Again, with the late reviews! Anyway, after much anticipation and good word of mouth, we finally went to see Cold Mountain this weekend. It definitely lived up to what we had heard. I thought it was extremely well-done. Obviously there were a couple of scenes that probably didn't need to be in there, but on the whole it was outstanding.
Jude Law is flat-out cool. I thought he did an excellent job. In fact, acting on the whole in this movie was wonderful. I have to say though, I think Renee Zellwegger is over-hyped. I mean, sure she did a fine job. But I would disagree that it was this "great performance". I think she had a lot to work with, a screwball role that made her look good. And let's face it, she probably even overacted a bit. In my opinion, it is far tougher to play a more subdued role, like Sean Penn in Mystic River. I think being able to just be wacky shouldn't be rewarded in Hollywood as much as it is.
Anyways, the movie was very very good. The scenery was beautiful, the cinematography was excellent, the soundtrack, acting, etc. were first-rate. And the thing that Minghella (I like all of his movies, by the way) did was not to paint one side as good, and one side as bad (North vs. South that is), which stays true to the book. He really just paints war as absolutely horrific. It does something to mens' souls, and it affects EVERYONE. There is a scene with Natalie Portman, where Lacey and I almost lost it. It is incredibly heartbreaking to watch. The whole movie is obviously very sad, but not overly so, like Monster apparently, so that you walk out of the movie ready to give up on life. I was happy about that. I think they achieved a good balance between cheesy happy ending (which isn't allowed in a Civil War movie...the subject matter doesn't lend to that), and downright depressing.
I would highly recommend the movie, and while it wasn't the best movie of last year, I can now put out my top movies of 2003. Stay Tuned.
Cold Mtn. sucked. Minghella is a hack.
Posted by: JosiahQ at February 9, 2004 11:52 AMor perhaps you're just jaded from monster? care to elaborate? obviously you're dead wrong about the movie and about minghella, just wondering why the hostility.
Posted by: Uncle Josh at February 9, 2004 12:44 PMCold Mtn. was hollywood fluff, a movie shamelessly pandering to snag the Oscar. Monster certainly didn't leave me jaded, at least not anything having anything remotely to do with Cold Mtn. that's just kindof bizarre. I saw Cold Mtn. over Christmas, and it was a hack job.
Posted by: JosiahQ at February 9, 2004 07:42 PMi'm glad you can berate a movie without giving any evidence whatsoever as to even having seen it. i mean, i believe you saw it, but you merely make all these accusations without going into any kind of detail at all. that's pretty weak. just some pretentious diatribe where you seem to think that we should be "above" movies that try and win oscars (i admit that can be a flaw of a movie, but i think it's stupid to just put it in that category and leave it). it sounds like you are just bitter...i don't know. maybe you tried to get minghella's autograph at some movie convention, and he snubbed you. i'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but maybe you can run down the elements of a good film for me, and show why cold mountain failed. the cinematography/landscapes/etc? beautiful. the acting? very good. the script? not perfect, but certainly passable at worst. the plot? it IS based off a book, remember, and from what i hear it remains pretty close. the soundtrack? pretty, fitting, and not overpowering. emotions evoked? you're damn right. i think the insights into war and what it does to people were excellent. so what exactly is wrong with cold mountain, without making baseless accusations of oscar-mongering? it may not be one of the greatest movies of all time, but sheesh.
Posted by: Uncle Josh at February 10, 2004 12:05 AMJosh, there's little difference between the following assertions:
1. Cold Mtn. was a crappy movie
2. Cold Mtn. had great cinematography
both are opinion, neither of which are *apparently* backed up with actual reasons.
Which was the entire point of my comment.
Your most recent comment is starting to approach an actual film review. You're discussing deeper aspects of the movie, talking about its source material, admitting it's Oscar mongering but pointing out that it doesn't mean the film is bad per se.
I'm certain that you and I will always disagree on whether not we thought Cold Mtn. was a good film, but what annoyed me, and what usually annoys me is when you're not more thoughtful about your opinions.
So, if my goading was over the line, I apologize.
I still can't help but feel the movie sucked for it's utter predictability. The Law - Kidman sex-reunion at the end was completely inevitable, so I felt little tension in that regard, and the cameo tour-de-force throughout the rest of the film was shameless. I also can't get over two foreigners playing Southerners, and Minghella is from the UK. It makes me skeptical that they're going to "get" the love of the South that people have, and having watched the film, I feel that Mignhella didn't "get it." The film felt frenetic, disoriented, with little sense of itself or its purpose.
Which is why I think it sucked.
Posted by: JosiahQ at February 10, 2004 10:44 AMHaven't seen Cold Mtn. first of all, but when I read Josiah's statement that the movie mainly existed to win an Oscar, I couldn't help but respond. That's Miramax's entire reason for existence. They're the ones who pushed these late December release dates, and the heavy marketing of movies geared completely towards the Oscar race. I mean, I would be completely astonished if Miramax was to act any differently.
Posted by: scott cunningham at February 10, 2004 12:32 PMwhere do i begin? first of all, there is a big difference between my opinions and your (initial) opinions. i wrote that i thought cold mountain was a good movie, and backed it up with reasons for thinking that. were they opinions of mine? sure. but at leas i gave them. your comments, on the other hand, were given merely (apparently) to "goad", and had nothing there. you were attacking the movie for no apparent reason. again, big difference.
now, i do thank the high and mighty film reviewer for his condescension that i might actually be starting to review the film with my latest comments. but, oh, wait a minute, i couldn't care less. when i blog about movies, it is not to give a "film review". basically, i don't have time for that. i merely wish to tell the people that read this blog my opinions on the movies that i see. but beyond that, i will say that in my original post, as well as in the comments, i "discuss deeper aspects of the movie, and talk about its source material." for instance (this is from the original): "the thing that Minghella (I like all of his movies, by the way) did was not to paint one side as good, and one side as bad (North vs. South that is), which stays true to the book. He really just paints war as absolutely horrific. It does something to mens' souls, and it affects EVERYONE." now, did i go into exact detail, and really delve into it? no. but that's not my job. i'm sorry if that doesn't please you, but oh well. i never claimed to be a movie reviewer. i save my more "thoughtful" opinions for conversation. and if i ever DO become a film reviewer (highly unlikely), i'll hold to a higher standard. i'm sorry you get annoyed, but if that's the case, just don't read my blog. i never asked your opinion on the matter.
and hey, at least you finally voiced your reasons why you didn't like the movie. that, i respect. i disagree, of course, but that is to be expected. you certainly have a point about the UK actors playing southerners, but minghella wasn't trying to make a movie conveying a deep love of the south. he was making a movie about how war affects everyone involved and changes people. from what i understand, that was also the point of the book (although, i admit not having read it). everyone i have talked to has seen that as the major theme of the movie. to say things like "The film felt frenetic, disoriented, with little sense of itself or its purpose" is to suggest that you are merely throwing out important-sounding phrases, and that minghella isn't the one who didn't "get it". i would say you didn't "get it". i mean, much of the movie was slow-paced, rather than frenetic (the guy i saw it with even complained about that). anyways, i could go on, but this is a marathon post.