Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight.
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight.
This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.)
This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.
There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.)
This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.
There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.
That's definitely Romeo + Juliet. Original by William Shakespeare. Also, hi, I'm still here.
Obviously the newer version. I've only seen the 1968 film. But a quick IMDb search shows that WordHusky is correct.
George
Of course he's correct.
It contains all the original dialogue, but with a modern setting. The opening narration is delivered on an evening newscast, with modern images. "Two houses, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona, where we lay our scene..." We see two conglomerates, rival companies, Montague and Capulet, both based in Verona Beach, California. John Leguizamo was cast as the hot-blooded Tybalt, Juliet's cousin and starter of fights. All the lines are understood due to visuals. As the young turks draw their pistols on each other, the camera zooms in to the side of one pistol- "SWORD 9 MM". Then the line "Put up your swords!" has an obvious meaning. In the riot early in the story, Old Montague (Dennehy) is in an armored limo, with a rifle holstered to the roof. "Hand me my Long Sword." The news handles the opening and closing of the story, as does the narration.
High school students should have no trouble understanding the scenes, even if the Elizabethan dialogue gives them trouble. The brand names explain terms and expressions- pistols by "Sword", the FedEx-like mailing service called "Post-Haste" for "I shall send it Post-Haste", and so on. The original play is defined as a tragedy. I would like to see some other Shakespearean plays get a similar treatment. David Tennant's run of Hamlet with the RSC resembled that, with Hamlet in a castle that included security cameras. (I hear the Hawke version was moreso.) But there's lots of other plays waiting for modern audiences who would appreciate them re-visualized in modern settings.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
1014
549
1069
273
Popular Days
Oct 12
17
May 25
15
May 12
14
May 8
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 1,014 posts
Raf 549 posts
WordWolf 1,069 posts
Human without the bean 273 posts
Popular Days
Oct 12 2018
17 posts
May 25 2021
15 posts
May 12 2014
14 posts
May 8 2014
12 posts
Popular Posts
Human without the bean
Why didn't you say that 2 days ago Mr. Wolf? Your right Rottie, They are pretty good. Makes it tough on me to get my 2 cents in.
Human without the bean
I was way off going with "The Terminal", except that it didn't have any articles of clothing in the title. I assume WordWolf is correct, but I'm not familiar with it. But that's not unusual.
GeorgeStGeorge
Stallone. Also well-known for reprising his Rocky role. I can't see him in Eddie Murphy's role in BHC, though... George
Posted Images
WordWolf
No.
(The original author, AFAIK, is more famous than in your guess.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight.
This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
This sounds vaguely familiar, if only because some of the clues remind me of ones you've used before. Not getting it yet.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Can you narrow SOMETHING down? Can you limit the possible answers in some way, to some category, or some author?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.)
A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.)
This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.
There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordHusky
That's definitely Romeo + Juliet. Original by William Shakespeare. Also, hi, I'm still here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Obviously the newer version. I've only seen the 1968 film. But a quick IMDb search shows that WordHusky is correct.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of course he's correct.
It contains all the original dialogue, but with a modern setting. The opening narration is delivered on an evening newscast, with modern images. "Two houses, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona, where we lay our scene..." We see two conglomerates, rival companies, Montague and Capulet, both based in Verona Beach, California. John Leguizamo was cast as the hot-blooded Tybalt, Juliet's cousin and starter of fights. All the lines are understood due to visuals. As the young turks draw their pistols on each other, the camera zooms in to the side of one pistol- "SWORD 9 MM". Then the line "Put up your swords!" has an obvious meaning. In the riot early in the story, Old Montague (Dennehy) is in an armored limo, with a rifle holstered to the roof. "Hand me my Long Sword." The news handles the opening and closing of the story, as does the narration.
High school students should have no trouble understanding the scenes, even if the Elizabethan dialogue gives them trouble. The brand names explain terms and expressions- pistols by "Sword", the FedEx-like mailing service called "Post-Haste" for "I shall send it Post-Haste", and so on. The original play is defined as a tragedy. I would like to see some other Shakespearean plays get a similar treatment. David Tennant's run of Hamlet with the RSC resembled that, with Hamlet in a castle that included security cameras. (I hear the Hawke version was moreso.) But there's lots of other plays waiting for modern audiences who would appreciate them re-visualized in modern settings.
So, it's WordHusky's turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.