MovieChat Forums > Lone Star (1996) Discussion > Lacked a certain visual style..

Lacked a certain visual style..

posted 10 years ago by henriz1-1
14 replies | jump to latest

..to balance the (mostly) interesting storyline. This film had maybe one too many characters. The lady private as a character was mostly annoying and her interactions with the officers didn't perfectly resemble army reality. Wearing a cap inside the colonels office ?? But as a whole Lone Star is a finely written film with very good characters.

I was mainly disappointed in the overall looks and how the camera moved in a way of an old TV movie. The audio mixing was awful at times. Guns sound like pea shooters, dialog gets buried under background music. The film would have benefited greatly from a more accomplished cinematographer. Better yet a more visual director. I know it might sound bit commercial but as a rarity, the story certainly was there but the visuals weren't.

Harry: Well yeah, there was like an 8% chance.
Perry: Eight? Who taught you math!

[–] jellyree 10 years ago

IGNORE

[–] JellyFish19 10 years ago

Fully agree, great story told somewhat stale way. After seeing this film I can perfectly understand why The Washington Post said that the director was stagnant and that his directing style hasn't grown much beyond that of a first-year film student.

[–] srklondie 10 years ago

" The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions "

[–] ciocio-2 10 years ago

If the Post was saying John Sayles was stagnant, with a style not "much beyond that of a first-year film student," at the time LONE STAR was released, they were pretty crazy, and unusual for that opinion, I believe. I found the rather simple, straightforward look of this movie perfectly effective for its story. It is true that John Sayles tends not to use many unusual stylistic technical elements, but many of us love that simple, unadorned storytelling, that puts the focus so strongly on the actors/characters and their emotions and interactions. It may well come, to some degree, out of the parameters of very small budgets (or not; I'm sure that if Sayles had some unusual effect in mind, he could probably make it happen), but it's a nice change these days, within the spectrum of cinema styles.

Multiplex: 100+ shows a day, NONE worth watching. John Sayles' latest: NO distribution. SAD.

[–] Kompressor_Fan 9 years ago

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars out of 4 at the time.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lone-star-1996

 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chiaro_di_luna 10 years ago

Disagree completely. The cinematography and score were just perfect for the story. You could feel the place. That is to say, I could.

[–] GunsGirlsCars 10 years ago

Did you bother to watch the movie while giving your boyfriend...?
Did movie had everything. Drama, sex, gun play, old folks, young folks and the music was spot on.
You know, you belong to the West Hollywood crowd yanking on TSR or something. In case you missed it? It was a perfect 'Western Payton Place" for the ages.
How much more did you want other than some latent horseplay?

[–] chester-copperpot-1 9 years ago

So, when are you going into film making?

Looking forward to your next installment: Irrelevant Diatribes - Part II. Doing the direct to DVD-circuit very soon...

[–] spot-3 9 years ago

...which just means that it has a different style, right? Apparently it's one that you don't appreciate, but that many others find refreshing with its unobtrusive timelessness. It may seem "old" to you, but there's a reason some artistic choices thrive through the ages, because their style is universally resonant, not faddish. Just another humble and subjective opinion, but if you applied your theory to some other films posted on this thread "Last Picture Show, Chinatown, etc...) it would change their style to be more "noticeable," but I bet they'd have been forgotten much sooner. Sometimes the best thing artists can do is to get out of the way of telling the story, allowing it to speak for itself, without calling attention to their fabulous stylistic choices. The bolder style of filmmakers like Burton, Tarrantino, and Luhrmann,(to name a few) works for the stories that they're telling, but I think that it would overwhelm stories grounded in complicated characters, like this one.

[–] Ironman54 9 years ago

"The audio mixing was awful at times."

Did you watch this on a newer flat screen TV or did ya see it in a movie theatre ?
I've noticed that my Panasonic plasmas built in sound makes the back ground music bury the dialogue. At times I can barely hear them speak and it sounds like I'm playing music instead of watching TV. I have a separate sound system that takes care of the problem
(work around). Not all shows/movies are affected, some more than others.
I'm thinking that maybe the struggle you had hearing may have colored your impression of the film (I have yet to see it myself). Just a thought....

[–] leighant 8 years ago

Original post said that gunshots sounded like peashooters. Uh, a lot of the time, gunshots DO sound like peashooters. Not always. But viewers of modern action/ adventure movies used to such overblown melodramatic sound that anything that isn't so over the top (of the audio meter) is considered unrealistic?

[–] Elder_Yautija 8 years ago

Eheh. Well put. :)

I might add, just because Tarantino had a lot of success doesn't mean every other director has to begin making movies in his flashy style.
The WP and the OP are both brainwashed by modern standards of 'lookitme, lookitme!' Hollymood directors who need to be flashy to make up for the absence of story in their films. That's not John Sayles, so just go watch someone else's films.

[–] dbeane 8 years ago

I was mainly disappointed in the overall looks and how the camera moved in a way of an old TV movie.

I agree. It came across visually like a TV movie - I was thinking a feature-length episode of In the Heat of the Night, only it was "Darktown", not "The Bottoms".