Seriously, and I am a sucker for these kind of movies. So for me to say it was mediocre, it means something. This is one of thse movies that had potential, and lost it for no obvious reason. Somehow there was just a complete lack of emotional of visceral intensity (both on the parts of the direction and acting) which lead me to gigle and/or squirm at the moments I should have been crying or elated. A pity....

Ack! Don't say that. There goes my anticipation for the film. Then again I was planning to wait till it hit DVD anyway, didn't really seem like it was worth a trip to the theater for it.

Damn. I was really looking forward to this film. Doesnt sound too good.

Will still see anything Norton is in though.

I like him as an actor, and usually enjoy his film selection (same with Watts), which is one of the reasons I went. But the entire time i was watching it I thought "He had better chemistry with Biel in Illusionist." Which is odd, because Watts is such a good actress, and both she and Norton are veterans, but it was shocking how flat both their performances were in Veil. I don't know if the director didn't give them enough leeway or what, but they both turned in weak performances, and romantic aspects of the movie (which where supposed to be the primary narrative) were almost laughable.

Laughable? That's not good at all.

Oh well. Maybe I'll like it better then you. I wasn't crazy over The Illusionist and you were a big fan, so there is hope. Heh.

hmm fair enough. There doesnt look to be alot of chemistry between them in the trailer I must admit. I havnt seen Illusionist so I can't compare to it as yet.

Dolce is one of the weird people on this site, I can say this because people like me and bradley and loyal and etc. are weird. I am repeatedly told so in privite . And the weird people's reviews should never be trusted by others on this site (even other weird people).

So I say, go to the movie without preconceptions.

This is not a strike against Dolce!

But my word is gold!

No really, the one thing I would say is not to watch this on DVD unless you have a big tv, etc. Its meant to be seen big screen like all the movies that are set in "sweeping" landscapes. Though really, the cinematography, given what it had to work with (Chinese landscape) was also uninspired. Still, what little there is should be seen in the large.

Roo doesn't listen to my reviews? And to think I was going to see Dreamgirls after you said it was actually good (I don't trust Loyal).

The opening credits of Veil were really good though. It just went downhill from there....

I'd say I'm in the "weird" camp too, though.

No! I totally love your reviews, but you see things in film that go over the heads of most people on WOKJ.

I'm sure you'll hate Dreamgirls

HOT! I'll just go sharpen my claws now in preperation.

Yeah, I've got $10 on you falling more in line with Levy. Hell, if he didn't like it and I wasn't crazy about it...

Like I said in my review, after a year of wanting to strangle the purveyors of "drama" I welcomed the color, grandeur, boisterous nature, general movement and joy in Dreamgirls. It is commercial, good and completely unpretentious in any way. I was primed for it, it's kind of what I wanted Idlewild to be (but it couldn't sustain itself).

Idlewild and Dreamgirls don't even belong in the same sentence together. Unless to say: Dreamgirls was good whereas Idlewild was one of the worst musicals ever made.

Heh.

But Dreamgirls is the experience I wanted from Idlewild. I wanted Idlewild to be more about music, dancing and have kind of a bright joyous tone, but it didn't, and that made uncle andaroo a sad panda.

I was really behind Idlewild, so I know what you are saying. I think as an artistic endevour it was actually much more creative than Dreamgirls probably is. Its just fell flat, fell apart, and somehow the studio got a hold of it. But Outkast really worked hard on the music and their dance pieces (which were the highlight). They just needed someone with an equal vision and enthusiasm for storytelling and script. It didn't happen, and the movie as a whole ended up being dreadful. Dreamgirls seems very much like studiofare to me, but mayhaps good, fun, studiofare. I was psyched for it last year until the atrocious marketting got a hold of me and just made everything seem second-rate and cut-cornered (is that a word?).

Veil never aimed at anything other than 'drama' and emotional intensity, and I was really hoping for a production that was like Merchant/Ivory at their peak, or Out of Africa, etc. Instead it was monotone and boring, unemotional, and yet everyone seemed to be working hard. There was nothing I could point to and say "that was weak, that was so wrong." I was just genuinely uningaged. A real shocker on Watts part, as she is very versatile, and could act against a blank screen, but apparently not opposite Norton.

Dreamgirls is very much studio fare, but I wouldn't call it second-rate and cut-cornered (!?) at all in its production. The marketing of Dreamgirls is a bit misleading in that sense, I would argee with that (I thought the original teasers sucked).

Yeah, Idlewild was best in its dance sequences, some of them were really fantastic actually.

Not that I hate the rest of WOKJ (well mostly!), but sometimes I just wish I had a hidden forum somewhere where the people who usually post in this forum could just go... so we didn't have to discuss things like The Hills Have Eyes every other day, like it deserves that much discussion.

Haha, The Hills Have Eyes is related to Dreamgirls and The Painted Veil in what way? Heh.

I'm trying to pin down exactly what I didn't find so endearing about Dreamgirls. I actually opted to not right a review on it because I just...couldn't pin down why I wasn't crazy about it. Maybe it was because I was so hyped going in that I got let down. That very well could be.

I'll need to view it again in the next few weeks and see if I can better encapsulate my thoughts perhaps.

I'm not seeing it unless you love it or it wins Best Picture.

I don't trust loyal, either. Even if we have way too much in common.

It is no Chicago. And certainly no Moulin Rouge! that much is certain. And I loved Chicago.

It's better than Chicago (it's not vapid and souless) but almost nothing could be better than Moulin Rouge!... that film changed the landscape too much and went to places where 99% of filmmakers are afraid to go (and pulled it off too!).

But then Moulin Rouge is the best film of the decade.

Heh, Moulin Rouge is certainly up there on my list. I think there have been a few good films this decade (a few)...all on different levels so I don't think I'll label it as "the best" (it is all relative anyway).

And I liked Chicago. It was just ... fun.

Yow! You guys are on some crazy threadcrapping fiesta tonight, eh?!?

(PS: Moulin Rouge is indeed the best picture of the decade...)