Jump to content
Bellazon

Jade Bahr

Members
  • Posts

    7,192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

26,645 profile views
  1. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/lily-gladstone-names-her-six-favourite-movies/
  2. Hayden Christensen Thought He’d Lose ‘Star Wars’ Role Once He Heard Leonardo DiCaprio Met With Lucasfilm: Playing Anakin ‘Just Wasn’t a Possibility’ No one was shocked more than Hayden Christensen when he landed the role of Anakin Skywalker in George Lucas’ “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones” and “Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith.” Christensen was far from the biggest name that Lucasfilm was trying to lure into its galaxy far, far away. When he had heard that Leonardo DiCaprio was being courted, Christensen thought “Star Wars” was a lost cause for him. “I had heard that they’d met with Leonardo and a bunch of other actors,” Christensen recently told Empire magazine. “That just confirmed my thought that the role would go to another actor. Through the entire auditioning process I had told myself, from day one, that I wasn’t going to get the part. It just wasn’t a possibility. And I think that probably helped me a lot, because it just freed me up in a lot of ways. And so it really came as a surprise to me when I got the part.” While fans have come around to Christensen’s casting in recent years, the initial reviews for his performance as Anakin Skywalker were far from kind. Like the prequel movies themselves, Christensen found himself at the center of fan backlash. “The character was criticized, my performance was criticized, and that part sucked,” he told Empire. “But I also felt like I had some context that perhaps helped a little bit. When ‘Episode I’ came out, there was a lot of excitement that they were making a new ‘Star Wars,’ and it was going to be the backstory of Darth Vader. But I had friends that were upset that the character was starting off as this young kid. And I watched the film, and I loved it. It was everything I wanted and more. And I didn’t understand the disconnect between the movie that I saw, and the negativity in some of the reviews.” “In a way that sort of criticism, I think, comes from a certain failure of their own suspension of disbelief,” Christensen continued. “If you’re gonna go sit in a theater, and the opening scroll starts with, ‘A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,’ that’s setting the stage that anything is possible. These people don’t need to sound and behave the way that we might expect. And if you’re going to sit down and think that you’re getting something that is of our current zeitgeist, then you’re setting yourself up for something else. You know what I mean?” Christensen ended up returning as Anakin/Darth Vader in some of the recent “Star Wars” television series on Disney+, including “Obi-Wan Kenobi” and “Ahsoka.” The actor told Empire returning to the franchise “was a bucket-list item I didn’t even know I had.” It remains to be seen whether or not Christensen will be back as Darth Vader in the future.
  3. Not gonna happen but maybe in some parallel universe. Why Killers of the Flower Moon should win the best picture Oscar Martin Scorsese has made the ultimate western, showing the racism, greed and corruption on which America was really founded. It’s a world-changing work Ever since he started making films, 60-odd years ago, Martin Scorsese has always wanted to make a western; instead, he may have killed the genre. And that’s no small thing for this most American of forms. Over the past century, westerns have cemented the founding myths of American identity; how white settlers subjugated and massacred the continent’s indigenous population and tamed the wild west, with God and guns (and cinema) on their side. So it takes guts to unpick that mythology with a true story of just how evil and racist white Americans really were – especially in a political climate where such histories are being actively suppressed in the US. We’ve had plenty of “revisionist” westerns in recent years; you could call this a destructionist western. It cuts to the dark heart of colonialist greed and capitalist corruption on which America was really founded. In terms of revolutionary cinema, nothing else in this year’s Oscar crop can compete. For the uninitiated, the setting is 1920s Oklahoma, where the discovery of oil on their land made the Osage Nation the richest people on the planet. The fact that they were required by law to have white guardians to help them manage their wealth is just the beginning of the injustice heaped upon them here. Robert De Niro’s two-faced patriarch William “King” Hale, hatches a plan for his dim nephew Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio) to marry Osage heiress Mollie (Lily Gladstone), then systematically bump off her family and seize her oil rights – aided by pretty much the entire white community. Blinded by love, and wealth, Mollie and her people take far too long to figure out what’s really going on. Beyond the radicalism of the story itself, the sheer scale, scope and stamina of Killers make many a younger film-maker look timid and weak. Some have criticised the film’s three-and-a-half-hour runtime as overindulgent, but it gives the movie time to slowly marinate in the madness and moral decay. By the time Ernest is injecting himself with the poison he’s been administering to Mollie, the two of them lying on the bed in a narcotic haze, as fire lights up the night sky outside, we’re almost untethered from reality completely. Until Jesse Plemons’ cowboy FBI agent rolls into town to break the spell and restore some sanity. Scorsese is such a consummate film-maker it’s easy to take the movie’s craftsmanship for granted: the flawlessly grimy period detail, the roving camerawork, the painterly compositions, the flourishes of violence, the striking faces of even minor characters, the ominous, throbbing score – courtesy of the late Robbie Robertson. And at the heart of it all, DiCaprio and Gladstone commit to portraying the contradictions and self-deceptions of their bad romance. Gladstone, especially, gives us a performance the likes of which we’ve never really seen – beguilingly cool and composed, but palpably vulnerable under the surface. Even for the closing “what happened next?” coda, where most films would end in a flurry of expository text, Scorsese mounts an old-timey radio show recording – a nod, no doubt, to his own role in mediating history. This old dog is still learning new tricks. Despite its authentic and respectful portrayals of Osage culture, some have criticised Killers for centring the white folks, but as Scorsese has been the first to point out, it’s not his place to speak for the Native American experience; all he can do is use his creative capital, and the celebrity of his lead actors, to shine a light on a shameful episode of American history that’s been largely forgotten (though not by the Osage themselves, of course). Nobody can forget it now. Killers of the Flower Moon has literally changed history. How many films can say that?
  4. Much better than it's reputation. The idea of the story isn't actually that bad at all. I also bought the "ulysses cut" which is over 40 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.
  5. She was quite alright in WEST SIDE STORY and the latest Hunger Games installment SONGBIRDS & SNAKES. If someone claims she also can't sing because of some sort of personal vendetta I simply say
  6. Jade Bahr

    Kate Winslet

    Kate Winslet photographed while giving an interview in a suite at Loews Regency Hotel in New York City, New York. Photos taken by David Turner in November 1995.
  7. Those movie aren't really good but they're at least horny lol
×
×
  • Create New...