The Cat's Meow

[Feraud]

Look at it this way, nice little film, great set and costumes, there could have been worse Chaplins, still we enjoyed it

Absolutly!
For the record, I am an Edde Izzard fan. I think he stand up comedy is hilarious. I do not think he ruined the film, just distracted it a bit.

 

[Hondo]

Absolutly!
For the record, I am an Edde Izzard fan. I think he stand up comedy is hilarious. I do not think he ruined the film, just distracted it a bit.

I hear 'ya Absolutly!
And I'm not lol a Edde Izzard or Kristine Dunst fan. Not a Film critic, I just like this type of period film whether true or false, was cool, fun

 

[Mike in Seattle]

We've just been watching this again on HBO. It's a gray drizzly day and after a very busy morning and early afternoon, it just seemed like a good time to flop down for a little while.

I just commented "One of these years, I want a big birthday party just like that - everyone dressed to the nines - tuxedoes & dinner jackets for the guys, black gowns for the ladies - on a yacht or with a similar 20's atmosphere. Jazz band a must. Dancing & revelry till all hours of the morning. Champagne & Martinis flowing like water..."

"Are you sure you mean exactly like that?" asks the less party-inclined inhabitant of this abode.

"Well, up to the point of the guest of honor getting a gunshot to the back of the head to be followed by the fatal bout of indigestion two days later..."

Hmmm, sort of a mini-QM event I suppose...

 

[Elaina]

I like Eddie Izzard, so I didn't really care too much one way or the other. Don't like Kristen Dunst, like Cary Elwes (rowr), but I don't watch period movies for the story, I just watch for the costumes and then spend all my time scetching madly away.

I knew the story, and had read it on a number of things. If you ask me what the movie entailed, I'd just tell you a really creepy scene where Dunst kisses Hermann (ew). I think I started sketching at that point, and other then seeing Izzard's name on the screen, I didn't watch the preformance.

But yes, Izzard DOES pluck his eyebrows. Any good self-respecting semi-drag queen would.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I finally saw this on cable last night. I definitely enjoyed it, and thought the entire cast did well, and it's certainly the best thing I've seen directed by Peter Bogdonavich in a long time.

Re Eddie Izzard as Chaplin: At first, I was extremely disappointed, but I gradually warmed to his interpretation. He definitely captured Chaplin's ego and force of personality, even if he's physically too large (though that's not always a dealbreaker: Gary Busey as Buddy Holly, anyone?) More importantly, he doesn't have Chaplin's incomparable balletic grace. He was most off in the dance (and charades) scenes: Chaplin typically made everybody around him look hopelessly klutzy in such situations, but Izzard couldn't believably effortlessly out-dance everyone else.

Anyway, a nicely done flick, with lovely costumes and not perfect - but better than usual - period-accurate dialog/attitudes.

 

[DetroitFalcons]

Lots of Goofs (from IMDB):


The Walther PPK pistol was not produced until 1931, nor would it have a plastic finger extension on the magazine's base plate.

I saw this movie again last night.

I thought the pistol was a PPK. I wonder what W.R. actually would have carried? Maybe a Colt .32 in nickel? If he had a 1911 there would have been an exit wound I would think. [huh]

 

[A.R. McVintage]

These are so funny. I think it's so strange that producers and others in charge of movie "stuff" can rarely seem to get things exactly right. You'd think with the money that they spend on these big productions, they'd to everything in their power to make things exactly correct.

That's the problem. They had a really limited budget, especially for doing a period film, less than ten million, probably half of which went to the actors. Knowing that, I think they did pretty well.

 

[DetroitFalcons]

That's the problem. They had a really limited budget, especially for doing a period film, less than ten million, probably half of which went to the actors. Knowing that, I think they did pretty well.

I believe the film did less than 4 million gross in the US. Probably why we don't get that many quality period pieces, and instead we get blockbuster sequels.

 

[millbrookmusic]

I believe the film did less than 4 million gross in the US. Probably why we don't get that many quality period pieces, and instead we get blockbuster sequels.

Indeed! Closer to 3 million even...according wikipedia $3,176,936. Quite a stinker. Are there any 1920's period films that have been a smashing success? I recall the recent movie Leatherheads wasn't a box-office darling either.

~Daniel

 

[DetroitFalcons]

Indeed! Closer to 3 million even...according wikipedia $3,176,936. Quite a stinker. Are there any 1920's period films that have been a smashing success? I recall the recent movie Leatherheads wasn't a box-office darling either.

~Daniel

*nods* And Leatherheads took a long time to get made (I think it was in various stages of production and being shelved for 15 years).

 

[A.R. McVintage]

Are there any 1920's period films that have been a smashing success? I recall the recent movie Leatherheads wasn't a box-office darling either.

~Daniel

Old: Singin' in the Rain

New: The Mummy