leonardcohenforum.com

Kush,

I used to like Pacino very much and he certainly has an incredible body of work with more to come, I'm sure. But dont' you think he's starting to look kinda creepy? He used to be such a handsome man. What does Hollywood do to these people?

I can't see (I should say 'hear') him in a Shakespearean movie. But then I didn't think Mel Gibson could do it either. I think the jury's still out on Gibson, but at least he wasn't laughed at. I think there are a few others that are now trying their hand with the Bard.

Cheers,

Linda.

Jurica...atleast we seem to agree on Tarantino.

Pacino is a talented actor so I think he can be very versatile. He fills into the role of Shylock very nicely indeed. IMO, he saved the movie.

Did anyone see Pacino in "Looking for Richard"? An interesting film about making a film about another Shakespearian character. And a good job he made of it too.

Linda, I think it's just a case of age not treating some as well as others! I wouldn't have said creepy, maybe gaunt

Yes, Margaret, you are right. I should not have called Mr. Pacino creepy.
But he does look a bit ... ok gaunt will do.

"Looking for Richard" is a film I've not even heard of! Must be a new film that went straight to the video store???

Kush- I am surprised you are not a fan of Tarantino's. I compleately adore him- the 2 Kill Bill movies were so great- a real masterpiece. Every scene so artisticly compleate and stylish. I've watched them like 10 times always enjoying better then anything I've seen in years.
The most I liked the scene with Lucy Liu- where she lift's up the chopped head of her enemy, speaking ever so softly and than escalating to full horror and her face turns to Medusa Gorgona- the classic Greek image Tarantino's using - just brilliant.
The blood "showers" also are very stylish- there is a distance from realism, more like a metafore to blood.
Linda- I agree with you on Al Pacino. I think he was at his best in "Scarface" When in Godfather- he was young and had that look, but in Scarface he was a real actor.
I never thought he is a good actor- he's just got his fame and is in that league. Some 5 years ago there was a celebration of Godfather in Castro Theater, which is 10 min walk down the street from where I live- since all the Coppolas live quite near- the celebration was to be there. All the Coppola's were there and the huge Hollywood crowd. Sure I did walk down to see what's happening. I saw Al Pacino getting out of limo, and he was so small, such a tiny little guy. but he was friendly and waving at as as we were cheering. Of course- most of the us crowd- there were the gay guys, who don't care for Pacino much anyway, so the glamour girls got more of the cheering.
I Do love Tarantino very much, he is a great artist, the best.

This might be the explaination Linda

http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000563.html

hugs from Cia

Cia, I think you nailed it. Surely, the pic on the left is not the same man!! Can't be. I've been a Pacino fan for years. I guess more years than I care to remember! Maybe more years than Al cares to remember. Truly, truly, uh...gaunty.

Linda.

tks for link.

linda_lakeside wrote:Ah, so. I guess we're not talking about the same Truffeau?

It takes a few good people to prove one idiot tom the fool he is. The spelling, of course is "Truffaut"...
Somehow Trudeau must've overlaid the director in my mind, the overwhelming presence of Canajuns . But though I felt something was wrong I didn't bother to check my spelling, so fatefully sure of myself.

Mea culpa

tom

tom, I am proud to be a member of the "Never Check Your Spelling" club. Like it told someone here before, I have a whole dictionary of misspelled words which I wrote myself.

No fool you.

Linda.

Linda -

Yes, yes.

bee made the real point about Quentin Tarantinop, I think. She wrote: "Every scene so artisticly compleate and stylish."

That's Tarantino's strength, and that's his weakness. He's artistically complete - yes he learned the trade, and he knows every gesture, every cut, every shot. Thus he's "perfect", "complete".

Still I'd say he's less marvellous than say Peckinpah. Sam didn't stop at being "artificially complete", he used - and I feel the difference when looking at their movies - the "stylishness" to attain something different, some indescribable "super-goal", while Quentin seems to comfortably settle in his superior "technique".

It's quite hard for someone who doesn't really know about movie-making even to hint at the difference. But when I look at a Tarantino film, I feel that the director suffices himself with perfection, while in a Peckinpah film I always "smell" the "thus far I could take you, the rest of the road is yours".

Sorry if I again rather messed up things...

tom

I believe I understand the "stylishness", the "technique" as opposed to what one might "sense" or "smell". One comes off like posturing the other is from the dread word, heart. Something innate that the director brings rather than learns. Still, Quentin, baby, does have his good days.

Linda.

No doubt, he has, Linda. He's great. I didn't want to put Quentin down. I only think that he's got still some way to go.

And this, be it noted, is just a laymam's view. I don't know too much about film-making, I just am bold enough to raise my amateur's voice where those who know the trade fear to tread...

: tom

I don't claim to know a lot about film either. I'm one of those "I don't know art, but dammit, I know what I like!" sorts of people. However, and I say this with much gratitude, I know you may not agree with what I say, but you'll fight to the death for my right to say it. Thanks.

Linda.