criterionforum.org

james wrote:it's by the guy who did Chicago and that's all I need to know.

Yeah, really.

It looks like an issue of Italian Vogue.

No interest in this. Now, if someone made a musical based on the scifi film Guido was making in 8 1/2, I might see that.

Not a fan of 8.5 or Fellini (although it's watchable, unlike most of his others). I literally vomited right after watching this trailer. No joke. It's possible it was an ailment of some kind, unrelated to the trailer, but I don't think so...

As a Fellini completist I can't see myself missing this, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Perhaps it will even inspire a renewed interest in the Maestro's work amongst a new generation of moviegoers.

I also don't understand the hate for Chicago. (Granted, the "Be Italian" thing does look a wee embarrassing, but I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt.)

That trailer took me straight to CRINGETOWN.

Tark's computer screen is going to be messy once he sees that latest trailer.

Well I'm holding back until I see it. But unlike a lot of people here my trepidation stems not from a love of 8 1/2, but from a love of the musical play. The show has one of the few great post-golden age scores not written by Stephen Sondheim and has been staged in New York twice... wonderfully so in 1982 and less wonderfully--though still effectively--in 2003. It is worth remembering that the film Nine is not really a remake of 8 1/2 but a movie adaptation of a Broadway musical. I had a little fantasy about a film version of this piece reuniting Antonio Banderas (who starred on stage in the 2003 edition) with Almodovar who would have made it entirely his own. After thinking of Almodovar, Rob Marshall is more than a little bit of a come down.

It is interesting to note that of all the famous European art-house directors of the '50's & '60's, Fellini has been used as fodder for stage musicals the most... at least three times (La Strada... which was a flop; Nights of Cabiria/Sweet Charity and 8 1/2/Nine). In addition stage director Hal Prince referred to his staging of Stephen Sondheim's Follies as his 8 1/2.

mckeldinb wrote:I had a little fantasy about a film version of this piece reuniting Antonio Banderas (who starred on stage in the 2003 edition) with Almodovar who would have made it entirely his own. After thinking of Almodovar, Rob Marshall is more than a little bit of a come down.

Well yes, because Rob Marshall is no better than any minimally competent music video director. He's afraid to let the musical and dancing speak for themselves, so he tarts the numbers up with lots of flashy editing. I'm actually not opposed to strong visual effects during musical numbers--Baz Luhrmann does it very well in Moulin Rouge. But Rob Marhall's style is merely soulless and slick. Even Saturday Night Live and SCTV could do decent parodies of perfume commericials, so I'm not at all impressed with the gloss on display in the trailer.

If you look at Almodovar's films, he has much more interesting and elegant ideas about composition and color. I love the eccentric theatrical performances he stages in his films, such Cocteau's The Human Voice in Law of Desire. He's also not afraid to let shots play out a little longer when necessary. He respects the integrity of an actor's performance. Baz Lurhmann would also do better--at least he'd be visually creative. And he's done opera.

Based on the trailer, I can see European Fecal Standards and Measurements in Zürich monitoring this baby's emergence very closely.

Cde. wrote:Um...

There is a fair amount to like in the film-- and that song/dance/scene is about the last thing around which I would have centered the trailer.

What really gets me is that the marketing (particularly this TV spot) reveals a film that very strongly resembles 8½, yet Fellini is not given a credit.

How did you find the film, neal?

Cde. wrote:How did you find the film, neal?

Marion Cotillard's song in the first act is fantastic. Kate Hudson's character seems pointless and her song is cringe-worthy (as the trailer evidences), though it's mildly visually entertaining. Fergie and Cruz do fairly well with what they're given. Marshall's use of all of the characters standing in silhouette in doorways singing extra-textual group numbers is a bit played out. Kidman's forgettable.

Overall, it's a film that is likely to be remembered for and succeed/fail based on your enjoyment of the performances, as the "plot" and its execution is nothing relevatory. Cotillard was fantastic-- her first number most of all, and Day-Lewis' first ten minutes on screen had my rapt attention. Beyond that and a few bright spots here and there, nothing particularly noteworthy.

If the right 10 minutes were trimmed from the movie, I imagine that it would feel a lot less clunky.

What really gets me is that the marketing (particularly this TV spot) reveals a film that very strongly resembles 8½, yet Fellini is not given a credit.

Regarding that, a friend and I walked into the movies the other day and passed a poster advertising Nine. She said that she wanted to see it and I mentioned that she should see its source first. I explained that it was based on an Italian art film titled 8 1/2. She laughed at me. She thought I was making a joke.

The film was a train wreck. Only Cotillard survived.

I can't believe someone interpreted 8 1/2 as a morality tale where infidelity and lack of good Christian values will make you creatively impotent.

R0lf wrote:I can't believe someone interpreted 8 1/2 as a morality tale where infidelity and lack of good Christian values will make you creatively impotent.

The line at the end when he says what he'd have to make his next film about… ](*,)

I don't think Cottilard survived the movie either. If only because her character was written as a shrew jealous of her husbands career because she gave up her own.

I am curious for those that say this is a film version of the musical how close this actually plays to it. Considering that the spoken part of the film was scene by scene a remake of 8 1/2. A remake completely lacking any of the warmth, character, humour, intelligence, themes or humanity of the original. This is most apparent in their turning the movie around into a morality tale without actually saying anything on either infidelity, Christianity or creativity. Instead playing out each part of the movie and linking them together just *because*. Its particularly apparent how badly they inverted the story from the original because the only major scene really left out of Nine was Guido's harem scene which if included would have contradicted his moral lesson.

Oh and Nicole's new lips look dreadful. They are so bad that for her close ups they filmed her half turned away so you could not see them .

R0lf wrote:I don't think Cottilard survived the movie either. If only because her character was written as a shrew jealous of her husbands career because she gave up her own.

Oh, her character's terribly written. She's simply the only cast member who got through the musical numbers without embarrassing herself and losing all my respect.

nsps wrote:Oh, her character's terribly written. She's simply the only cast member who got through the musical numbers without embarrassing herself and losing all my respect.

Basically my feeling as well, as Cotillard had the one moment in the film that actually affected me (during her audition).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone else "lost my respect," though. When a whole cast is bad, that's a clear-cut case of "blame the director" to me.

On the other hand, Kate Hudson doesn't have much respect from me anyway, Fergie hasn't acted enough for me to know one way or the other ... so, I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that I don't hold Cruz's performance against her. Or Kidman's, since she was so ludicrously miscast that she never really had a chance.