I don't remember if we had a thread about this in the past, I'm sure we have, but o well I'm lazy. I just got finished watching Amadeus for the second time in a looooong time and I have to say it's jumped a good deal in my eyes. Maybe my top 15 or 20 list. The beginning was pretty funny made me laugh a couple times, and it has one of the best soundtracks ever heard in film... I mean Mozart for Christ's sake, can't get much better then that.
Well I guess you can do whatever ya want in the thread... list good under appreciated movies or just say how bad ass Amadeus was... or just post naked pictures of celebrities I don't really care.
This one's a losing battle turk.
Trust me.
Ive spent the better half of my life trying to convince people I know (and whos opinion I respect) that this flick is so much more than just a period piece for classical music geeks.
Here's why people blow this flick off without giving it a chance:
1) They think its just about classical music. They dont realize its based on one of the most human, disturbing suspenseful nail-biting plays ever written. The music is only a character in the story, its not the subject. The subject is a murder. The movie is how it happened.
2)Extravagant set-pieces have a yawn-let-the-academy-voters-stay-awake-for-this-one effect. The costume design, as elegant and accurate as it is, unfortunately gives one the first impression that this might be a documentary about the declaration of independence. Men in wigs and stockings are eyesores. Noone wants to remember we used to dress like that.
3)An epic Biopic about a historical figure usually tends to be boring as hell especially ones about classical composers. Hardly any violence, a noticeable lack of young characters, and the dialogue is usually, to quote the film, so "lofty they sound as if they shit marble"
This is pretty much the assumption the average viewer miught have of this film based on its trailer or any given out of context involuntary sampling of this movie.
But I shit you not this flick IS the reason I watch movies.
And yes, the music in this film will never let you take a movie's score for granted again. Soundtrack by Mozart. Thats like having William Shakespeare as you're screenwriter. Not even.
Good stuff Mebossy... One thing that I thought would draw in the viewing public was the fact that Mozart (according to the movie) lead the prototypical rock star life style. Live hard Die young, of course Salieri did help a little, but the man held performed, wrote music, and partied. You could apply this to basically any current rock star worth thier salt, the only difference is the music they played. Of course the movie is about more then that but at a very basic level I thought people could identify with that.
What is so weird is that I seem to recall this movie being promoted just along those very lines, the "rock star" prototype, like an 18th century Mick Jagger...sort of a similar modern take on a classical biopic (like they tried to do with Marie Antionette lately---not nearly as good, IMHO).
My best friend wanted to go see this for her 14th birthday, so off we went. I was more used to plays, concerts, ballet, than a lot of my peers (read: I was less likely to get fidgety and bored), but I still was not sure what to expect.
Needless to say, I was blown away by it, had not seen anything quite like it, and it made any period drama I had seen before then seem stuffy and fake. This one was so real and gritty, visceral even, in terms of not depicting history in sanitized terms.
Funny that this thread is here...I had been trying to convince my bf to watch this with me when my DVD comes in the mail. He's never seen it, and I know he's in for a big treat!!
Yeah... by and large the 'Academy' has been faltering lately on it's choices for Best Picture of the year. But for the most part in the 80s, they got it right. Often these 'period' pieces get stuck with some sort of lame 'Ivory-Merchant' stigma (you know, boring, British, high-brow, etc). But, 'Amadeus' really is excellent. Remember when Gary Oldman tried the composer schtick in 'Immortal Beloved'? Eh, it was OK, but it really makes you appreciate Milos Foreman before he started make crapola like 'Man in the Moon'.
"I also liked People vs Larry Flynt. That was back when Edward Norton still gave solid acting performances."
Have you not seen, or did you not like The Illusionist?
Otherwise, I pretty much agree. He was good in Down in the Valley, but the movie was pretty boring. The Italian Job (and the forthcoming sequel) is an abomination. And he's playing The Incredible Hulk? C'mon, Ed - give us something good.
---------------------------------------- http://blogcabins.blogspot.com
Come into the Blog Cabins. It's all woodsy inside!
I did see the illusionist.
His accent was pretty laughable. As was his love scenes with Jessica Biel. The whole character seemed kind of one dimensional.
Maybe Salma fucked his brains out too much.
He seems to be walking through most of his latest movies. Red Dragon, Keeping the Faith, The Score, Italian Job; they all fly under the radar for an actor of his ability.
His last semi decent job was 25th hour.
Larry FLynt was during his golden years. When he was a struggling young nobody dating Drew Barrymore and beating out Matt Damon and Leo Dicaprio at auditions.
After his fantastic breakout job in Primal Fear he had an amazing run; dishing out the most consistent run of high level output I've seen from an actor in such a short period: Everyone Says I Love You, LArry Flynt, American History X, Rounders and Fight Club. I guess after back to back oscar noms, outshining Brad Pitt in Fight Club and being virtually crowned "best actor of his generation" by critics and audience alike, he finally felt he was in a position to give orders and grow complacent.
Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Norton's Mail it in attitude as of late. Of course I can't really blame the guy, he's finally got to a point where he can put himself on autopilot and still do a decent job. I mean to be completely fair I'd have to say even his half ass attempts at acting are better then 90% of the other big names out there, Nick Cage and Kevin Costner to name the most blaring in my mind.
I'm with you until the point about the Hulk. Sure, he's easily better on cruise control than most are when trying (and I disagree with Bossy about The Illusionist, but w.e.), but there's no conceivable reason for an actor of his stature to star in some re-hash of a crappy movie from 5 years earlier. Leave that to the scrubs.
---------------------------------------- http://blogcabins.blogspot.com
Come into the Blog Cabins. It's all woodsy inside!
Well that's kinda why I have hope for the movie in general... Maybe he saw something in it that could be compelling. The Hulk, when written well, can be a pretty damn good story. Maybe Norton read it and liked it... maybe. That's why it's hope not the mad ravings of a ravenous fan boy.... HULK IS TEH SHIT!!!!!1
