--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "noah" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > Barry did you see Tree of Life? I have to see it a second > time. Amazing, altho not perfect.
I haven't. It hasn't been around where I could see it, either in theaters here or on the torrent lists. I am not the world's biggest Terence Malick fan, but I'm willing to give it a try. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > * * Many thanks, Barry! Loving time-travel as we both do, "the > > > > > wife" and I are going to see it tonight :-) > > > > > > > > I think you'll enjoy it. > > > > > > * * And you thought right. At least in the immediate afterglow, > > > I would say this is my favorite Woody Allen to date, though > > > Manhattan was right up there. But I don't recall being moved > > > to tears by Allen before, and this one did that several times. > > > And what a marvelous job of casting. Those *were* Papa Hemingway > > > and Picasso and Gertrude Stein and Cole Porter and F. Scott and > > > Zelda, and Touolouse-Lautrec... > > > Thanks again, Barry. > > > > No problemo. It's rare these days for me to find a film > > that I actually feel like "reviewing," in the sense of > > writing a full review of. There is just so much dreck > > out there. Now that you've seen the film, you might like > > Roger Ebert's review of it: > > > > http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110524/REVIEWS/110529987/1001/reviews > > > > I think Roger just nails both the charm of the film, and > > its problems. To a younger generation, many of whom texted > > their way through high school and even college and don't > > have any idea who these great artists of 1920's Paris were, > > the clever asides and one-liners in the film would be > > meaningless. But to those of us who get all the references, > > they're hilarious -- like Gil's suggestion for a movie plot > > to Luis Bunuel, which he just doesn't get, and Dali's passing > > mention of an idea for a painting based on his perception of > > Gil, which just happens to be a painting that most art lovers > > aware of his work would know. Woody must have had a *ball* > > writing this script, because it shows in the amount of FUN > > that trickles through. > > > > Like Roger Ebert, I consider Woody Allen a national treasure. > > But his work in these later years has gotten as cynical and > > jaded as he has (he gives the most depressing personal inter- > > views in history), and I just haven't really enjoyed much > > since "Hollywood Ending." Interestingly, that film had a > > strong Paris connection, too. Maybe, like Gil, Woody should > > think of moving there...it seems to reinvigorate him and > > bring out the great filmmaker inside that he'd forgotten > > about. > > > > Loved the "laugh line" about what happened to the detective. > > That was real Old School Woody Allen stuff. > > > > > > > > Are you old enough to remember > > > > Woody Allen's first screenplay? He didn't direct, but it > > > > was called "What's New Pussycat." In that film he had the > > > > hero (played by Peter O'Toole) and himself (played by... > > > > uh...himself) sit in a Paris cafe at which Van Gogh, > > > > Toulouse-Lautrec, and other famous Parisians were also > > > > sitting. So this fantasy has been with him for a long > > > > time. > > > > > > * * And thanks too for this morsel -- I have not seen the whole movie > > > yet, but I have gotten as far as that great cafe scene. Loved Van Gogh's > > > bandaged ear! > > > > > >
