Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:59 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
42 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3059
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post 42
Click here for the review of 42

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!


Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:22 pm
Profile WWW
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2896
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: 42
Sounds like another generic and forgettable biopic, pass.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:46 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pm
Posts: 168
Post Re: 42
I would have figured having Harrison Ford in this film would be a distraction from the subject of Robinson and his struggle. However, based on the marekting and reviews, it seems his presence is pretty discreet and doesn't take away from the film's direction.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:14 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 851
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: 42
As a die-hard baseball fan (O's, HON!), I'm there.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:11 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: 42
I honestly wish that Hollywood would stop creating sappy, sentimental films about America's history of racial hatred. These are serious subjects, and far too often, big studios turn these into predictable movies where adversity inevitably leads to equality. 42 is just another entry in the genre of by-the-numbers historical dramas.


Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:39 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: 42
This isn't a great movie, but I liked it a lot. Certainly the most stylistically sophisticated film of the year thus far, though that's not saying much. The acting, writing, and cinematography are all top of the class. I saw this in Westwood, and the entire audience cheered loudly when UCLA was mentioned. It's an inspirational story with moving moments. I'm glad that films like this continue to be made. They feel good. Period detail was also very good, better than a few other period films I can think of from last year.


Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:53 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 851
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: 42
MGamesCook wrote:
This isn't a great movie, but I liked it a lot. Certainly the most stylistically sophisticated film of the year thus far, though that's not saying much. The acting, writing, and cinematography are all top of the class. I saw this in Westwood, and the entire audience cheered loudly when UCLA was mentioned. It's an inspirational story with moving moments. I'm glad that films like this continue to be made. They feel good. Period detail was also very good, better than a few other period films I can think of from last year.


You're right on the money. One thing I definitely appreciated after seeing this yesterday was that it was by no means "Disney-fied." There were times when the racial slurs approached Django Unchained levels. The level of resentment Robinson was up against felt very real. Yes, the movie is manipulative, but this story is so inherently inspiring that it's almost impossible to do it wrong.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:56 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:49 pm
Posts: 29
Post Re: 42
I also saw it yesterday. No, it's not "Lincoln". But it's good. And the audience of cool, nothing-gets-to-me Manhattan movie-goers applauded enthusiastically at the end.


Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:23 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 851
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: 42
There's another thing I thought about. The MPAA once again rears its ugly, inconsistent head with regards to language. There are several dozen utterances of "nigger" in this movie (nowhere near as many as in Django Unchained though), yet this gets a PG-13 whereas three "fucks" for some other films get an R. For the record, PG-13 is the right rating for this movie, but wow, is the MPAA literally still stuck in the era in which this movie took place?

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:47 pm
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2896
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: 42
KWRoss wrote:
There's another thing I thought about. The MPAA once again rears its ugly, inconsistent head with regards to language. There are several dozen utterances of "nigger" in this movie (nowhere near as many as in Django Unchained though), yet this gets a PG-13 whereas three "fucks" for some other films get an R. For the record, PG-13 is the right rating for this movie, but wow, is the MPAA literally still stuck in the era in which this movie took place?

I guess they don't consider racial slurs to be the same thing as profanity.


Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:52 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1374
Post Re: 42
Quote:
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - The Jackie Robinson movie "42" not only won the box office with a $27 million debut this weekend, it joined some exclusive company when audiences gave it an "A+" CinemaScore.

Only 29 movies have earned that grade since the Las Vegas-based polling firm began asking moviegoers to grade the films they'd just seen back in 1999, according to CinemaScore research analyst Harold Mintz.

This year's Oscar Best Picture winner "Argo" got one. So did "The Avengers," "King's Speech," "Titanic" and "A Few Good Men" and "Toy Story 2." They're not all big hits: "Soul Surfer" and "Tangled" were crowd-pleasers of the highest order, too.

Also on the list are "The Help," "Driving Miss Daisy," "Remember the Titans," "Antoine Fisher" and "The Blind Side."

When it comes to the box office, the "A+" typically signals a long, solid run ahead - and that should be the case with "42," a passion project of Legendary Pictures chief executive Thomas Tull, who produced the $38 million movie. It was written and directed by Bruce Helgeland, the veteran writer behind "L.A. Confidential," and "Mystic River."

"Films geared towards older crowds, like the game of baseball itself, are often slow burners at the box office," Bock said. Eighty-three percent of the "42" audience was over 25 years of age, with 45 percent between 25 and 49. Older moviegoers, like African-Americans, are under-served when it comes to film options, and "42" touches both those bases.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/cinemascor ... 26917.html


Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:12 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: 42
KWRoss wrote:
There's another thing I thought about. The MPAA once again rears its ugly, inconsistent head with regards to language. There are several dozen utterances of "nigger" in this movie (nowhere near as many as in Django Unchained though), yet this gets a PG-13 whereas three "fucks" for some other films get an R. For the record, PG-13 is the right rating for this movie, but wow, is the MPAA literally still stuck in the era in which this movie took place?


I think the context is important. Here the slurs are being as a way to show how open ugly racial passions were at the time. When the movie is about racial prejudice, you have to demonstrate the racial prejudice in some fashion, and that's why the terms are being used. The film is looking down on the use of those terms, as it were. I think you might get a different result if you had a film with, say, a protagonist who was an unrepentant racist and used racial slurs on the regular. *looks meaningfully at Gran Torino*


Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:44 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 851
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: 42
Machiara wrote:
KWRoss wrote:
There's another thing I thought about. The MPAA once again rears its ugly, inconsistent head with regards to language. There are several dozen utterances of "nigger" in this movie (nowhere near as many as in Django Unchained though), yet this gets a PG-13 whereas three "fucks" for some other films get an R. For the record, PG-13 is the right rating for this movie, but wow, is the MPAA literally still stuck in the era in which this movie took place?


I think the context is important. Here the slurs are being as a way to show how open ugly racial passions were at the time. When the movie is about racial prejudice, you have to demonstrate the racial prejudice in some fashion, and that's why the terms are being used. The film is looking down on the use of those terms, as it were. I think you might get a different result if you had a film with, say, a protagonist who was an unrepentant racist and used racial slurs on the regular. *looks meaningfully at Gran Torino*


That's sound reasoning. But my point is that the MPAA should think that way with regards to "fuck." There was a reason for its repeated use in The King's Speech (as part of therapy), and the few times it was used in Argo ("Argo fuck yourself") were harmless.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr