit of the shock of the new despite the fact that one thing I always appreciated about the film was that it looked and felt authentic to the period in an almost ethereal way. It certainly befuddled many of the critics. It's one of those films where the visualizations are extremely important and many feelings are conveyed without dialogue. Beatty and Christie in the same film -- a perfection of casting that often doesn't happen in an entire year of cinema. Nicholson and Dunaway in "Chinatown" is one of the other examples I can think of immediately.
Amen to that!
Thank you fpor your opinions on the two James films, Larry - I was wondering about "Wings".
I like SHORT CUTS a lot and since I'm not a Raymond Carver fan, I don't much care whether or not Altman is faithful to the stories. I think the movie is uneven, but has some of Altman's very best work ever in it. His overall point about what is happening to American life, that we are becoming a country of disconnected, irresponsible, anomie-ridden solitaries, gets made brilliantly. It is in many ways a frightening picture of America, especially the last sequence which intercuts all the stories together to show a climax of deperation in all of them. SHORT CUTS seems to me to be one of the key movies of the 90s, even if it is not totally successful--there are some scenes and sequences, especially involving Jack Lemmon, that I could have done without. But overall it is a remarkable movie.
Once again, Lightwizard, you betray your preoccupation with what the critics think--in this case about SHORT CUTS. Who cares?
