|
Another question. I recently watched Godfather 1 & 2 and Glengarry Glenn Ross. Al Pacino in the Godfather is very reserved and very un-Al Pacino like. In Glengarry he is doing his over the top Pacino thing. I guess my question is sortof two-fold (since I haven't actually seen that many Pacino films). Has Pacino always been the way he is and was just directed to tone it down in The Godfather or did he change at some point? If he changed, which movie is the one that marks the change?
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Not sure what film, if any, marks his transformation into "GREAT rear end" Pacino, but you should definitely watch Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico if you liked the more reserved, subtle Pacino.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Not sure what film, if any, marks his transformation into "GREAT rear end" Pacino, but you should definitely watch Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico if you liked the more reserved, subtle Pacino. Dog Day Afternoon (which I think is his best performance) sorta set him on the path to flamboyancy, then Scarface, Dick Tracy, and Scent of a Woman raised the stakes until he was "GREAT rear end"ing 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Although he can still pull it back based on his HBO movie "You Don't Know Jack." He actually ACTS in that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Although he can still pull it back based on his HBO movie "You Don't Know Jack." He actually ACTS in that one. Same with his shockingly good performance in Chinese Coffee, which came out in 2000. When he wants to, he can still remind us why we know his name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
foodfight posted:Are any of these Troma films worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/tromamovies? Or oh god the scoring for this scene from Igor and the Lunatics (1985). And holy poo poo, Rockabilly Vampire (1996) is there too. And Alien Blood (1999), the first reel of which plays like something between a music video for a Dead Can Dance cover band and a The Brother From Another Planet (1984) fan fiction. Man, that's a loving treasure trove.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Is there any site that gives a good detailed summaries of movies? I tend to watch movies about 30 minutes at a time as I'm going to bed, so it can take me three or four days to get through one. Because of this, I miss details here and there which leaves me wondering about why something happened or how a certain character was involved. While a movie may be good, it might not be good enough for me to want to spend another few days watching it just to get the answers. I'd like to be able to read a summary to clear up those nagging questions. I know wikipedia has this for some movies. Just wondering if there are sites that have full summaries. On that note, I have a few questions about "The Burrowers" (2008) In the beginning, did the settlers inadvertently bury that family alive - thinking they were dead when they were only paralyzed? Who was the girl they found buried (and still alive) out in the desert? At the end, when that dude found a hat, the camera panned to a guy buried alive. Who was the guy in the ground? If the burrowers wait until the body is decomposing before they eat it, what is the point of keeping people alive in paralysis? Why not just kill them outright to hurry up the decomposition process so they can eat sooner?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Dog Day Afternoon (which I think is his best performance) sorta set him on the path to flamboyancy, then Scarface, Dick Tracy, and Scent of a Woman raised the stakes until he was "GREAT rear end"ing 24/7. I think his acting in Scarface isn't over the top, the character is; and he plays it pitch perfect. I think it wasn't until Scent of a Woman when Pacino started going off the rails and doing all his Pacinoisms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Is there any site that gives a good detailed summaries of movies? I tend to watch movies about 30 minutes at a time as I'm going to bed, so it can take me three or four days to get through one. Because of this, I miss details here and there which leaves me wondering about why something happened or how a certain character was involved. While a movie may be good, it might not be good enough for me to want to spend another few days watching it just to get the answers. I'd like to be able to read a summary to clear up those nagging questions. I know wikipedia has this for some movies. Just wondering if there are sites that have full summaries. Wikipedia often has in depth summaries of the plots of movies, I find it annoying because I mostly want information about cast, crew or production history. I once dated a girl who hated scary movies, but would always read the Wikipedia page for whatever the newest Saw film that came out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
OnlyJuanMon posted:I think his acting in Scarface isn't over the top, the character is; and he plays it pitch perfect. I think it wasn't until Scent of a Woman when Pacino started going off the rails and doing all his Pacinoisms. Oh he's phenomenal in Scarface, and in Scent of a Woman too, but if you look at it as a matter of "when did he start inventing Pacinoisms," I think that's the route.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Pacino is excellent in Heat, too, which is where GREAT rear end comes from, but that might just be really good casting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Pacino is excellent in Heat, too, which is where GREAT rear end comes from, but that might just be really good casting. I dont know, the skews into weird awkward territory, like the TV SET, they were just.... weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
I think it works, particularly because he's going head-to-head with an already-gone Robert De Niro, not to mention the film's weird, commercial-dreamland tone. Plus the GREAT rear end scene is amazing. Every film should be so lucky to have a scene that good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
I heard somewhere that there was a deleted subplot in Heat where Pacino's character was a drug-user. Any truth to that or is it just hearsay? Anyway, because of that, every time I see Pacino going crazy I imagine that his character is secretly a cocaine addict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Hibernator posted:I heard somewhere that there was a deleted subplot in Heat where Pacino's character was a drug-user. Any truth to that or is it just hearsay? On one of the special features on the DVD Pacino says he played the character like he was chipping coke. Also the TV thing really happened. The guy didn't know how he was supposed to react so he bugged out and took his TV set. Some cop friend of Michael Mann, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
Sometimes I really do try to imagine an alternate reality where Al Pacino's very stoic, reserved tone carried over into his later years, and he continued building and honing that style. I wonder if he was bit by the same werewolf that got Mickey Rourke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Hibernator posted:I heard somewhere that there was a deleted subplot in Heat where Pacino's character was a drug-user. Any truth to that or is it just hearsay? And suddenly it all clicks. Massive ego, coke user, crusader cop, awful father/husband. OK, I can dig this now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
I never took it as Pacino being a literal coke addict in Heat, rather that the job itself was like a drug to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
If you'd like to see a more reserved (and recent) Pacino performance, I definitely suggest checking out that HBO movie "You Don't Know Jack" (the Kevorkian biopic) that came out a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
In my film class we watched "We Need to Talk About Kevin" and one bit of imagery bothers me. What's up with all the Christmas poo poo? I just don't get what that was trying to relay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Is there any site that gives a good detailed summaries of movies? I tend to watch movies about 30 minutes at a time as I'm going to bed, so it can take me three or four days to get through one. Because of this, I miss details here and there which leaves me wondering about why something happened or how a certain character was involved. While a movie may be good, it might not be good enough for me to want to spend another few days watching it just to get the answers. I'd like to be able to read a summary to clear up those nagging questions. I know wikipedia has this for some movies. Just wondering if there are sites that have full summaries. Got around to refreshing my memory on this: No they didn't bury them alive, the father used the shotgun on the girls, reloaded and used the shotgun on his wife and finally himself. Didn't say who the girl was other than she wasn't part of the family that they were searching for. At the end, That was Dobie, the boy that got paralyzed and buried halfway through the movie. The burrowers didn't have much in the way of teeth, it wasn't that they appeared to want rotting meat. The poison from their scratch caused the body to soften up while they were still living. Difference between having a jawbreaker and a jelly donut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:In my film class we watched "We Need to Talk About Kevin" and one bit of imagery bothers me. What's up with all the Christmas poo poo? I just don't get what that was trying to relay. Christmas = happy childhood memories. If it's busted = bad childhood memories All of the imagery in that movie is really loving lazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
I've noticed that an overwhelming amount of movies seem to have corporations set up that exist for seemingly no other reason than to hold the rights to the movie. Something like the credits reading "This has been a [Movie Title] Company production. Copyright 2006 [Movie Title] Company, LLC." Does anyone know what the reasoning is behind this is? Is it easier to transfer rights between studios or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
kuddles posted:I've noticed that an overwhelming amount of movies seem to have corporations set up that exist for seemingly no other reason than to hold the rights to the movie. Something like the credits reading "This has been a [Movie Title] Company production. Copyright 2006 [Movie Title] Company, LLC." It's so other films in production aren't financially liable if it loses money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
kuddles posted:I've noticed that an overwhelming amount of movies seem to have corporations set up that exist for seemingly no other reason than to hold the rights to the movie. Something like the credits reading "This has been a [Movie Title] Company production. Copyright 2006 [Movie Title] Company, LLC." It's also so if something goes horribly wrong and somebody sues the film, they can only sue [Movie Title] company, and get all zero of the dollars it has in the bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
kuddles posted:Does anyone know what the reasoning is behind this is? Is it easier to transfer rights between studios or something? It's easier to do things like payroll, insurance, union contracts, etc with a limited company, and once production shuts down and the books are closed it's harder to go back and audit/sue/claim damages, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
Does this gag I've seen in probably at least a dozen different places originate from a specific film? It's the bit where two characters (almost always characters that are presented as polar opposites) are arguing, then descend into a physical altercation, and then nonsensically start kissing/have sex. It seems to always happen the same way, beat for beat. I figure it has to have some common source that everybody is playing off of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:It seems to always happen the same way, beat for beat. Well, it's gone far enough around the block that sometimes it ends in rape (A History of Violence), or ambiguous rape (rape is rape, as the President says).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
I think Mann mentions in his Commentary for Heat that Pacino's character started in Vice and was using the drugs he'd bring in and that carried over. It ended up being deleted from the movie in the end though. The over-the-top stuff suits him in Glengarry Glenross though since Roma is meant to be that sort of alpha salesman type. He's good in The Merchant of Venice too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:Does this gag I've seen in probably at least a dozen different places originate from a specific film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
It has its origins in real life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:Does this gag I've seen in probably at least a dozen different places originate from a specific film? The best instance of this gag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNn-dUAYquw&t=50s Also, while the kiss is specific, it's really only part of the broader cliche of a man and woman who start out really against each other who end up together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:It has its origins in real life. You really shouldn't believe everything you read on Troper Tales.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
kuddles posted:I've noticed that an overwhelming amount of movies seem to have corporations set up that exist for seemingly no other reason than to hold the rights to the movie. Something like the credits reading "This has been a [Movie Title] Company production. Copyright 2006 [Movie Title] Company, LLC." It is also to do with security. When a financier puts money into a film, they take security over the rights and assets relating to the film. That allows them to take possession in the event of default, and if the company goes bust, their rights are protected and they don't lose out to other creditors. Now, financiers are happier if they are taking security over a nice, clean new company which has not entered into any previous obligations, incurred any undisclosed obligations, or granted a higher-ranking security to any third parties. On the production company's part, they have interests in all kinds of films and perhaps other business: trying to define the rights and assets of just one film, and having security hanging over the whole company even if it relates to just one film, is a pain in the rear end too, and something to be avoided. So in addition to all the correct reasons mentioned already, it is because both financiers and producers find it simpler and cleaner to hold the rights pertaining to a single film in a dedicated special-purpose company which has no other business other than to make that film and hold the rights. VorpalBunny posted:It's easier to do things like payroll, insurance, union contracts, etc with a limited company, and once production shuts down and the books are closed it's harder to go back and audit/sue/claim damages, etc. It's not easier, it just limits the liability relating to an individual film to the company holding the rights in the film and which is entitled to the revenues of that film. If you own ten films, you don't want SAG coming after you and claiming revenue from all ten films to pay their claim which arose from one film. What Neurotica said, basically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Is Jane Campion's career worth pursuing after The Piano? Everything I love about her early work seems to vanish around that point (the hands-on style, the textured feel of New Zealand, the weird, aggressive whimsy). Even Bright Star looks like it was directed by someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
I think Bright Star is better than The Piano, personally, so I'd say yes. I've heard... interesting things about In The Cut too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
edit: My bad forgot what page I was on
Tujague fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
This seems apropos to the Pacino discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q9TpdUPYLU
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Christmas = happy childhood memories. If it's busted = bad childhood memories
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Armyman25 posted:This seems apropos to the Pacino discussion. Whoa, how could Titus Welliver be more awesome? By doing an impression of a young Pacino.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 17:16
|
|
