stuckincincy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Saw a movie at my local indie theater, Saturday and there was a preview of a Woody Allen/Scarlett Johannsen/Hugh Jackman flick titled "Scoop". She is indeed an alluring woman... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=334906
ajzepp Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Saw a movie at my local indie theater, Saturday and there was a preview of a Woody Allen/Scarlett Johannsen/Hugh Jackmen flick titled "Scoop". She is indeed an alluring woman.. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=334906 720937[/snapback] Yep, she's yummy And very smart too, from what I hear
sweet baboo Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 she's somehow managed to remain and appear classy in hollywood compared to the rest of the dirtbags out there (tara reid, lindsay lohan, britney spears, olsen twins, etc)
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2006 Author Posted July 11, 2006 Yep, she's yummy And very smart too, from what I hear 720957[/snapback] She's thinned down a bit, yet retains her prominent feature(s).
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 She is definitely gorgeous, which makes it all the more aggravating that she's chosen to do not one but two movies with a completely washed-up Woody Allen. I mean, how many more times can he write a movie where we watch fabulous people go to fabulous places and work terribly written dialogue in really fabulously affected voices? Trying to stomach "Melinda and Melinda" was the last straw for me. I might watch this one with the mute button on though.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 She is definitely gorgeous, which makes it all the more aggravating that she's chosen to do not one but two movies with a completely washed-up Woody Allen. I mean, how many more times can he write a movie where we watch fabulous people go to fabulous places and work terribly written dialogue in really fabulously affected voices? Trying to stomach "Melinda and Melinda" was the last straw for me. I might watch this one with the mute button on though. 721202[/snapback] Match Point was actually pretty darn decent and somewhat of a deparature for him. Although I mostly agree, he hasn't made a very good movie in ten years. Remarkably, however, he does something that is virtually unheardof, which is why a lot of his films suck (to some). He writes and directs one a year. Every single year. For like 30 straight. It's a remarkable acheivement by any measure anywhere. And you can't say anyone could do it if they were going to make crappy movies because no one, I repeat, no one could do it. No one does. They would never be able to find the money or the highest level actors to play the parts or the ability to finish on time or the creative energies. It's still something of a badge of honor to be asked to do a Woody Allen movie. The actors usually work for scale (read: peanuts) just to be in it. He is involved in every bit of the movie from start to finish, writing the next one while he finishes the last. It's an absolutely phenomenal thing for him to do, every single year, whether you like him or not.
JoeFerguson Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 Match Point was actually pretty darn decent and somewhat of a deparature for him. Although I mostly agree, he hasn't made a very good movie in ten years. Remarkably, however, he does something that is virtually unheardof, which is why a lot of his films suck (to some). He writes and directs one a year. Every single year. For like 30 straight. It's a remarkable acheivement by any measure anywhere. And you can't say anyone could do it if they were going to make crappy movies because no one, I repeat, no one could do it. No one does. They would never be able to find the money or the highest level actors to play the parts or the ability to finish on time or the creative energies. It's still something of a badge of honor to be asked to do a Woody Allen movie. The actors usually work for scale (read: peanuts) just to be in it. He is involved in every bit of the movie from start to finish, writing the next one while he finishes the last. It's an absolutely phenomenal thing for him to do, every singe year, whether you like him or not. 721254[/snapback] I thought Match Point was good as well. Along the lines of Crimes and Misdemeanors, which I also really liked.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 Match Point was actually pretty darn decent and somewhat of a deparature for him. Although I mostly agree, he hasn't made a very good movie in ten years. Remarkably, however, he does something that is virtually unheardof, which is why a lot of his films suck (to some). He writes and directs one a year. Every single year. For like 30 straight. It's a remarkable acheivement by any measure anywhere. And you can't say anyone could do it if they were going to make crappy movies because no one, I repeat, no one could do it. No one does. They would never be able to find the money or the highest level actors to play the parts or the ability to finish on time or the creative energies. It's still something of a badge of honor to be asked to do a Woody Allen movie. The actors usually work for scale (read: peanuts) just to be in it. He is involved in every bit of the movie from start to finish, writing the next one while he finishes the last. It's an absolutely phenomenal thing for him to do, every singe year, whether you like him or not. 721254[/snapback] I'll agree that it's a feat. It's just that if he has any ounce of talent at all -- and judging by the few enjoyable moments I've caught in recent flicks, he is capable -- he should put out one great flick every few, IMO. I didn't really like Match Point for the same reasons detailed. I think people bought too much into it just because it was less melancholy humor and more "thriller." I still felt the dialogue was really stilted and unnatural. JMO, yours is certainly (more) valid.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 I'll agree that it's a feat. It's just that if he has any ounce of talent at all -- and judging by the few enjoyable moments I've caught in recent flicks, he is capable -- he should put out one great flick every few, IMO. I didn't really like Match Point for the same reasons detailed. I think people bought too much into it just because it was less melancholy humor and more "thriller." I still felt the dialogue was really stilted and unnatural. JMO, yours is certainly (more) valid. 721288[/snapback] Match Point got a lot of great reviews, and extremely good word of mouth around Hollywood. I didn't like it as much as most people myself, spoiler alert coming, because there really wasn't anyone to like at all. They were all slimeballs. But it was a very well made film, looked fantastic, very good performances, etc. The thing is, and another thing I really like about Woody Allen, is that the guy does what he likes, not to please everyone else or a studio or to make money. He likes to make movies. He does what interests him, and he doesn't really care what people say. I like that a ton about him, and again, no one else could do that or get away with it. You don't have to like him, I used to, but most of his films stink. Melinda and Melinda was almost unwatchable. But what he does is the filmic equivalent of Cal Ripken's streak. It really is. I doubt we'll ever see anything like it again, mostly because of the economics of filmmaking.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 Match Point got a lot of great reviews, and extremely good word of mouth around Hollywood. I didn't like it as much as most people myself, spoiler alert coming, because there really wasn't anyone to like at all. They were all slimeballs.721298[/snapback] My main complaint of both that film and M+M. I feel generally that I've got to have some character to hold onto, or at least some aspect of them that keeps it interesting for me. I'll agree, fine looking film (esp Scarlett ) but bad personalities.
ajzepp Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 I agree on both counts....Melinda and Melinda SUCKED, and I felt Match Point was quite good. I've only seen a handful of Woody Allen films, but I'm guessing I need to see his earlier stuff in order to appreciate him more. I did see one with the American Pie guy and Christina Ricci that was half decent, but I don't recall the title.
inkman Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 she's somehow managed to remain and appear classy in hollywood compared to the rest of the dirtbags out there (tara reid, lindsay lohan, britney spears, olsen twins, etc) 721037[/snapback] maybe because she's doesn't starve herself, inhale pounds of blow, and eat mass quantities of wankers...just a thought.
JLO Posted July 14, 2006 Posted July 14, 2006 Caught Small-Time Crooks on HBO the other day. It actually had some laughs in it, especially early on.
KD in CA Posted July 16, 2006 Posted July 16, 2006 she's somehow managed to remain and appear classy in hollywood compared to the rest of the dirtbags out there (tara reid, lindsay lohan, britney spears, olsen twins, etc) 721037[/snapback] It helps that she actually has some acting ability as opposed to anyone on that list of bimbos.
olivier in france Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 when you go to the yahoo.com homepage today you have a very nice picture of Scarlett. I don't know why but i find this photo very very sexy.
Recommended Posts