I, unlike the rest of the world apparently, found the movie to be quite beautiful. Piece by piece, you can see the beginnings of a masterpiece. Admittedly, as a whole, the film falls short, but the grandeur of the images–combined with the score (as you mention) are reason alone to watch the film. Even the story is intriguing to me, though obviously more shallow than what Aronofsky probably was shooting for (or hoped to achieve at least) and perhaps little heavy on the ambiguity. Jackman was great (as he usually is) and I personally just love seeing conquistadors pop up in any situation.
Also, as I understand it, all the effects were analog, or in-camera. No digital at least.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I, unlike the rest of the world apparently, found the movie to be quite beautiful. Piece by piece, you can see the beginnings of a masterpiece. Admittedly, as a whole, the film falls short, but the grandeur of the images–combined with the score (as you mention) are reason alone to watch the film. Even the story is intriguing to me, though obviously more shallow than what Aronofsky probably was shooting for (or hoped to achieve at least) and perhaps little heavy on the ambiguity. Jackman was great (as he usually is) and I personally just love seeing conquistadors pop up in any situation.
Also, as I understand it, all the effects were analog, or in-camera. No digital at least.
The film is beautiful to look at and I think you’re right there’s the beginnings of a great film in there somewhere.
Yes… conquistadors (except for Aguirre) should be more prevalent.