.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to xmikex.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="xmikex:872318"]This film is incredible. The fact that Rourke didn't win every oscar possible, plus all of next year's oscars is a complete injustice. I'm still hearing rumors that Nicholas Cage was originally cast to play the lead in this, and I think it would have robbed the world of an amazing work that only Mickey Rourke could have done justice to. POSSIBLE SPOILERS COMING UP... Aronofsky is the man too. This was a really visceral film in a lot of ways, not just with the mayhem going on inside the ring, but with the more subtle scenes that showed the pain and discomfort he went through in his daily life. There were a couple things I could have done without. #1. The scene with him and his daughter on the wharf. Their relationship was necessary for his character, I get it. But that scene just didn't fit in the film. It was too bright, and used too many wide shots. It went from an Aronofsky film to Sleepless in Seattle for that whole scene, and I just didn't appreciate it. #2. I didn't like that they added the applause and cheering tracks to the scene where he was getting ready to go out to the deli counter. I think it was more than enough to keep it subtle, and to shoot it the same way they shot his wrestling entrance scenes. I'm not an idiot, I get the point they're trying to make. Aronofsky, traditionally rarely uses non-diagetic sound like that, and I think it was kind of overkill for that scene. Other than those 2 minor things I can't think of anything I'd change about this film. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][