Bummer. Retracted with apologies. (They really do look alike though.)
Supposedly Michael Pitt (Boardwalk Empire among other things) played the Lumiere’s projectionist (this according to a couple of blogs) but it’s not on his imdb listing. He is listed as being connected with the film in several places. If it is him then he must have some cut screentime since the projectionist isn’t even a speaking role.
Looking at some bios of Georges Méliès, I was glad to see that, while Kingsley’s character is very largely fictionalized of course, the real person actually did receive formal and popular recognition in his final years after many years of obscurity and “reduced circumstances”. He and his wife received pensions and an apartment at a chateau that was converted into a home for artists in recognition for their contributions to film making, so while they did not get rich from their years in film making (and it’s impressive that more than a century later almost everybody knows the “rocket in the eye” shot) he was at least able to quit the day job.
No kidding. friedo, you will have multiple orgasms!
It is showing, at least some places, in 2D. My husband and I saw it yesterday in 2D and it was so gorgeous. 3D enhances the visuals, but the visuals are stunning to begin with.
I don’t think 2D will hurt it. And the nice thing about seeing it 2D is you won’t have to sit through all of the trailers for movies they’re re-releasing in 3D (Titanic, Star Wars [the prequel trilogy], Beauty and the Beast— I half expected to see an ad for a 3D* Brokeback Mountain* re-release.)
Scorsese has made some awesome films, to be sure. But he’s also made some clunkers, and some movies on topics that don’t interest me. I’m certainly not interested in wasting another three hours on something like “Gangs Of New York.”
That said, this one (now that I have some plot info) does sound interesting.
We just got back, and it was glorious. The photography is breathtaking and the 3D is some of the best I’ve ever seen. Don’t miss a chance to see this in a theater! We were also unspoiled, and the surprises of subject matter were just delightful.
I saw it in 3D and I loved it. Scorsese is known for his films with violent subject matter, and this is a film that is appropriate for the whole family. No violence, swearing or nudity.
It is as good a film as any Scorsese has ever made, and a beautiful perfect clockwork gem.
We saw it today in 3D and I loved it. I did think it was a little slow at times, but I wrote that off to being tired. The 3D was really well done I think. Love, love, loved the bits of the story inspired by the actual Georges Méliès and especially all of the early footage.
My one concern going in was that Chloe is such a strong, scene-stealing young actress, I had my doubts that the boy would have enough chops to balance. I think she did steal many scenes, but the kid did alright for what his character allowed as written.
So far I’ve seen Chloe go toe-to-toe with the likes of a campy Nick Cage (Kick Ass) and outshine a couple of meekly written young boys (Let Me In, Hugo). I very much look forward to a role where she has the opportunity to really just let go and blow the lid off, without the camp.
I quite enjoyed it. It definitely championed the passion and enjoyment of creativity, and joy of doing what you love, even in not traditionally artistic endeavors.
If I didn’t know it was a Scorcese film I might have guessed it was a Jean Pierre Jeunet work.
The 3D was used pretty well, especially during the infinite corridor style shots. I was torn as to whether it was appropriate or not to give 3D depth to things that were 2D within the story (projections). But I ultimately accepted that conceit.
Dude, I asked the genre of the film and the general plot. That is not a lot to ask.
All the trailers I see on TV say ‘this is wonderful!’ (direct quote) without telling you anything else about the film. That goes for almost every film in the last couple of years. They usually give a hint about the genre, though not always.
Whoosh!
Can somebody please tell me if this is a fantasy film or not?
Zebra, thanks, but it’s just that I want to know what genre it is. ‘Heightened reality’ doesn’t tell me that. Is it a slightly surreal adventure story, where it’s all real-world but magnified, or the same but set in a world where talking penguins might swoop in and save our hero and nobody would think that the penguins talking was strange?
It sounds like a good film, but I don’t want it to be like Bridge to Terabithia that my daughter and I sat through wondering when they were going to get to this magical fantasy world. (The book was pretty much unknown in the UK and all the trailers were about the ‘Bridge’ - this has come up on this board before).
Chloe Moretz being in it has piqued my interest - she was amazing in Kick-Ass and this role looks so different for her.
It’s set in the real world, though a stylized version of the real world. Fantasy IS a big part of it, but it’s fantasy that’s created by human characters within the movie. In other words…
filmmakersDogs and Automatons and the moon don’t start talking. Though the moon does come alive at one point. But not in the real world.
OFF TOPIC (put in spoiler tags to minimize the exposure to the rant about threadshitting. [spoiler]You’re going to get on my case because I love movies? Look, I don’t go SEE movies I think I’ll hate, so you won’t see me giving low scores to shit like Jack and Jill and Sex and the City 14 because I haven’t seen them. For as many movies as I see (331 so far this year) I only talk about a handful even though I’ve probably liked/loved the majority of the films I see, because I chose them based on the fact that I thought I WOULD like them. Why should I spend time going on and on about a movie I hated (The Last Circus, there, happy?) when I’d rather talk/think about movies I liked? And people here have only heard about a fraction of them. I’ve barely even mentioned my 2nd favorite movie of the year so far, Beginners.
Man, it’s really no wonder that Cervaise and lissener and so many other movie lovers have abandoned the Dope. I don’t blame them at all.[/spoiler]
OK… I think I get what you mean. Hopefully I’ll get it more after seeing it.
But seriously (grumble, grumble) it is always helpful to know a little about the film you’re going to see. Especially for a movie like this - the kind you might watch with kids or family members as a fun (but quiet!) thing to do over the Christmas season. Good does not always equal wholesome family fun.
I narrowly missed taking my daughter and five of her friends to see Bridge to Terabithia on her birthday. Oh, what a joyful occasion that would have been.
You see I don’t want to call it a kid film. Most people would misunderstand that. Yes the plot is appropriate for children but the themes of the story are something only a true adult can really understand.
The film is from a child’s point of view. So somethings that are not scary to an adult are very scary to a child. Also a child sometimes does not realize when something is dangerous, like walking on catwalks high above the marble floor, but the kid doesn’t so those bits are not scary to him. It is also a ‘homage’ to silent films. Think Harold Loyd hanging off the clock. That kind of heightened reality.
It is a story about family. It is a story about how sometimes you have to quest for family. How you should remember the past but not be overwhelmed by it, for today is important too.
Now how do you put that into a two minute and thirty second trailer?