Rate LEATHERHEADS

[abcdefz]

It was okay.

B-.

[Documad]

I'm interested in why any of you went to see the movie. Didn't you hear that it was awful before you went? Do you just see every movie, are you big Clooney fans, or what?

P.S. I don't believe that I've EVER liked a modern screwball comedy, but if I was going to give one a shot it certainly wouldn't star Renee Zellweger.

P.S.S. -- This is a serious question. I can rarely force myself to see a movie in a theater these days. I'm wondering why other adults still go.

[jabumbo]

i saw it on a free pass myself


i didnt think it was awful, but it really wasnt that great either. it was good for a few chuckles after a long day of work and that's about it.


C+ maybe?

[abcdefz]

It had some screwball comedy elements, but I really wouldn't even call it an attempt at screwball. There were a couple of scenes, but basically,
it was just a really mild comedy. I think that's where some of the bad reviews came from -- expecting one thing and getting something else.
On its own terms, it's just a nice, pleasant movie.

Yeah, I think it's a smidgen better than Sarah Marshall. I didn't like Jason's character, I didn't like Sarah Marshall, the girl from That 70's Show
had a horribly thinly written character, and there was practically no plot. I did get a couple of laughs out of it, but I can't imagine ever wanting
to see it again.

[MC Moot]

From the previews I got the feeling Clooney was trying to do A coen bros thing...like the same kinda schtick in "oh Brother"...snappy dialogue and pomenade...But I can’t see that guy as anything other than that guy off the American version of “The Office”…

[abcdefz]

He's a little different than Jim. Not a huge stretch, though.

There are only a few "Coenesque" sort of scenes -- not that the Coens invented that stuff, but...

It's really not that kind of movie. It's a comedy, it has some snappy patter, and it's a period piece; otherwise, I think it's sort of burdened
by expectations that it's something it's not. On its own terms, it's a fine little movie.

[MC Moot]

It’s nice of Clooney to help a fellow T.V actor with a “hand up”…:D...it’s a tough move for me as an audience member…like the guy from the Mac adds,isn’t working for me but the P.C guy is great on Colbert…and I’m much more interested in Joseph Gordon Levitt’s role in “Stop-Loss” as opposed to Ryan Phillipe…whom I don’t care for at all…

[abcdefz]

Everybody's got their own baggage, I guess.

Philippe was okay in that movie opposite Chris Cooper... but, yeah -- he's pretty much a zero in my book. But Levitt's usually
terrific. That's probably a rental for me.

[MC Moot]

Everybody's got their own baggage, I guess.

this is true...

http://celebedge.sympatico.msn.ca/Galleries/pg_index2?feedname=Photo_Gallery_THENANDNOW&pos=2

[abcdefz]

Yikes.

[abcdefz]

P.S.S. -- This is a serious question. I can rarely force myself to see a movie in a theater these days. I'm wondering why other adults still go.




99.99999% of the time I go to the matinée. It's cheaper, but mainly it avoids the rowdy cell phone crowd.

[taquitos]

I'm interested in why any of you went to see the movie. Didn't you hear that it was awful before you went?

...dumbest shit i've ever heard

I can rarely force myself to see a movie in a theater these days. I'm wondering why other adults still go.

Some (used to be most) films are made for a large screen, and many directors
take this into account when plotting out their shots and cinematography.
After all it is, of course, primarily a visual medium. When a director like Igmar Bergman
chooses to focus on a close-up of a person's face for 3 minutes, he intends for it to be
20-feet tall. Thus leaving a much stronger impression on the viewer than a dinky 5-inch tall version.

Experiencing a film like Persona or The Seventh Seal (just the last shot alone!) on the big screen has been a dream of mine for many years.

[Documad]

I go see old movies on a theater screen all the time. I'm not a Bergman fan, but I agree that movies with fine art direction (like Night of the Hunter) have to be seen on a big screen.

As modern movies get uglier and uglier to look at (in my opinion, the computerized images look more and more fake all the time) and as my home screen gets better and better, there is no reason for me to see things in the theater unless it's a movie with a twist and I'm worried that it will be ruined for me before I get it on Netflix, or maybe I want to laugh my ass off with a bunch of friends (Borat/Hot Fuzz/King of Kong).

I have never, ever seen a good movie at a free preview. That's probably my bad luck. The last one I saw for free was Dreamgirls. Eww.

I appreciate the serious responses to my question.

[Documad]

By the way, it's sad to me that most directors working today watch the filming via a video screen. They seem to be making movies for TV instead of for theater screens, or maybe they just have no confidence. It was interesting that in EW this week, it said that Steven Spielberg is the only one cutting on film now. That can't be true but it's probably close to true.

[ET]

Yeah a lot of the majors have switched to digital now but not everyone. The look of 35mm is really distinctive. You can almost tell what year a film was made due to the quality of the film itself. It really is overlooked by a lot of moviegoers, I figure. I wish I could replicate the 35mm look digitally. Anytime I see it duplicated it looks like just that, a duplication.

[The Notorious LOL]

doesnt this shit take place in Duluth?

[abcdefz]

Experiencing a film like Persona or The Seventh Seal (just the last shot alone!) on the big screen has been a dream of mine for many years.



I got to see The Seventh Seal in a theater. It was great. The flogging stuff is even more wrenching.