|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 14, 2017 15:56:56 GMT
I guess the info is of the kind of "we are the first to know" info but that's not necessarily quality info. It's the same with comic-book movies. They are all fan-boys cheering and attacking according to their teams.
We will see! I'm not saying they are wrong or right but they have always been prejudiced.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Jun 15, 2017 5:35:18 GMT
Most of them didn't like BC in the past, they seemed predisposed to dislike TIG. I'm assuming it's still many of the same people.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Jun 15, 2017 7:07:37 GMT
Ladies! Here is a review of TCW from SplashReport. No spoilers.
Hey guys big fan of the new site SplashReport and I wanted to pass along this review in case you’re interested.
This week I was able to attend a test screening of The Current War , starring Benedict Cumberbatch , Michael Shannon, Katherine Waterston, Tom Holland, Tuppence Middleton, and Nicholas Hoult directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon.
Make no mistake about it…this movie is about exactly what the title states…..currents…electrical currents and is slated for Oscar season in December 2017. The story is about the fierce competition between Thomas Edison & George Westinghouse as they try and create a sustainable electric system and market it to the American people.
It’s Edison’s (Cumberbatch) DC system vs Westinghouse (Shannon) and his AC system. The movie plays out with a political type of intrigue and portrays Edison as a man who is self absorbed and would compromise his own integrity by collaborating with others to portray the AC system as dangerous and unfit that would put the public at risk and end many lives . He went as far as to collaborate with others to promote Westinghouse’s own system as a means to power the new electric chair.
His end goal was to show that his rivals system was the best way to end lives and tried to prove that by publicly executing animals using the rival AC system. Edison used fear in an attempt to gain a market advantage over Westinghouse. With all of that said, his interactions with his family were the opposite. A good father , a loving husband to Mary Edison played wonderfully by Tuppence Middleton. One of the themes in the movie that also plays out on the Westinghouse side, is the importance of these strong, supporting wives to these truly remarkable and successful men.
Cumberbatch, who I have yet to see perform badly, was a great fit for the role and it will be interesting to see where he lands among the best acting categories when awards season rolls around.
I want to touch on Michael Shannon as George Westinghouse. He was great. He portrayed a man of high integrity, a good husband and a good friend. However he is pushed by Edison’s lack of integrity and that puts him in an internal conflict and this is where Shannon shines in the movie. What is a man to do when he’s constantly pushed to the brink? Constantly lied about and taunted in the media? Not many of us are cut from the same cloth as Ghandi.
He’s helped by a flashback sequence that plays out slowly through the duration of the movie. As I said earlier about Cumberbatch, it will be interesting to see where Shannon stands during the awards season. His scenes with his wife played by Katherine Waterston were all fantastic and showed how important she was in his decision making process.
Now let me get my fan boy on! Tom Holland plays Samuel Insull, who at this point in his career was Thomas Edison’s personal secretary and confidant. His screen time is limited but important and I’m excited to say this kid has acting chops! For those of us waiting in anticipation for the new Spider-Man I can say that I believe they made a great choice.
Nicholas Hoult plays Nikola Tesla and keeping with the themes above , I thought he was pretty damn good at it. I was a little put off by his performance when he was first introduced but it grew on me as the movie went on. In the interest of full disclosure I overheard 2 other attendees talking about how his accent wasn’t genuine and convincing enough.
Look…I’m a movie lover at heart but I’m definitely geared towards the horror/action/superhero genres. However, I watch all of the Oscar nominated movies each year and I will say that I feel a good portion, not all, are overrated. I have a good sense of what the Oscar voters are looking for and I’m going to say that this will be a flick that will be discussed and I will say that the performances will have to be discussed.
After a slow start to the movie I felt it bounced back powerfully with fantastic performances and I was entertained, intrigued, and educated by the film. It ran for about 2 hours and there is plenty of time before December to edit and shape the movie based on the feedback from the audience.
If you use this review you can call me Schwifty of the Leather Cloak. Sounds like The Current War is gonna get some nominations come award season.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 15, 2017 11:23:34 GMT
Here is the link: splashreport.com/first-review-current-war/That's why I hate award baity movies. One day is the worst thing ever and the other day is a really good movie. And I really can't trust in any of them! I'm tempted in checking if that site is always nice to Weinstein movies! But no! And we will not have professional, real reviews until the end of the year! It's worst than franchise in that those movies actually try to hide their products so leaks are more difficult. Sometimes indie movies work in their own leaks.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Jun 15, 2017 12:00:10 GMT
The review sounds great! I posted a comment.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jun 15, 2017 12:56:51 GMT
This is the problem I have with these reviews - they are only concerned with whether the movie or actors will get Oscar nominations. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think he says whether or not he actually liked it. To me, that's more important than pointing out that a certain type of performance will get noticed by Oscar voters. Since this guy prefers "horror/action/superhero", I would say that his taste and mine are not the same. I do like good horror movies, but it's been many years since there's been a good horror movie, so I wouldn't name it as a favourite genre. But I wouldn't go see even the best action movie ever made (if such a movie existed), and I've seen all the superhero movies that interest me, so I won't be seeing any more of those unless Benedict is in them.
I've always wondered what's so wrong with a movie started slowly. I don't need explosions and chases to keep me interested.
|
|
|
Post by caligirl on Jun 15, 2017 15:53:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jun 15, 2017 16:32:03 GMT
This is the problem I have with these reviews - they are only concerned with whether the movie or actors will get Oscar nominations. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think he says whether or not he actually liked it. To me, that's more important than pointing out that a certain type of performance will get noticed by Oscar voters. I don't know, I think the fellow was pretty clear that he enjoyed the film: "After a slow start to the movie I felt it bounced back powerfully with fantastic performances and I was entertained, intrigued, and educated by the film."By using words such as "powerfully", "fantastic", "entertained" and "intrigued" I certainly was under the impression he liked it. And although he did use the measuring stick of Oscar noms more than once, he also included a lot of mentions about themes, and characterisations, which shows at least he was willing to show his process for liking this movie (other than just saying something like "It sucked!!" Or "Boy, did it give me a woody!"). I am totally with you on not seeing anything wrong with movies starting slow (in fact, a lot of movies I love are almost glacial in pace) but I think maybe this fellow might not have been talking about car chases etc. I took that as being more a criticism about the performances of some actors (especially it seems in relationship to the slow start performance wise of Nicholas Hoult), because he mentioned it earlier in the review as being put off by it but changing his opinion as the movie went on. At least that is the way I read it. :-))
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Jun 15, 2017 17:14:27 GMT
I think that's what I meant: we have such different tastes that I don't think I could trust his opinion - even if he liked it.
The preview audience was obviously asked to provide feedback, so that's what his review sounds like to me.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Jun 15, 2017 17:38:42 GMT
I'm not giving too much credence to these early comments, although I'm pleased the later review (that probably shouldn't exist) is better than the comments from the AW people who also saw the screening and thought it was a car crash. In truth, though, although I don't want to think so, I've read the script now and I'm conscious that it's quite easy to see the negative possibilities. But having read it, it's also clear that some of the more negative comments on the AW board, by people who've claimed to have read it, are just unpleasantly presumptive for the sake of it (don't believe they've really read it). Roverpup, the slow start comments couldn't have been anything to do with Nicholas Hoult, because Tesla doesn't show up as a character until near the end. But from the script, I'm not at all surprised that the splashreport writer was a bit taken aback by how Tesla was portrayed. I know he was a bit of an odd bod, but he was portrayed in the script as almost comic relief. Didn't like that, and I can see problematic offense being taken, rather justifiably too.
|
|