What was Departed's Metacritic ranking before the Village voice review?

I'd count that review as mixed and not really pro or con.

A grade of 60 is pretty much a con, though. That's like a D grade. It was 93 before Village Voice. It's now back up to 89 after scoring a 100 from Premiere. It also got a new positive review at RT.

Another score at MC to put The Departed's average at 92. However, New York Magazine's review does make me think that people who have seen and adored Infernal Affairs may just like it slightly less than people who haven't or didn't fall in love with the original.

http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ige#764723

Not to be a whiner, but I want recognition too.

Bobby - Emilio Estevez is a talented guy… but he needs a year or two shooting TV hour-longs before he might really be ready as a director for a project this complex. And, as a screenwriter, he needs a tough voice pushing him to make stronger choices and push harder for more memorable dialogue.

Infamous - This disaster is exactly the movie that many of us feared Capote might be. A guy doing an imitation of Truman Capote and a bunch of celebrities playing dress up as historic characters.

The Black Dahlia - Wasn't it wonderful of Brian DePalma to hire so many amateurs instead of professional actors?

This is certainly the worst film Brian DePalma has ever been associated with, surpassing the mess of Bonfire of the Vanities and the excess and incoherence of Mission To Mars with a magical combination of miscast actors, a muddled, incoherent script, terrible lighting, and no real DePalma flourishes of interest.

Fur - Steve Shainberg did good with Secretary. Some people didn't like it, but I think it walked the tightrope between emotional realism and hyperreality pretty well. It was kinky and sexy. And it gave us Maggie Gyllenhaal.

And what did he do with this success? He jerked himself off until he couldn't jerk off any more.

Marie Antoinette - I don't think Sofia Coppola needs to be beheaded for this effort, but there is no doubt she lost her head.

You understand the initial conceit if you've seen the recent ads and trailer. Young girl queen trapped by her position acts out and is fabulous. And that is beautifully rendered for 40 minutes or so. And then, Sofia loses interest in storytelling, just as Marie loses interest in the monarchy.

Heh, I didn't need to guess, as I knew it for the fact

This is a fine film, complicated, simple at the same time, pessimistic and heroic, cynical/world weary. The craft is amazing - the budget was supposedly $55 million, which is probably around what Devil Wore Prada or similar cost - it looks like a $200 million dollar film. It is not any easy crowd-grabber. Its impact is accumulative, as with most of Eastwood's best work you need to look at the quiet scenes for some of the most power.

Oscar chances? Clearly a contender. It is competing against the near-masterpiece level of his last two and The Unforgiven, a pretty tough territory. It also recalls Saving Private Ryan - I think this is the superior film, but others may disagree or also consider this not as one that clearly tops his other films. But I am already committing myself to more than I want to at this point - I'd prefer to sleep on it.

The performances are of an ensemble, with career bests all around. Adam Beach has the most dramatic moments, and is the most likely to be around come nominations time. He and all others likely would be thought of as supporting.

Expect craft nominations all around - editing, sound, special effects leading, as well as art direction (the great Henry Bumstead, whose career included Vertigo, To Kill a Mockingbird and The Sting, died after planning the design of Letters from Iwo Jima in his 90s), maybe even music - Eastwood did the score again, and even wrote an original song (which he sings over the opening credits.)

I'll repeat this closer to opening date, but do yourself a favor and stay through the credits to the very end.

The dialogue is fine - not flashy, not.
necessarily Oscar winning, but perfectly modulated, nothing out of step.

The difference in my reaction to that in The Departed? Despite my disappointment in much of Scorsese' work, I wanted to like it, and was very happy that I did. I think Eastwood is in a class of his own among contemporary American directors, so I need to gauge my reaction against my hopes and expectations - and then combine that with the fact that his understated/demythologizing themes and presentation cause as much an intellectual as visceral response. Hope that doesn't sound too much like an excuse or copout, but let me say this - at this point, The Departed and Flags of Our Fathers are easily the two best American films of the year, and either would be a worthy best film winner.

The battle scenes (and set up before) is consistent with the trailers.

Much of the rest of film - dare I say it - reminded me of The Aviator. Tom Stern, who has been Eastwood's cinematographer since Blood Work, may not be enough of an ASC club member (not unimportant in the craft nominations), but I think he has a good shot at his first nomination here.

Jamie Bell was almost unrecognizable for me. He has a pivotal but pretty small role (Paul Walker and Barry Pepper are even smaller). Jon Voight - totally uncredited in the film. not yet listed on IMDb - has a couple of strong scenes.

Iggy is indeed presented as a reason for reluctance to discuss the battle.

The lives of the men before the war are barely touched on.

The two flag-raisings and their impact on later events is one of the most important parts of the whole narrative, and they are both shown.

I talked to someone who read Haggis' script and said from what I described the film was substantially changed from what he wrote originally.

Devil Wore Prada

Eastwood did the score again, and even wrote an original song (which he sings over the opening credits.)

I talked to someone who read Haggis' script and said from what I described the film was substantially changed from what he wrote originally.

Author: Eastwood's Iwo Jima film is a 'masterpiece'

- Flags of Our Fathers to open even as work continues on second film

By PAUL MILLER

Published: September 29, 2006

IT’S NOT unusual for an someone who writes a best-selling book to end up disavowing the movie made from it.

But that’s certainly not the case with Clint Eastwood’s new film, “Flags of Our Fathers,” which will have its Hollywood premiere Oct. 9 and open on 1,800 screens nationwide 11 days later. Eastwood directed the movie for Warner Bros. and DreamWorks SKG.

“The film is a masterpiece, and Mr. Eastwood has gone beyond my book to capture the essence of a very important historical event,” said James Bradley, who attended a special screening at Warner Bros. Studios in Burbank last week and visited shooting locations in Iceland and Chicago last fall. “It’s a masterful job of direction, how he put the movie together. I expected perfection and that’s what I got.”

I wonder if he's ever seen The Empire Struck Back.

Marie Antoinette received a negative review from surly and flaming New York critic, Rex Reed.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

What a brilliant use of accurate adjectives.

Another positive for Little Children.

I had quite the e-mail conversation with David Poland earlier today.

Do you care to share?