I think You are right, and a movie more about the sisters would have been better. You had me until here:
"it simply falls a little flat"
I think it was a great movie, and while I think more time developing the sisters would make a good movie too, It was great as it stands if you just stop and consider that:
-The movie emphaisized sisterly love as the driving force rather than romantic love, which I think may be a Disney first.
-Despite the screentime being mostly devoted to snow, a reindeer, a male character, and a female lead, It was actually about THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO SISTERS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE SISTERS.
-It was a damn good movie in a time when most movies fail the bechdel test altogether.
I liked it.
I agree with you.
Please state all perspectives of the story, and keep this work up.
"We cannot fault Disney too much for putting profit over making a social statement."
Yes. Yes we can.
Excellent article. Very insightful. We cannot fault Disney too much for putting profit over making a social statement. They are a business. Overall, they do well balancing mass appeal and meaningful themes. But your article deftly raised the question of whether they have swung too far toward the former. Thanks for a thoughtful article.
Do you go around complaining about Holocaust movies, too?
So many people are still slaves. Slaves of lust, hatred, greed, gluttony, chemical dependency, sloth, poverty, and yes, cultural bias. Movies such as this only fan the flames of dissent without truly examining the problems facing descendents of enslaved Africans, or what can be done to help them in today's world. If African Americans were evenly distributed proportionally among all 50 states, it would certainly help them assimilate, and they would certainly receive better treatment overall.
Playing @ what theater in Charleston Metro?
Where showing in Charleston Metro?
Claire, you are right, thats not what it is meant to be. As an intense thriller it really does work. (even though the entire crew is calling BS, but I'm going on the assumption any changes are purely for dramatic purpose) What Tom is saying, and I agree with, is that it COULD have been much more. Yes it is a fine movie, thrilling, and well-worth the admission price. But in 5 years will you be referencing this movie? Will you even remember it? There was an opportunity missed here for a powerful look at what drives people to such extremes. THAT movie would could have been phenomenal. As-is, it is a safe thriller, based on an extraordinary story, that I in no way regret paying to see. It is okay to both like something and wish it had been something more at the same time
It's not supposed to be a deep, thinking movie about the innerworkings of the psyche of a Somali pirate... It's the crazy unreal and intense story of this real life boat captain's horrifying ordeal. The movie was AWESOME, and got incredible reviews from actual movie critics all over America.
"Never quite gets below the surface.." "Lacks substance." Sort of like the City Paper...
Sounds like a slice of real life. Good for Levitt. Good snappy review.
Bravo, Mr. Movie Maestro, Bravo! Interesting that inorder to post this comment-the security word I had to type was OSPREY.
I just feel that any avid film watcher who has seen and lived George Washington, and has at least a visual knowledge of Where the Wild Things Are, could never think this an original groundbreaking film. Nor could a thinking person not see the bizarre, conflicting ideas bouncing around the script. And I agree with the earlier poster in that Wallis has an amazing presence, but she is also quite a nod to many a stereotype past in her presentation.
Big Government liberals so afraid of living life to the fullest, they want uncle sam to tell them when they can scratch their butt.
Who did that, mat? And why are you calling cops jack booted thugs?
It's always nice when the small government conservatives, afraid of the bogeymen of jack-booted thugs coming to take them in the night, defend, or at very least attempt to rationalize, the actions of those same thugs when it's someone else's life being taken.
He wasn't handcuffed when he was shot. He was face down with his hands under his body and not putting them behind his back. That's not a reason to get shot, but it may be a reason to get tased in some circumstances.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper