Jump to content
đź”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Ă—


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/04/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I'm razzing the guy but he is primarily responsible for my becoming a Shakespeare junkie in high school with his "Henry V" and "Much Ado". And his directing "Thor" means he cast Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston and those are gifts that just keep on giving. I even think his "Cinderella" is pretty terrific; but man, when he whiffs, he whiffs HUGE. What's interesting is that, in each of the first three Shakespeare films he directed/starred in, he had played the same role (King Henry, Benedick, Hamlet) previously in a long-running, highly-acclaimed stage production directed by someone else. In essence, he got months to sculpt his own performance with a more experienced director before directing the film himself.
  2. 2 points
    Amazing. I totally get why he would want to be in the movie and even Miramax wanting him in the movie. But the idea that he had to be THIS PART for the actors to agree to it? He already was directing it. He thinks Matthew Lillard would’ve been like, “nah, dawg, I get Shakespeare offers all the time, bro... OH I GET TO PRETEND TO BE YOUR BRO? Sign me up!l”
  3. 2 points
    I watched a DVD version and looked at the behind-the-scenes featurette afterward. In it, Brannagh says (I'm paraphrasing) that he decided to be in the cast so that the other actors would agree to be in it. Hubris, indeed. On the whole, I do like his work - just not in this film.
  4. 2 points
    Kenneth Branagh is 100% a talented and multi-faceted artist and also 100% a giant ego with tendencies towards hubris and cheeseball-ness. These qualities can absolutely co-exist.
  5. 2 points
    I remember that on the DVD release of this there was a deleted scene explaining the mistaken identity scene, so this is quite possible.
  6. 2 points
    Okay, I'm a hopeless Shakespeare nerd plus I manage a small Shakespeare troupe, so there is SO much to say about this movie. I love Branagh's three previous Shakespeare films and I think that the play "Love's Labour's Lost" has some wonderful stuff in it; BUT it is one of the hardest plays to even attempt, and it feels as though every choice Branagh made here just made this disaster more inevitable. First, in any Shakespeare script, there is a LOT of wordplay - puns, dirty innuendo, words with double meanings. But as the meaning and the pronunciation of words have changed over 400+ years (for example, the words "good" and "blood" used to rhyme!,) many of the verbal jokes become incomprehensible to modern audiences. Any Shakespeare play is a challenge because of this but ESPECIALLY "Love's Labour's" - it's one of Shakespeare's earliest and much more dependent on wordplay than nearly every other play - there's very little plot, and the principal entertainment is meant to be the flirty banter between the four couples. Second - as Tall John mentioned, the play ends on an abrupt, MASSIVE bummer with the death of the King of France, and there is evidence to suggest there was a sequel, referred to as "Love's Labour's Won", in which the lovers reunite and their courtship comes to a happy conclusion. This play might be completely lost, but there is a theory that audiences liked the sequel better on its own, and that Shakespeare kept revising it until it became "Much Ado About Nothing". (This may help explain why Branagh cast himself as Berowne, as the dynamic between Berowne and Rosaline strongly parallels the Benedick/Beatrice romance in "Much Ado".) So the play is difficult enough to even try, but to give such difficult text to Shakespeare novices, then ditch HUGE chunks of plot and dialogue to make room for musical numbers, and then to add an entire WAR that doesn't even exist in the play; just begs the question of why even try this play to begin with? I have one final theory - Miramax released this film, and they were notorious for forcing directors to drastically cut the running time of films that they were afraid weren't turning out well. Some of the newsreel footage suggests that some of the funniest scenes and subplots in the play were actually filmed, then cut in the frantic effort to get the movie down to 90 minutes. And I am not trying to start a hashtag-release-the-Branagh-cut campaign, but those smaller roles were being played by actors well-versed in Shakespeare, and may have turned out quite enjoyably even within the incredibly flawed overall idea he had for this adaptation. But clearly, he didn't learn any lessons, because in his next Shakespeare film, "As You Like It", he added ninjas and sumo wrestling.
  7. 1 point
    Yeah his directing credits are weird in that he does these very dedicated adaptations, but then seems to be clearly wanting to add a new wing to his house by doing stuff like Artemis Fowl. With Thor at least he was working with characters based around Norse mythology which in my mind seems more in his wheelhouse of theatrical adaptations, unlike other directors who have tried to go out of their known comfort zone like Wes Craven directing Music of the Heart or Francis Ford Coppola doing Jack.
  8. 1 point
    I am history plays girl. In defense of Branagh (and again I am team Emma Thompson. He cheated on her), he has done commercial blockbuster stuff. Not just Potter, but directing “Thor, “ “Cinderella,” and “Artemis Fowl.” What is interesting is that he didn’t put himself as an actor in those movies, although he does a voice in AVENGERS INFINITY WAR, eta: oh wait I think that is the point you we’re making. He directed jack ryan too??? I didn’t know that. I read this too fast. Move along.
  9. 1 point
    As an English major who is not a fan of the Shakespeare's comedies (I'm a tragedies fan), I've definitely had my fill of the guys plays, but apparently not Branagh who I honestly think wishes he was born in Shakespeare's time just so that he could have had a chance to work with the guy. That's not to say the work he puts out is bad, but he's very much the actor that Alan Rickman was lampooning in Galaxy Quest, who would do a mainstream series like Harry Potter or Jack Ryan, all while bemoaning the fact that he was doing so given that he was a classically trained actor. The fact that he's now apparently moved onto Agatha Christie's bibliography, I can only imagine the ideas he has running through his head in order to keep that mustache and accent going.
  10. 1 point
    Ps while we are on the subject of Shakespeare being for common folk, I think maybe one thing that doesn’t work for me about this is that he’s comparing it to great musicals and great movies. Not that Shakespeare isn’t great. But show love to “low brow” popcorn movies instead. I would’ve preferred less Casablanca and more Marx Brothers, I think? Branagh picked brilliant movies. Brilliant songs. And was like together this will all be brilliant! But WHY
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Ha this was the thesis of my paper on Shakespearean adaptations from college. But I didn’t use this one. I think the fact that you accept Branagh in this role is why you are forum Paul. You are the trusting one. Your brain made it work. The rest of us are more skeptical. Because I find it upsetting. I mean, it’s not the worst movie done on this show. I think this writer guy, Shakespier?, seems pretty talented.
  13. 1 point
    Sooooo Love's Labor's Lost... 1. How DARE this awful awful motion picture hijack all of my favorite american songbook standards (i'll never not tear up when someone does "they can't take that away from me") 2. Can anyone explain the "Martin Scorsese present" at the beginning? 3. Nathan lane makes everything he's in just a bit better. he's so awesome
  14. 1 point
    We're rebooting our "Would You Rather" feature by just asking guests if they'd bang Dan Rather. Hey, where are you guys going?
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    Yea if asked, I will say Rushmore is my all-time favorite film. Tenenbaums maybe has more to it, more going on, and I think I maybe consider it better-made. If we had to choose one to send, I'm ok with either, I guess. Leave Rushmore here on Earth with me. I think if you're sending a Wes up, it has to be one of those two. Grand Budapest is fine and I dig it, but I don't see how it even compares to all the others. I think my Wes rating is something like: Rushmore Royal Tenenbaums Fantastic Mr. Fox (the theater experience on this was absolutely the most fun I've ever had in a theater, it's a FUN movie). Life Aquatic / Moonrise Kingdom (unsure their order) Grand Budapest / Bottle Rocket (unsure their order) Darjeeling and probably the weirdest fluke in all my movie-watching is I never saw Isle of Dogs even though I consider myself a Wes nut. *shrug* I have plans to hit it up soon though, finally. also love Ambersons, I would dig an Unspooled look at that!
  17. 1 point
    Don't you say "Rock me, Amadeus"! You're not Amadeus' boss! He'll rock you if he feels like it.
  18. 1 point
    Jeffrey Toobin was lubin' while Merrill Stubing was pooping. Welcome to the very worst episode of The Love Boat.
  19. 1 point
    Hard Ticket to Hawaii (1987) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093146/ Starring: Ronn Moss (Hot Child in the City) Written and Directed by: Andy Sidaris (Picasso Trigger, Savage Beach, Guns, and so many more) Synopsis: "Two drug enforcement agents are killed on a private Hawaiian island. Donna and Taryn, two operatives for The Agency, accidentally intercept a delivery of diamonds intended for drug lord Seth Romero, who takes exception and tries to get them back. Soon other Agency operatives get involved, and a full-scale fight to the finish ensues, complicated here and there by an escaped snake made deadly by Toxic Waste!" Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCM6HCTJeRU Cult Gold. So bad it's good. Christmas in Connecticut (1992) http://www.imdb.com/...ref_=fn_al_tt_2 Starring: Dyan Cannon (That Darn Cat , Kangaroo Jack....ALSO was married to Cary Grant) Kris Kristofferson (A Star Is Born, Payback) Tony Curtis (Some Like It Hot) Written by: Aileen Hamilton (Christmas in Connecticut 1945) Lionel Houser (Christmas in Connecticut 1945) Adele Comandini (Christmas in Connecticut 1945) Janet Brownell (Eloise at the Plaza, 12 Dates of Christmas) Directed by: ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (c'mon..) Synopsis: "Elizabeth is the star of a successful cooking show and author of several cookbooks. But when her manager, Alexander sees forest ranger Jefferson, who lost his cabin in a fire, comment on TV about wishing he could get a home-cooked Christmas dinner, he arranges for a special live show on Christmas, for Elizabeth to cook him Christmas Dinner. Only Elizabeth can't cook, and trying to keep Jefferson and the viewing public from finding out on a live show may be a little difficult." Trailer: http://www.videodete...necticut/886181 This is my mom and I's favorite christmas movie. There are so many good Schwarzenegger-esque one liners and kooky scenes.
  20. 0 points
    I think this podcast would have a grand time with the version of "Frankenstein" he directed/starred in, where he films himself as a shirtless, glistening, golden-maned SEX GOD.
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-07:00
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up