Oooh, what a wonderful review of TOE - I really, really want to see this. We were all set to do so and then the car broke down - a dealbreaker given we're 45 miles from the closest theatre!
I too liked Grand Hotel more (a LOT more). I just couldn't get into GBH.
Thanks. I was really impressed by the movie. I will have to keep an eye out for James Marsh who directed. He is a man who knows what a movie is supposed to do and show. The cinematography was excellent.
I am sure that you will enjoy this. I know that you are fond of astronomy and keep an eye on the heavens. I would like to know what you thought of the movie when you see it.
Yeah! Grand Hotel! as star studded as the night sky and even TTOE! Ha ha!
Well, even if you look at the pictures very hard maybe you won't find that much proof. The pictures are very..."ambiguous"?
My pictures are abstract and open to interpretation...yeah, that's it. Abstract!
Thanks for the shoutout!
Mr. Redmayne, by the way, has the body of a greyhound and the physical talent of a dancer. The progression of Dr. Hawkings' physical degeneration is captured perfectly by Redmayne's body and its motions. Redmayne is able to show the physical failing and make you believe that he really is brilliantly intelligent. He is projecting in both mental and physical spheres. Not all actors can do that believeably, especially in the intelligence department. That was what was so dynamic about his performance.People criticize "Oscar bait" films like this where the actor has to play someone with physical limitations. People feel like it's low hanging fruit. Redmayne could've went overboard, he could've just hammed it up, but in respect to Hawkings he was restrained and showed the reality of Hawkings' physicality.
( ... )
Is it Mind Over Matter?chatchienFebruary 12 2015, 15:26:19 UTC
My pictures are abstract and open to interpretation...yeah, that's it. Abstract!
Jackson? Jackson Pollock? Is that you? You're Back!
He was as committed to showing Hawking's personality as he was his limitations.
Body and Soul. I also loved the sly but goofy humor that he projected for Hawkings. Even with the facial muscles and the voice gone, you could see his personality and his appreciation of the silly vagaries of life. That sort of acting is all in the eyes or the mental assumption and projection of the character. No CGI or covering shot can aid or hide that ability.
If "Theory of Everything" hadn't come out this year this battle would be between Keaton and Cumberbatch.
I loved in the scene when Turing is talking to his old fiancee, Kiera Knightley, how smooth and clean his facial cheeks were. That chemical castration really took away the five o'clock shadow.
Theory of Everything could have just done Hawkings' Mind and Body and done it so well with these film makers. But it was based on Jane Hawkings' (Cox) books and decided
( ... )
Comments 6
I too liked Grand Hotel more (a LOT more). I just couldn't get into GBH.
Reply
I am sure that you will enjoy this. I know that you are fond of astronomy and keep an eye on the heavens. I would like to know what you thought of the movie when you see it.
Yeah! Grand Hotel! as star studded as the night sky and even TTOE! Ha ha!
Reply
My pictures are abstract and open to interpretation...yeah, that's it. Abstract!
Thanks for the shoutout!
Mr. Redmayne, by the way, has the body of a greyhound and the physical talent of a dancer. The progression of Dr. Hawkings' physical degeneration is captured perfectly by Redmayne's body and its motions. Redmayne is able to show the physical failing and make you believe that he really is brilliantly intelligent. He is projecting in both mental and physical spheres. Not all actors can do that believeably, especially in the intelligence department. That was what was so dynamic about his performance.People criticize "Oscar bait" films like this where the actor has to play someone with physical limitations. People feel like it's low hanging fruit. Redmayne could've went overboard, he could've just hammed it up, but in respect to Hawkings he was restrained and showed the reality of Hawkings' physicality. ( ... )
Reply
Jackson? Jackson Pollock? Is that you? You're Back!
He was as committed to showing Hawking's personality as he was his limitations.
Body and Soul. I also loved the sly but goofy humor that he projected for Hawkings. Even with the facial muscles and the voice gone, you could see his personality and his appreciation of the silly vagaries of life. That sort of acting is all in the eyes or the mental assumption and projection of the character. No CGI or covering shot can aid or hide that ability.
If "Theory of Everything" hadn't come out this year this battle would be between Keaton and Cumberbatch.
I loved in the scene when Turing is talking to his old fiancee, Kiera Knightley, how smooth and clean his facial cheeks were. That chemical castration really took away the five o'clock shadow.
Theory of Everything could have just done Hawkings' Mind and Body and done it so well with these film makers. But it was based on Jane Hawkings' (Cox) books and decided ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment