criterionforum.org

Though I haven't seen her Broadway productions, the visuals she brought to Titus were astounding. And though I generally loathe musicals, I will probably be going to see this. The trailer is obviously cut for mainstream audiences and it's only until the last third that we get to see some real visual treats, but it's worth it.

Check it

Wow! Julie Taymor = Ken Russell?!

Thanks for the Heads up. I absolutely love musicals and that one looks fantastic. great trailer music and great visuals. The release date on imdb is Sept 28th. I really hope its a wide release.

I, for one, think this looks like a steaming pile of self-congratulatory Baby Boomer inanity. What aging Academy voter will be strong enough to resist a tender coming-of-age-in-the-Sixties story set to the music of the Beatles? Gross.

Matt wrote:I, for one, think this looks like a steaming pile of self-congratulatory Baby Boomer inanity. What aging Academy voter will be strong enough to resist a tender coming-of-age-in-the-Sixties story set to the music of the Beatles? Gross.

Agreed.

Is there any worse idea than an entire movie of musical numbers consisting of Beatles covers? Doubtful, though the last thirty seconds of the trailer makes me question why they bothered with the entire first part

domino harvey wrote:Is there any worse idea than an entire movie of musical numbers consisting of Beatles covers?

A Cirque du Soleil show scored with Beatles remixes?

domino harvey wrote:Is there any worse idea than an entire movie of musical numbers consisting of Beatles covers?

It's been done already...

domino harvey wrote:Is there any worse idea than an entire movie of musical numbers consisting of Beatles covers?

I can't think of any. I also think it's time for baby boomers to stop idolisng The Beatles as if they were the disciples of Christ. They were ok but do we have to worship them every day of our lives. They're a rock band but so were The Rolling Stones, The Clash, Sex Pistols etc. In many people's opinions, The Beatles were not the best rock band of all time.

This movie sounds like a stinker and given that Beatles fans are retired or working towards retirement, they no longer visit the cinema and prefer to stay home with their wheelchair access toilets and stairs, this will be box office poison.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Is there any worse idea than an entire movie of musical numbers consisting of Beatles covers?

It's been done already...

Aw, I thought you were gonna link to this. Eddie Izzard better work hard if he thinks he's going to be a better Mr. Kite than George Burns.

marty wrote:This movie sounds like a stinker and given that Beatles fans are retired or working towards retirement, they no longer visit the cinema and prefer to stay home with their wheelchair access toilets and stairs, this will be box office poison.

You're crazy if you think Beatles fans are pushing retirement age. I'm 27 and the majority of my peers are obsessed with the Beatles and prefer them by far to contemporary rock and roll bands. Fuck, my three-year-old niece knows most of their lyrics. Just look at the continuing strength of their back catalogue sales - even LOVE has sold almost 5 million copies worldwide in 2 months, and that's just another repackaging of the same old songs.

Having said that, the movie looks terrible. What's the point of covering Beatles songs anyway, especially in such watered-down, dull, note-faithful versions?

davidhare wrote:if you've never tripped to the White Album you've never lived.

Yes! I've lived!
4 friends, a barrel of homebrew, the White Album and a large bag of mushrooms. Good times!

rs98762001 wrote:Having said that, the movie looks terrible. What's the point of covering Beatles songs anyway, especially in such watered-down, dull, note-faithful versions?

It probably has to do with their extremely difficult licensing team (aka Apple Records) making their songs so cost prohibitive that the filmmakers had to go the covers route.

Unlike Cirque Du Soleil (proof alone that not all Beatles fans are in their wheelchairs shitting into their diapers), they can't charge $200 per head to see this film.

Saying the Beatles is your favorite band is like saying Citizen Kane is the Best Movie Ever: it may be true, but 95% of the people who express the opinion are simply parroting what others have told them.

As a side note, the Beatles were influential, sure, and were talented and cerebral and a very good band at times, but the Kinks were far more important for bands that matter today.

domino harvey wrote:Saying the Beatles is your favorite band is like saying Citizen Kane is the Best Movie Ever: it may be true, but 95% of the people who express the opinion are simply parroting what others have told them.

As a side note, the Beatles were influential, sure, and were talented and cerebral and a very good band at times, but the Kinks were far more important for bands that matter today.

Good point. I would also add The Clash, Sex Pistols, Siousxie and the Banshees, The Pixies and even The Rolling Stones (1968-1979 ONLY!!).

oh for sure a lot of those bands were influential, I was reaching more for a contemporary of the Beatles at their prime, though I think you're a little rough on the Stones by excluding their earlier stuff

Can't stand that fucking Taymor. Jesus she gives me hives.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

rs98762001 wrote:Having said that, the movie looks terrible. What's the point of covering Beatles songs anyway, especially in such watered-down, dull, note-faithful versions?

It probably has to do with their extremely difficult licensing team (aka Apple Records) making their songs so cost prohibitive that the filmmakers had to go the covers route.

Unlike Cirque Du Soleil (proof alone that not all Beatles fans are in their wheelchairs shitting into their diapers), they can't charge $200 per head to see this film.

I heard when they were trying to lay down the score and tracks for I Am Sam they went through hell to even be allowed cover versions, having quickly given up on getting the real deal.

The Stones are almost as difficult, which is why they were the only rock track omitted from the Tenenbaums cd. Andrew Oldham completely stuck it to the Verve when they did that Bitter Sweet Symphony or whatever.

And yet there's that Taxman ad...

My brother saw that Beatles Circue De Soleil show in Vegas a few weeks back and raved like a madman about how great it was, so there's no way I would bother with it. Same goes with this movie, though I confess I have enjoyed Titus more than once (the movie that is, not the forum member, though he seems fine too).

HerrSchreck wrote:Can't stand that fucking Taymor. Jesus she gives me hives.

I agree. I thought Titus was one of the most boring films ever but it seems all my gay friends love it. Don't know why.

Titus is worth seeing for Alan Cummings alone... come to think of it everything I've seen him in was worth seeing for him alone (with the exception of the L word, although he does steal every scene he's in). I'll be seeing this regardless of all your comments.

marty wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Can't stand that fucking Taymor. Jesus she gives me hives.

I agree. I thought Titus was one of the most boring films ever but it seems all my gay friends love it. Don't know why.

Interesting.... I must be gay, because I loved it too. Extremely astounding visuals, a strange combination of (very decadent) beauty and cruelty, and curiously, despite all the changes she made, a very faithful adaptation of that weakest of Shakespeare plays, of the relentless spirit of it. It's fun to see Hopkins doing his Lecter role in this different context again, too. I'm not so sure of her "Frida" film, though, which I found too much catering to a mainstream audience. But that also simply LOOKED great, and Selma Hayek alone could save any film... Looking forward to "Across the universe", then.

Tommaso wrote:Extremely astounding visuals, a strange combination of (very decadent) beauty and cruelty, and curiously, despite all the changes she made, a very faithful adaptation of that weakest of Shakespeare plays, of the relentless spirit of it.

Not a big Shakespeare film fan although I did enjoy The Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino and Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet is also very good. I know I am supposed to like Henry V by Kenneth Brannagh and Mel Gibson but I fell asleep during both films.

marty wrote:Not a big Shakespeare film fan although I did enjoy The Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino and Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet is also very good. I know I am supposed to like Henry V by Kenneth Brannagh and Mel Gibson but I fell asleep during both films.

Why are you supposed to like them?

marty wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Can't stand that fucking Taymor. Jesus she gives me hives.

I agree. I thought Titus was one of the most boring films ever but it seems all my gay friends love it. Don't know why.

So you have GAY friends. My,my! How f**king progressive of you !!
Pity it doesn't seem that the ranks of the disabled number amongst your coterie otherwise you wouldn't in your previous post have made an imbecilic remark about wheelchair access toilets. I visit the cinema at least twice a week and yes I use wheelchair access. Toilets and all.

Gotta love that Marty! Actually, he might give one the impression of being handicapped, if you consider having to type with both feet put firmly in mouth a handicap.