Quote:
Originally posted by milhouse_dick
He is right about some of that though. The film does look, "muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days."
But yeah, Ebert is losing it...I didn't think people actually listened to him anyways.
|
Those tones were chosen purposely to suit the mood of the picture..........it is somber as Crowe's family is slaughtered in it, and its generally about warfare, suffering and loss.........what the fuck is he even comparing it to Rocky for? The storyline is nothing like "Rocky." Ebert, as he's getting older, is cranky and at times, downright stupid. For instance, he hailed Mystic River as one of Eastwood's very best films. Really? I thought it kind of meandered and was full of some over the top acting (after seeing it, I am convinced Bill Murray should have won best actor for his restrained, telling performance in Lost In Translation over Sean Penn's over the top at times performance).
And btw, another annoying thing about Ebert; if he agrees with the politics of the movie, he'll love it.............if he doesn't, no matter how great the movie is, he'll snuff it.
But yes, as he is getting older, he's losing it. I miss watching Siskel insulting him and putting him in his place when he needed doing so.