Subject
Re: The New Lolita Film (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Juan Martinez <pigbodine@hotmail.com>
>On the net, a generally amusing daily web-page called "suck"
>(http.//ww.suck.com.--or something like that) today has a
>sarcastic little editorial on the new Lolita film, attacking it on
>the basis that Lyne isn't much of a director. However, since the
>editorialist hasn't seen the film, the credibility is a bit weak.
>--Charles Nicol
In all fairness, the editorialist's concerns are well founded regardless
of whether he has seen the film. Anyone forced to sit through one of
Mr. Lyne's previous efforts can attest to that. There's always been a
fundamental crassness to his stuff, which is somehow made even more
aggravating by an abysmal sort of artsy approach (big sweeps of the
crane, lots of shots lit by shafts of light coming in through venetian
blinds, oodles of fans cropping up everywhere, etc.)---all in all, all
too slick and terribly boring... Not to mention Mickey Rourke's
insistence on *leaning* on things (usually w/ cigarette in hand) when
he's in one of Lyne's movies.
There is of course a very strong chance that the superior material got
the best of the filmmaker (quite literally in this case, not
colloquially). I certainly hope so, anyway.
The article's tone was certainly inappropriate and annoying---but he has
raised a few good questions, such as the movie being taken up as a
_cause celebre_ by the media as quickly as, say, that godawful _Kids_.
Regards,
Juan Martinez
>On the net, a generally amusing daily web-page called "suck"
>(http.//ww.suck.com.--or something like that) today has a
>sarcastic little editorial on the new Lolita film, attacking it on
>the basis that Lyne isn't much of a director. However, since the
>editorialist hasn't seen the film, the credibility is a bit weak.
>--Charles Nicol
In all fairness, the editorialist's concerns are well founded regardless
of whether he has seen the film. Anyone forced to sit through one of
Mr. Lyne's previous efforts can attest to that. There's always been a
fundamental crassness to his stuff, which is somehow made even more
aggravating by an abysmal sort of artsy approach (big sweeps of the
crane, lots of shots lit by shafts of light coming in through venetian
blinds, oodles of fans cropping up everywhere, etc.)---all in all, all
too slick and terribly boring... Not to mention Mickey Rourke's
insistence on *leaning* on things (usually w/ cigarette in hand) when
he's in one of Lyne's movies.
There is of course a very strong chance that the superior material got
the best of the filmmaker (quite literally in this case, not
colloquially). I certainly hope so, anyway.
The article's tone was certainly inappropriate and annoying---but he has
raised a few good questions, such as the movie being taken up as a
_cause celebre_ by the media as quickly as, say, that godawful _Kids_.
Regards,
Juan Martinez