Jump to content

Shawn Robbins

WEEKEND ACTUALS: WTM (17.96m), Elysium (13.69m), Planes (13.39m), KA2 (13.33m), Percy (8.75m)

By Shawn Robbins, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts







baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

The cast and the buzz are surely pushing me hard to go and see this when it opens here on September 5. 

 

 

How was Alan Rickman?

 

Fantastic.  They makeup to make him look like Reagan was incredible.

 

Here is my take on the cast:

 

Forrest Whitaker:  Oscar worthy.  Quiet but brilliant.

Mariah Carey:  I didn't even know it was her.  She was fine but had very little to do.

Alex Pettyfer:  An asshole and plays one well.  I hated him but he played him well.

Vanessa Redgrave:  Not much to do either.

Oprah:  Great range.  Powerful scenes and definitely Oscar worthy.

David Oyelowo:  The best performance of the film imo.

Terrence Howard:  Slimy, swarmy and unlikable, did it very well.

Cuba Gooding Jr.:  He is good in everything.  I don't know what happened to him after Jerry Maguire but he is good here again.

Lenny Kravitz:  good strong performance.

Robin Williams:  Not overly memorable

John Cusack:  Best of the cameos...nails Nixon's mannerisms

James Marsden:  Terrific as JFK

Minka Kelly:  Gorgeous but not much to do

Liev Schreiber:  Decent

Alan Rickman:  Fantastic

Jane Fonda:  Just a natural actress.  Was on screen for about 60 seconds but she was perfect as Nancy Reagan

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


CJohn Cinematic Universe

CJohn

Posted
Posted

Fantastic.  They makeup to make him look like Reagan was incredible.

 

Here is my take on the cast:

 

Forrest Whitaker:  Oscar worthy.  Quiet but brilliant.

Mariah Carey:  I didn't even know it was her.  She was fine but had very little to do.

Alex Pettyfer:  An asshole and plays one well.  I hated him but he played him well.

Vanessa Redgrave:  Not much to do either.

Oprah:  Great range.  Powerful scenes and definitely Oscar worthy.

David Oyelowo:  The best performance of the film imo.

Terrence Howard:  Slimy, swarmy and unlikable, did it very well.

Cuba Gooding Jr.:  He is good in everything.  I don't know what happened to him after Jerry Maguire but he is good here again. 

Lenny Kravitz:  good strong performance.

Robin Williams:  Not overly memorable

John Cusack:  Best of the cameos...nails Nixon's mannerisms

James Marsden:  Terrific as JFK

Minka Kelly:  Gorgeous but not much to do

Liev Schreiber:  Decent

Alan Rickman:  Fantastic

Jane Fonda:  Just a natural actress.  Was on screen for about 60 seconds but she was perfect as Nancy Reagan

Yup, I need to see this when it opens here. Thanks :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

I really like Cusack, but it's going to be hard for me to watch a Nixon performance again anytime soon thanks to Langella's incredible turn in Frost/Nixon.

 

I understand what you mean.  But Cusack is on screen for so little that you won't really have much time to compare his performance to Langella's.  But he is good, I promise you he is good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dementeleus Cinematic Universe

Dementeleus

Posted
Posted
There's an interesting article in the NY Times about Berg and BATTLESHIP, actually, and it reveals why he made the damn thing (it was such a WTF decision at the time, I remember) -- basically, he did one for the studio so he could make a personal film about SEALs in Afghanistan (LONE SURVIVOR, coming out soon).
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

Headlines once again make it out to sound much worse than it really is.  Berg was basically saying that Hancock was successful because of Smith and that making a so called blockbuster without one is tough.  He didn't deflect the blame, and he didn't call out anyone.  He just said that he needed a bigger star for Battleship to work.  And he is probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Founder / Operator
Shawn Robbins Global Phenomenon

Shawn Robbins

Posted
  • Author
  • Founder / Operator
Posted

Headlines once again make it out to sound much worse than it really is.  Berg was basically saying that Hancock was successful because of Smith and that making a so called blockbuster without one is tough.  He didn't deflect the blame, and he didn't call out anyone.  He just said that he needed a bigger star for Battleship to work.  And he is probably right.

 

I don't know, buddy. It was ripe with the "we're cashing in on Transformers' success" vibe and opened two weeks after Avengers (and one before MIB3). It seemed doomed from the get-go, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

I don't know, buddy. It was ripe with the "we're cashing in on Transformers' success" vibe and opened two weeks after Avengers (and one before MIB3). It seemed doomed from the get-go, IMHO.

 

I agree with you.  I didn't mean to imply that it would have done better with a bigger star, just that Berg didn't really say that he needed a bigger star to sell it.  He just basically said that they spent too much on SPFX and that left nothing for the cast.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cairo Indie Sensation

Cairo

Posted
Posted

I agree with you.  I didn't mean to imply that it would have done better with a bigger star, just that Berg didn't really say that he needed a bigger star to sell it.  He just basically said that they spent too much on SPFX and that left nothing for the cast.  

I guess there wasn't anything left for a better script either...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




zackzack Blockbuster

zackzack

Posted
Posted (edited)

personally I think Battleship was as good as the concept allowed it. It was just not a good idea from the beginning

 

BATTLESHIP has the promise of a great blockbuster. But I think for action scifi blockbuster to work you need, uh, faster-moving ships. The ship battle in the movie is pretty realistic enough and I am big fan of "sea battle" movies (RED OCTOBER, MASTER/COMMANDER etc) but the craft needs to blast though the speed of sound to give you a sense of frantic action coupled  with fast-cutting frenzied editing i.e.. TRANSFORMERS movies & Bay-ism. The reason for PR lack of box office response in US: slow robots. It takes forever to deliver that big punch..   :P

 

Posted Image

Edited by zackzack
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cairo Indie Sensation

Cairo

Posted
Posted (edited)

BATTLESHIP has the promise of a great blockbuster. But I think for action scifi blockbuster to work you need, uh, faster-moving ships. The ship battle in the movie is pretty realistic enough and I am big fan of "sea battle" movies (RED OCTOBER, MASTER/COMMANDER etc) but the craft needs to blast though the speed of sound to give you a sense of frantic action coupled  with fast-cutting frenzied editing i.e.. TRANSFORMERS movies & Bay-ism. The reason for PR lack of box office response in US: slow robots. It takes forever to deliver that big punch..   :P

 

Posted Image

Based on opinions I've read/hear, people seemed to have more of an issue with annoying and uninteresting characters than the action scenes albeit being described as silly isn't very good. 

 

One of my biggest pet peeves in today's blockbusters is the prevalence of bland and uninteresting actors playing bland and uninteresting characters. 

Edited by Cairo
Link to comment
Share on other sites






Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept