Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Spielberg not keeping up with the Jones?

Expand Messages
  • veetus@earthlink.net
    Hot off the press, www.comingsoon.net says that Sean Connery will return as Indiana Jones dad. But Connery says Spielberg WON T direct?! This info is based on
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
        Hot off the press, www.comingsoon.net says that Sean Connery will return as Indiana Jones' dad. But Connery says Spielberg WON'T direct?! This info is based on one of Connery's "contact"s and I find it hard to believe. The Jones flicks were always Lucas and Spielberg's team projects. No, it can't be true. Forget I said anything. If Lucas is going to direct that too, I'll scream! - - - Jeff
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:34 PM
      Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Re: The Time Machine Remake

      The best part of the film for me was the amazing music by Klaus Badelt. The soundtrack was simply amazing and had much more emotion than the film itself, well the second half anyway. Although to me the Time Machine was a love story with SCI-FI overtones present. The music is what draws me into the remake. I've not had such a strong emotional reaction to a film score since hearing works by the masters Basil Poledouris and John Williams.

      Truly beautiful, but that is just my opinion.

      Kenny
       
       

      Taylor401306@... wrote:

       As directed by Simon Wells (with an assist from Gore Verbinski), who is descended from H.G. himself, "The Time Machine" is certainly a fine LOOKING movie at first glance, but it's curiously hollow. The script makes it difficult to identify with any of the characters; we're just not granted the time. It's clear that slam-bang CGI wizardry is what's for sale here, and a great many special effects are crammed into the film. One would expect this of a movie in which the protagonist traverses many centuries, but, if we don't care what happens to the protagonist, what purpose does it serve other than a purely cosmetic one? For the record, Guy Pearce, who delivers an adequate performance, said himself that he found the filming arduous, he didn't much care for his performance, he disliked American filmmaking and was returning to his native "down under," ASAP! We won't bother comparing the overall film to George Pal's classic 1960 version. It simply wouldn't be fair. But isolated aspects bear comparison. Significantly, the savage Morlocks of the Pal version are NOT outdone by the rubbery creations in the 2002 film. And Jeremy Irons, done up in striking albino makeup, has the dubious task of taking a deep breath and explaining EVERY loose end and plot hole to Pearce (and the audience) in one looooong speech. That's just not good storytelling. I get the feeling that thematically it was tugged in one direction then another, its script doctored and changed, and, in the end, cobbled together rather hastily.


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.