Yeah, as I said earlier I’m not sure how to feel about it. But props for them trying to do something different and unusual with it.
I kind of want to see Anna Karenina. I haven’t read the novel or seen any other versions.
I read in Empire magazine that the idea to use a stage as a setting came about when they realised how expensive it would be to film on location. They thought that a stage would fit in nicely with the sense that the characters are always performing. But I can see how it might be distracting in a movie.
I saw Life of Pi not that long ago, it was very good. I’m a little surprised the main actor didn’t get nominated for an Oscar, considering he spends most of the movie reacting to things that aren’t there. I was worried the special effects would be obtrusive, but you very quickly get used to the film’s style.
If you’re interested in seeing it, I would definitely recommend it if you like costume dramas. I think that was the best aspect of the film, their use of costume to reflect the state of the characters. And thanks for that little tidbit of why they use the stage! For me it was distracting at first, because I had no idea what was going on. Why is that stage there? But afterwards, reflecting back, the stage was useful to communicate how the characters were feeling. (More free and happy when they were filmed off the stage, in a field for example)
I haven’t seen Life of Pi yet, but I will get around to seeing it. I have heard controversy about him not being nominated, and I think I saw a headline or something that Aang Lee thought it might had to do with his race?
Tonight in my Film class we’re watching Children of Men
Children of Men is great, specially because of its long takes.
I saw Anna Karenina. I’d give it a C. I hated the whole beginning with the stage. Really, I think I liked it a lot less because of the stage, and because I wanted to see more Levin and less–her. 
I get that she isn’t a protagonist, but God. She’s just like Edna from the Awakening. I wanted to strangle her. Really, I wanted her husband to kill her. The acting was decent I thought. But after Knightley did a Russian accent for A Dangerous Method, why didn’t she do one for this movie?
That was probably a decision of the director, not Knightley’s. Maybe he didn’t like the usage of the accent if they are speaking English anyway. It happens to me, for instance.
I just would have prefered if everyone in the movie wasn’t having British accents. It threw me off. 
Oh they did not disappoint! I was extremely impressed.
I think the accents didn’t bother me so much in this peticular film. But in some movies they do. As much as I love Anne Hathaway, I would of been 100000000 happier if they cast a Brazilian in the role of Jewel from Rio. I guess supporting characters can get away with it. I think that having Jewel a legit Brazilian accent interacting with the (to her) foreign Jesse Eisinberg would of added to the film.
I think that in Anna Karenina, it didn’t bother me because the use of English accents are what we usually associate with upper-class costume dramas. But I see where you’re coming from. And I also agree that I didn’t like her character, and Levin was way, way more interesting. But I guess on that we have Tolstoy to blame and not the filmmakers so much.
I had a snow day yesterday, so I sat down and watched three movies.
Kung Fu Panda 2: A+
X-Men: First Class: A-
The Amazing Spider-Man: A
KFP2 was better than the original. Simple as that. Absolutely incredible
First Class was very good and I’m interested in Days of Future Past.
Spider-Man was good, if not goofy in some places. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 promises to be pretty good.
I would recommend all three films. I have Chronicle, John Carter, and Inception recorded and plan on watching them soon.
I full heartily agree.
My dad says the book is about half and half, going from Anna to Levin. He says Tolstoy’s books usually have some wonderful people, and some dirtbags, to show that not all people are bad, but some really aren’t good. I think they showed that obviously in the movie. But then again, who wouldn’t like levin(was he Bill Weasley, btw? looked like him), and who would like/relate to Anna?
Very nice rankings pixarfan9099! I’d like to see Kung Fu Panda 2, still…
Yes, he was Bill Weasley (he’s Brendan Gleeson’s son).
And yes, Levin’s part of the story was preferable for me too. He and Kitty were far more likeable people.
The Intouchables: An enjoyable film. Some good comedy moments, some Heart-warming moments. Overall, I’d say 7/10.
He’s Brendan Gleeson’s son??? Mind blown!!!
Recorded October Sky on my DVR, a very under rated movie. I don’t know anyone who hates it but a lot of people just have never heard if it or seen it. Pity, it’s a great movie and it’s based on a true story.
I watched a classic today, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
^Anything by Frank Capra and/or with James Stewart is charming.
Oh, Jimmy Stewart! I love that man!
It wasn’t my first time seeing that gem. I have to write a filmmaker profile on Capra for my Film Appreciation class, since we’re watching It Happened One Night next week. (I haven’t seen that one!)
I just saw Argo. I can see why it won all the awards. For a two hour film, it was really tightly packed and suspenseful and funny and awesome. Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin and John Goodman looked like they were having the time of their lives in their roles and Ben Affleck’s direction is awesome. A+. Watch if you can, just be warned there is salty language (only reason it’s rated R, really)