|
Originally Posted by Abob Teff
From Beleivewhatyouread.com:...
|
The Sleazoid in schmooze mode at the French premiere (at 04:46):
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5ecpqpTdbo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5ecpqpTdbo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> |
A well-balanced review of the film (from another thread) :
( http://www.mountainx.com/movies/a/ar...invisibles.php ) Arthur and the Invisibles (PG) Ken Hanke | 01/17/2007 Genre: Animated Adventure Fantasy Directed by: Luc Besson Starring: Freddie Highmore, Mia Farrow, Penny Balfour, David Bowie, Madonna I gaze over the crop of bad reviews for Luc Besson's Arthur and the Invisibles and find that I really can't argue with almost any of the complaints lodged against the film. The film is almost insultingly derivative, borrowing with wild abandon from such mismatched sources as Stuart Little (1999) and every Harry Potter movie (an arch villain whose name no one -- except the hero -- dares speak aloud?) -- not to mention The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Dark Crystal (1982), a few touches of Tim Burton and a soundtrack that might be more at home on a Quentin Tarantino picture (in fact, some of it has been). To be kind, it's a bit of a mess -- like something cobbled together by a kid who's desperately trying to ape all the movies he thinks are "really cool." http://www.cinebel.be/portal/resourc...53/b153531.jpg The voice casting is another problem. It's not just that the film's French pedigree and its international cast cause some pretty dicey synchronization problems. The crux of the problem is the fact that most of the high-profile voice talent is uninspired. Among the big names on the English language version, David Bowie, Snoop Dogg and Anthony Anderson come off pretty well, and Madonna isn't disgracefully bad, but she is inessential. Jimmy Fallon, on the other hand, is annoying (probably because he's Jimmy Fallon). However, the bulk of the pricier names -- Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Chazz Palminteri, Emilio Estevez, Jason Bateman -- give performances that could have been done by just about anyone. And that might have been better. All of these points are noted in the many bad reviews. And yet, there's a kind of loopy charm to it all. That sense of a kid copying bits and pieces of "really cool" movies seeps over into the film in a good way. Besson may be close to plagiarism, and he may be wrongheaded a lot of the time, but he's ended up with a movie that you can't help but feel he wanted to make. This isn't just the crummy CGI-animated movie of the week, done to cash in on a family market that seems willing to sit still for almost any rubbish that's tossed out. No, whatever its flaws, Arthur and the Invisibles has a handmade, personal feel that finally affords it a cockeyed endearing quality. The live-action scenes -- set in a vaguely early 1960s never-never time -- are both quaint and visually creative. (Besson seems to have endless enthusiasm for cleverly devised shots.) Plus, the performances from Freddie Highmore as Arthur and Mia Farrow as his grandmother are very good. But more, it's Besson's casual acceptance of the most absurd notions that makes it work. (Just wait till a group of Masai tribesmen show up to help transport Arthur down a telescope to the animated land of the Minimoy so he can find his grandfather's treasure and save the old homestead.) Unfortunately, the animated scenes are rarely more than OK, no matter how fantasticated they look. The only exception to this is a stunningly strange sequence atop a giant phonograph record where the animated Arthur has a sort of dance-off with the bad guys. The animated parts lack the odd juxtapositions of the movie's live-action scenes. Besson's film may only take flight in fits and starts, but it's a darn sight more interesting than most of the family fare out there. Rated PG for fantasy action and brief suggestive material. — reviewed by Ken Hanke |
Originally Posted by porieux
I would say Besson is a "never was". Fifth Element is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life and I will never forgive him for those 2 hours of misery.
|
Well, someone liked Arthur and the Invisibles. They're already working on two sequels.
|
In a thread about Luc Besson, not enough mention of Leon. Someone said it's one of the best movies ever made and I agree. Definitely in my top 10 movies of all time. While Besson's French quirkiness sometimes gets in the way of his movies, there's no doubt that he's a good filmmaker. Every filmmaker has hits and misses.
|
Originally Posted by The Bus
Well, someone liked Arthur and the Invisibles. They're already working on two sequels.
|
Originally Posted by Shilex
In a thread about Luc Besson, not enough mention of Leon. Someone said it's one of the best movies ever made and I agree. Definitely in my top 10 movies of all time. .
Yep that was my first thought after reading threads lol. 5th Element...please lol for got sake I kept thinking someone mention one of his great films(Leon, The Big Blue, Messenger...) I like 5th though but those 3 I mention are true works of pure joy all in my top 20 films ever probably. So Luc hasn't made much lately, does that mean he sucks. Maybe that beats having a company and just dumping out pure shit movies for nothing but trying to make a profit. I mean hell didn't the real studio even dump weistein on his ass. But whatever Luc all the way. |
I like "Fifth Element".
But I like "Leon" light years more. "Leon" in one of the best movies of the 1990's. |
Originally Posted by baracine
BTW, once and for all, there is no such website (no matter how you spell it) and the guy's name is Boll not Bol. Oh, and there is no such film as "Pong".:D
|
Originally Posted by UAIOE
I like "Fifth Element".
But I like "Leon" light years more. "Leon" in one of the best movies of the 1990's. Agreed Leon is great. |
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
I wonder what Harvey's response to Tarantino and Rodriguez would be if they (rightfully) blamed him for Grindhouse's box office failure.
|
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Why? They seem to have free reign over what they do like Kevin Smith, how is Harvey responsible for Grindhouse's poor reception? It was a 3 hour B movie. There is a reason they stopped making them in the first place.
The Weinsteins marketed it for shit. Most people had no idea what the film was about, all they knew that it was 195 minutes and that instantly turned them off. As stated in many other threads, the film should've been marketed to promote each film individually. |
Harvey Weinstein is a has-been.
|
TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $15,132,763 14.1% (USA) + Foreign: $92,051,058 85.9% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Worldwide: $107,183,821 From:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...invisibles.htm Guess who won't be distributing Arthur et la guerre des deux mondes (2010) and Arthur et la vengeance de Maltazard (2009) in the US... |
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
Grindhouse was the best film to be released this year (as of now).
The Weinsteins marketed it for shit. Most people had no idea what the film was about, all they knew that it was 195 minutes and that instantly turned them off. As stated in many other threads, the film should've been marketed to promote each film individually. So you market two B movies seperately instead of one. Are there that many people that think that really would have helped? At the end of the day it's still two movies in a 25+ year old dead genre. |
Originally Posted by fumanstan
And even that wasn't particularly a big hit.
+ Foreign: $200,100,000 75.8% = Worldwide: $263,920,180 (Fifth Element) |
I have to say that Besson IS A HAS BEEN!!! His last good movie was The Professional and no matter how much the internet dorks scream about it, it won't change the fact that the Fifth Element was a stupid movie (same with The Messenger), it had some nice special effect and some pretty good actors (I'm a big fan of quite a few people involved with that movie, Tricky from Massive Attack, Bruce Willis, Gary Oldman, Ian Holm, and even like Milla Jovovich and Chris Tucker quite a bit) all around, it's just too bad that the director IS A HAS BEEN. Just like George Lucas IS A HAS BEEN. They both have made some great work in their earlier carrier, but the last decade has brought nothing but mediocre crap from both of these guys. I also think Scorsese IS A HAS BEEN (The Departed was very mediocre and his previous 2 films have been even worse, Gangs of New York was a straight up piece of shit) but that's opening up another can of worms.
And Uwe Boll saying that the Matrix was shit but his movie was good is just not worth anybody's breath or energy and now it feels like I would be making fun of a retarded person if I tried to make any jokes about him. |
Originally Posted by purplechoe
I have to say that Besson IS A HAS BEEN!!! His last good movie was The Professional and no matter how much the internet dorks scream about it, it won't change the fact that the Fifth Element was a stupid movie (same with The Messenger), it had some nice special effect and some pretty good actors (I'm a big fan of quite a few people involved with that movie, Tricky from Massive Attack, Bruce Willis, Gary Oldman, Ian Holm, and even like Milla Jovovich and Chris Tucker quite a bit) all around, it's just too bad that the director IS A HAS BEEN. Just like George Lucas IS A HAS BEEN. They both have made some great work in their earlier carrier, but the last decade has brought nothing but mediocre crap from both of these guys. I also think Scorsese IS A HAS BEEN (The Departed was very mediocre and his previous 2 films have been even worse, Gangs of New York was a straight up piece of shit) but that's opening up another can of worms.
And Uwe Boll saying that the Matrix was shit but his movie was good is just not worth anybody's breath or energy and now it feels like I would be making fun of a retarded person if I tried to make any jokes about him. http://img.search.com/thumb/e/e0/Hom...iningspoof.JPG (except for what he said about Scorsese and Lucas, of course) |
The full article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_...e_for_glo.html Weinstein's film tactics draw French resistance A little children's movie has stirred up a full-scale word war between film mogul Harvey Weinstein and filmmaker Luc Besson. "I've worked in the movie business for 30 years now," Besson told SuicideGirls.com interviewer Robert Epstein when asked why his "Arthur and the Invisibles" did so poorly in America. The Weinstein Company, Besson said, "was the worst I have worked with in my entire life, in any country." The French auteur said Weinstein went too far in "changing" the French fantasy for an American audience. But Weinstein, who brought on everybody from Madonna to Snoop Dogg for the English-language version, says Besson is the problem. "He's out of his mind," Weinstein told us from the Cannes Film Festival. Weinstein, whose changes made "Arthur" a success in the U.K., accused the director of enriching himself by "lying about his budget," which Besson claimed was $86 million. "I'll write a $1 million check to the charity of his choice if he can prove that really was his budget. He's a has-been." |
People who see The Fifth Element either get it or don't get it. They either appreciate a totally original and heart-felt work of art or feel threatened by the direction Besson is taking a well-known genre. There is no arguing. This film also has the distinction of being the only non-French-language film to have ever won the French César Film of the year award.
People who talk about Arthur and the Invisibles, though, should see it before declaring Besson a has-been. Weinstein, whose changes made "Arthur" a success in the U.K. ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhxfkrm57E4 |
1 word:
LEON That gives him a pass for life, from me |
funny I don't see Roberto Benigni crying over the Americanizing of his 'Pinocchio' - that dub version was soooooo painfully bad (as well as the actual movie itself)
|
I'm not saying Besson is worthless but he just hasn't been working as much as he used to. And ghost-directing through Leterrier doesn't count. I want a real Besson movie, not something phoned in.
|
Originally Posted by Shilex
In a thread about Luc Besson, not enough mention of Leon. Someone said it's one of the best movies ever made and I agree. Definitely in my top 10 movies of all time. While Besson's French quirkiness sometimes gets in the way of his movies, there's no doubt that he's a good filmmaker. Every filmmaker has hits and misses.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.