Charlie Rose

learnerWP  01/26/2012 01:45 AM Report

I don't remember ever seeing an interview with this incredible man. He has such dignity and humility. This is one of my favorite conversations Charlie has had. I'm very pleased that I know about the character of this great actor. Thanks, Charlie. I love the way you get people to open up. I can always notice the balancing you must do to succeed, it never seems awkard. :)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/24/2012 10:12 PM Report

What a great body of work we saw! When I saw Max as Jesus I was shocked that was the same guy who I have seen through the decades.

So how did Bergman do theater versus film when he was doing both in one year. We heard Max say, 'Theater is teamwork; film work is dominated by the Director. Theater is all there (no trailer, no shooting out of sequence) and direct contact with the audience and no editing of what you just did.

So did Bergman follow the two different paths when we heard Max say he would write in Winter, shoot a film in Spring, do two stage plays in Summer and edit in Autumn?

Or was making a Bergman film as enjoyable as doing Bergman theater?

REMant  01/24/2012 12:45 PM Report

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" is based on the novel of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer. It is not connected with the award-winning 2010 animated film "The Renter." IMDB says: "A nine-year-old amateur inventor, Francophile, and pacifist searches New York City for the lock that matches a mysterious key left behind by his father, who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

I won't watch it, because I have a strong aversion not only to fiction about real events, but also to films exploiting children to make their points, and this has him "suffering" from "autism" as well, and a guy who supposedly lived through the Dresden apocalypse. I also have an aversion to Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock.

Most of the critics and the IMDb reviews not too surprisingly ate it up, tho a few of the latter absolutely hated it, e.g.: "Bad script + bad direction = pathetic movie. Dry, isolated, insulated characters. No real emotion at all: they tried to push your buttons but couldn't find them. Too long, disjointed, relying on narration, monologues and music. And talking heads. I could probably count on my fingers the number of times Bullock was actually in the same shot with the kid. The overall effect was to cut the characters off from each other, and cut the audience off from the film. Bullock was on camera maybe five minutes max. Hanks, ten. It was as if she had booked this film to do in three days shooting, not a moment more. The best scenes in the film were all Von Sydow's -- and his character doesn't speak. They sell the films as if it is some sort of award winning effort. There isn't enough marketing savvy in the Hollywood to sell that puppy. Or maybe there is. I bought a ticket and really intended to like it. But there was nothing to like."

And another: "Stephen Daldry who gave us "Billy Elliot" tries the story of a boy against the odds once again, for profit, I guess. Wrong! Unforgivable really. To use 9/11 to strap tears out of the audience. How dare you? A comedy would have been more appropriate. Here, nothing works. I was embarrassed, I had to look away. That kid! Oh my God, that kid! Are we supposed to feel for him? Not even under the devastating circumstances I could warm up to him. Shrill is the word who comes to mind. There are little moments with Max Von Sydow that seem to belong to a different movie, and okay but the rest. What a miscalculated attempt to scoop a buck from an unsuspecting audience. Shame on you!"