I watched "A History of Violence" and "Good N

[RockyBalboa]

Since I've been laid up from my car accident I watched a couple of flicks.

I rented "A History of Violence" and "Good Night & Good Luck".

Violence was an odd show, and for such a very short appearance in the movie I'm surprised that William Hurt got an Oscar nomination for what was it? 5 minutes of screen time? I will say it wasn't nearly as twisted as most of David Cronenberg's films, so that's a plus.

Good Night & Good Luck while a little boring, was kind of intriguing. David Straithairn was excellent in his role as Edward R. Murrow.

I also saw The Constant Gardener last week and I thought that movie was overated. It wasn't horrible at all, but I guess I just wasn't a big fan of the feel of it. Never at any time was I thinking...wow....this is exciting or engaging. Rachel Weisz was excellent in her role, as was Ralph Fiennes in his.

John Le Carre novels just don't translate very well into movies. The Russian House...that older flick with Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer was one of his and about as boring of a flick as they come.

Having said all of this I'll be the first one to admit that I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.

[Robin]

A History of Violence was a fine film.

So was The Constant Gardener.

So was Good Night Good Luck.

Rachel Weisz is a fine actor.

I recently rented June Bug. It is a fine film.

I am also watching season one of Six Feet Under. It is a fine television program.

[bluegoose]

Boy Robin, thanks for the detailed analysis of those flicks.

Very insightful stuff.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I watched "A History of Violence" last week as well. I thought it was great, but I am a sucker for anything mob-related. I liked the character development. I hadn't heard that much about the movie so I had no idea where it was going at first. Haven't seen the other two yet.

My apologies in advance to bluegoose.

[fusnik11]

i dont know how that dude in history of violence got a nomination, has to be the dumbest nomination in the history of cinema.

i thought history of violence was ok.....the sex scenes were intensely graphic, and i thought they communicated well the idea of change and the perception change of the characters.....

i disliked constant gardener. i hated how it ended. the acting was good, but i didnt like the story, and i struggled with the love interest between the married couple. i felt like she used him, and he was much more in love with him than she was, but ultimately i thought it tried to sell you that they were in love equally with each other, i didnt buy it.....

[RockyBalboa]

[quote="

i disliked constant gardener. i hated how it ended. the acting was good, but i didnt like the story, and i struggled with the love interest between the married couple. i felt like she used him, and he was much more in love with him than she was, but ultimately i thought it tried to sell you that they were in love equally with each other, i didnt buy it.....[/quote]


That is exactly how I felt about the movie. Very overated and I didn't buy the love story either. She manipulated the hell out of him.

[Surfah]

I watched A History of Violence in a hotel over the weekend that America West put me up in because they suck. Great movie. Extremely graphic though. Viggo kicks some major ass. So does his son. I'm kind of like the son. I am a big guy so it's rare that I am picked on. But like his character I internalize things and laugh most things off. But when my buttons are pushed and forced into a corner, God bless that man when I go off.

Haven't seen the other films.

Agree with the Oscar nomination thing too. I didn't even think he was that good, in fact I thought his portrayal of the character didn't match or flow well from what I perceived him to be from the little bit of information we gather of him before he is introduced.