|
|
Post by barfleur on Jan 26, 2007 16:49:56 GMT
I've had a chance to read many of the old reviews of his stage work and it seems he's always been very appreciated by the theatre community. Shame the twits in Hollyweird don't know brilliance when they see it. Here! Here! He feels at home in the theatre, but being human, he would like to get some great film roles, and he will in time. G xo |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Jan 26, 2007 16:59:10 GMT
...he would like to get some great film roles, and he will in time. 'great film roles' isn't that an oxymoron these days? First he'll have to locate them... but I have great faith in him making the very best of every role he's given. More than one picture has proven he can steal the show if given half a chance. (I feel like I should have some "we "heart" rufus" bumperstickers made and hand them out at the 101/405 interchange during rush hour) |
|
|
|
Post by barfleur on Jan 26, 2007 17:32:47 GMT
'great film roles' isn't that an oxymoron these days? First he'll have to locate them... They're few, but they do exist. We saw "Iris" last night.... wonderful film, with wonderful Judi Dench and Kate Winslet. And we loved Helen Mirren in "The Queen". G xo |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Jan 30, 2007 7:20:29 GMT
Just watched the clip and this is what I love in Rufus. The intelligence. If Illusionist was made with more concentration on those philosophico-political issues that there is in the script it would have been so much better film. They should not have made Leopold cartoon-like character, but more to that complex rationalist-reformer combined with selfish will of power direction Rufus described it. He did what he could, but Neil Burger was too ... weak or something to have all these layers. BTW I think ths was one rare failure from Edward Norton. He didn't seem to have one bit of the charisma that the Illusionist must have as he is such a people's leader. I didn't understand that pale interpretation at all, especially as the choice to play it that way ruined the love story also - there was no chemistry between Illusionist and Sophie, and that wasn't Jessica Biel's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by britfan2 on Jan 30, 2007 18:00:43 GMT
I agree with you totally meiju. There could have been more emphasis on the socio-political issues of the times. It would have given the story a little more depth & made it much more interesting for me, & Norton did lack the charisma to carry off the part which I thought led to the lukewarm love relationship. I wasn't feeling any passion from the actors at all.
Leopold was Rufus "light". Not enough of a good thing. He should have been the engine driving this vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sewellian on Jan 30, 2007 18:48:56 GMT
I agree with you totally meiju. There could have been more emphasis on the socio-political issues of the times. It would have given the story a little more depth & made it much more interesting for me. This movie was based on a very short story that was written 25 years ago. It took this long to make the movie because everyone had a really hard time trying to figure out how to film it. To make a movie they created a LOT MORE Story than is in the original. There was no discussion of socio-political issues, Prince Leopold was even more of a minor character, and the ending is FAR different. The short story ending is much, much better. That said, I liked this movie. I thought a good job was done trying to capture the essence of the story. All of the actors fit their roles (I was surprised by Jessica Biel). What I ddin't like was that since they made up storyline for Prince Leopold they could have made him more interesting and given Rufus more of a challenge. His fans certainly know he is up to it. |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Jan 30, 2007 21:28:46 GMT
The film was enjoyable, buta it could have been better, that was what I meant.
One other thing that I didn't like was the ending - the scene where Uhl starts to laugh with admiration at the train station.
It was totally dramatically not in line with the story - throughout the film there has been strong black and white characterizations like Illusionist - good (poor, treated badly by the rich) Leopold - (bad, beats his women) Uhl - the pragmatic climber and bureocrat. Then in the end - hope I don't spoil too much now - Uhl feels admiration for a person that is actually a cause for a huge humane tragedy. For Uhl this is ok, but the audience is expected to feel this too, admire a person and act that has lead to a morally and ethically very questionable result.
I just didn't buy that at all. The end twist shoud be a suprise of course, but if that compromises the whole inner construction of the story, there is a danger that it makes everything totally pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by britfan2 on Jan 31, 2007 1:06:30 GMT
That was great information Sewellian. One of the first things out of my mouth when leaving the theater was Biel blew me away! I couldn't take my eyes off of HER eyes. Not only was she very good in the part, I never realized how beautiful she was. As a woman who likes men I would have preferred to have been more moved by Norton ......I wasn't. I loved that they used filming techniques that you saw in the silent film era........ the sepia tones & the closing of some scenes with the camera going dark from the outside in. (I am sure there is a name for that) It really gave it a "vintage" feel & gave it a uniqueness. I never bought Giammati for a minute as Uhl. He just felt all wrong to me. I liked the movie too, though. I just think it could have been better & Rufus could have been a bigger part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ree on Feb 4, 2007 2:40:57 GMT
If anyone would care to give their opinion about Ruf's performance in the Illusionist visit IMDB & look for Sewell' Acting thread. He could do with some support there!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by reveuse on Feb 5, 2007 19:52:15 GMT
I just got this on Region 1 DVD and have only had the opportunity for one viewing, admittedly while very tired.
I *will* watch again, but my initial reaction was...how disappointing. Not so much for Rufus' role - but for the film as a whole.
What a stellar cast...and what a shambling vehicle! I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who says Ed Norton was asleep through most of this and that he and Jessica Biel had absolutely zero chemistry.
Paul Giamatti did a half decent job with the only substantially-written role in the movie (though god save us from yet another voice-over) - but even he was reduced to a trite conclusion.
Did the laugh/denoument-by-flashback ending make anyone else feel truly cheated? It reminded me of the worst kind of '50 second wrap' we used to talk about in Star Trek fandom - where the writers had written themselves into a complex situation that had to be resolved in a few minutes - or even seconds - at the end of an episode.
I was expecting something moving, something slightly surreal or even spiritual and what I took away from first viewing was a feeling of deflation. Obviously a short, short, story - not very skillfully fleshed out into a feature length movie in which Rufus was once again striving valiantly to make the best of a bad job.
I will watch again - particularly with regard to Rufus. And i'll watch 'The Prestige' as soon as I can get my hands on it...purely by way of comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 5, 2007 20:04:27 GMT
There was something in the film after Rufus and the gun? Who knew? I think I left the theatre before it was over and I never watch past that point on the DVD. Don't expect too much from The Prestige. This is actually a better picture. The Prestige spends too much time trying to be clever and impress itself. Though you do get ample screen time of Hugh Jackman without his shirt which is how I measure all of my films... with Hugh Jackman...  Not Rufus' films of course. Rufus is... well brilliant. It isn't necessary for him to take his clothes off to hold my attention. In fact I'd venture to say a clothed Rufus could probably hold my attention against a buck naked Hugh Jackman as long as they were both on stage or celluloid. What? It's been so quiet around here the last few days I have to write something to amuse myself because you guys sure aren't doing it. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Feb 5, 2007 20:16:20 GMT
Did the laugh/denoument-by-flashback ending make anyone else feel truly cheated? It reminded me of the worst kind of '50 second wrap' we used to talk about in Star Trek fandom - where the writers had written themselves into a complex situation that had to be resolved in a few minutes - or even seconds - at the end of an episode.. Beware, SPOILER ahead Yes yes! As I said earlier, this was one of my problems with the film. It was so stupid and made the "hero", Eisenheim that is, a moral murderer. And that is a big paradox, since if the person whose death he , after the twist, is responsible, deserved his death because he was "bad" according to rumours, then what about Eisenheim, the moral murderer??? At the very end I was totally confused because the last picture sugested I should feel happy for a person who was a few seconds earlier found out to be seriously manipulative and ethically really questionable person. So stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 5, 2007 20:23:43 GMT
Okay we're going to get serious.  One of my biggest issues was the fact they they manipulated a man into killing himself and they all walked away smiling and scott free. Granted the prince didn't exactly have both oars in the water, but that doesn't mean he's worthy of being hounded quite literally to death. We have two seconds of hearsay by Eddie Marsan's character that Leopold is a bad man which felt even before I knew what became of Leopold as if they'd added it after the fact to justify the means of his death. You have a Sophie who is apparently pretending she's going to marry Leopold or at least sucking off the royal coffers before Eisenheim shows up, on one hand and on the other you have Eisenheim who seems to think just because he loves Sophie is reason enough for anything he chooses to do. Fact is, this is one of those films where the principles are so reprehensible your find yourself cheering(notice how I skipped the use of the word rooting?) for the villain. I don't think it was strictly because it was Rufus. I think it was my sense of fair play. The only person who might be moderately without fault is Uhl and I just plain didn't like him, so I want to throw him into the bargain of people who should pay. |
|
|
|
Post by ukelelehip on Feb 5, 2007 20:58:19 GMT
I didn't have a problem with Uhl until he stood there at the end grinning and twirling his mustache (did he even do that, I can't remember) over how clever Eisenheim was to bring Leopold to commit suicide. Nice one, mate. Oh God, I'm so protective of Roof's on screen image, it's sickening  Although, not of Jasper Bloom! |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Feb 5, 2007 21:01:46 GMT
Well Rufus tends to give those kind of performances Uke. It's what makes him wonderful. I just think it was a morally reprehensible picture. I may have noticed it more because I pay closer attention when I'm watching Rufus. There is a lot to miss if you don't look sharp.
Wouldn't have mattered really. I would have seen it with another actor in the role... or maybe not. I probably wouldn't have seen the picture if Rufus weren't in it because I don't like anyone else.
|
|
Although, not of Jasper Bloom!