A "review" of Blood Diamond

JosephC wrote: Ted C. at E! weighs in with a negative on Leo at his gossip site. Thanks, Ted! Yes, Ted C., a man who's command of the English language makes the eyes glaze over. Can anyone understand what he writes anyway? I didn't know that gossip columns were written in secret code. And I'm sure Ted knows exactly what the accent of a white orphaned Zimbabwian who's lived in South Africa and Angola would sound like. And I'm sure he'd seen the movie before he wrote that. Ted being the fairminded journalist that he is. But, Abstract, you're right, DiCaprio probably doesn't care and, surely, neither should we. Ted did seem a bit bitchy to DiCaprio however. He must have been on his period. Maybe cranberry juice would help.

Another honor for Djimon The Washington, DC Area Film Critics Association (WAFCA) has announced winners of its 2006 awards, and the harrowing Universal-released, Paul Greengrass-directed drama was named Best Film, Whitaker was named Best Actor, Mirren was named Best Actress, Scorsese for Best Director and Arndt for Best Original Screenplay. Blood Diamond's Djimon Hounsou was named Best Supporting Actor and Dreamgirls' Jennifer Hudson won for Best Supporting Actress. Jason Reitman won the Best Adapted Screenplay award for Thank You For Smoking, Happy Feet won for Best Animated Feature, An Inconvenient Truth won for Best Documentary and Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth won for Best Foreign-Language Film -- the second win of the day following the Boston Film Critics honoring del Toro's masterwork a few hours ago. The Little Miss Sunshine posse won for Best Acting Ensemble, Jennifer Hudson won for Best Breakthrough Performance and Marie-Antoinette won for Best Art Direction.

Well since no one else is reviewing Blood Diamond here right now....thought I'd put my 2 cents worth in: At first I was tempted not to see the movie because the early word of mouth seemed to have more than a bit of negative tinge to it. However, I could not have been more surprised by a film. Not that it wasn't flawed, mind you, it was. The storytelling did get sloppy from time to time and while I liked Jennifer Connelly and Leo's chemistry in the film -- sometimes things got laid on just a bit thick, but points were made anyway! The biggest surprise was Leo -- and here I agree at least up to a point with the vaunted Manola Dargis of the NYT, previously a big critic of Leo in more recent outings, calling his turn here "most excellent". The accent, far as I could tell, was really excellent, and it's one of the few times I've seen a film where the actor used it to keep your attention so well. In fact, he was amazingly watchable here. Djimon was also fine, although his role didn't have nearly the shadings of Archer (not did Maddy). I lay those shadings almost completely at Leo's feet, though. The way he said things, the looks on his face, there was something really carnal there that I haven't seen before. It's like he really did spend time with mercenaries and got to know some of their traits, etc., on a personal basis. I know this review is mostly about Leo up to this point, but I had to get that off my chest. In some ways I'd have to say that some critics missed the boat on this one. While worrying about how they were best going to criticize this film, they overlooked one of the best "star" performances of the year, right beneath their noses. So to the Ed Douglases (of Comingsoon.net), Dave Polands, and Lisa Schwarzbaums, and less fishy wonders like Ted C. I give a big old raspberry for missing the boat. Thank god for the Anne Thompsons of the world, though. A woman who knows something good when she sees it. Back to the movie -- it's reasonably good and has some nicely shot action sequences interspersed with horrifying shots of child mercenaries being brainwashed. Could it have been done better? Probably. But Ed Zwick didn't lay things on in a way that I found uncompelling either. It's a lot better than some of his previous outings in my book. I was tempted to give a 2 1/2 stars out of 4 but I think it really deserves at least 3 stars - 1/2 star extra for the good work of the actors.

glad you enjoyed it josephc . actually, word of mouth at least on message boards on many sites including imdb and yahoo are pretty positive about the film - many of them saying as you, they were surprised because of some of the reviews. Check out the readers' reviews at Yahoo movies - a B+ rating when I last checked of over 1900+ reviews - I doubt they were all, even many, of them diehard Leo fans that were only posting. Also, Poland was positive about Leo's performances if not the film as that EW reviewer - Peter Travers at Rolling Stone didnt like the film but said Leo was terrific, natch Ken Turan of LA TImes, and if you read the reviews at rotten tomatoes, the other negative reviews have mostly positive word on Leo, so no one should have been surprised at Leo's performances, not to mention I would have had confidence in his talent to begin with :wink: instead of being swayed by people like Ed D and Ted C who hardly matter. I'd also say critics are not failing to recognize Leo's star performance in BD - e.g. GG nomination and the Broadcast Reviewers nom for BD so his excellent work is certainly not being ignored - now more people need to go out and see it! I'd say what surprised me most about the film was the horrendous violence especially in the beginning - its was surprising to see that kind of violence in a movie like that (meaning not the topic of course as it depicted actual events but in a movie that was also trying to be entertaining and palatable to a general audience; Im sure some are going to be turned off by it) but I commend the filmmakers for not flinching on showing what actually happened. I did enjoy most about the film was the humanity of it, the performances of Leo and Djimon and also very importantly the other actors (sorry dont have their names) who portrayed the son and the wife. And yes, where are the other reviews of posters here; surely we have a number of Leo fans who have seen it already who frequent this board.

I've always liked Leo, Lena, but the last few films he's been in, at least prior to The Aviator (which I liked but didn't completely love) and The Departed (which I did love), I haven't seen the spark of some of his earlier work that I loved so much. This movie represents a real surprise though. Damn, I think Leo can do almost anything now. I was that impressed with his performance here. He's really just freaking good. I can't wait to see him again and I'm looking forward to even more mature efforts. But, yeah, I think that some of the critics were just way more harsh on this one than they should have been especially given some of the less than stellar (imo, anyway) movies that they give higher marks.

Fair enough, but for my money, leo was spot on in CMIYC and great as anything he done prior and while one can quibble about Titanic, he played the role of Jack dawson perfectly IMO - he charmed the audience off their feet and he made that movie work. I watched The Beach last week when it was on Bravo and in certain scenes in that fil, I feel he has never been better. The Aviator ? Quite amazing, especially in the latter scenes. In Celebrity, his brief 15 minutes was a jolt that that movie lacked. So, no, for me his excellent work this year is no surprise to me whatsoever. The funny thing about critics saying Leo is finally a "man" in these last 2 movies as if that was what was lacking before, when he played his roles in WEGG, TBL, BBD, The Beach, MITM,Celebrity, his youth was appropriate :D . But you know critics - mrrrggggh!

I think Leo was always great. If you watch Gilbert Grape, you really can tell how much talent he always had. And I think he's displayed it in each film he's been in (yes, even Titanic.) However, there's a brilliance he's achieved from Aviator onward. It's almost as if he's tapped into his own reservoir of acting godliness or something! lol

I don't think the critics have been as supportive of Leo's work until this year because he's really come of age with two exceptional perfs. It was especially nice to see the NYT tough Manola Dargis give him heads up for them although she was most impressed by BD.

don't be swayed so much or concerned so much about critics. after all, why should their opinions matter more than what YOU actually think about a fim, performance, actor :wink:

I saw Blood Diamond today and I have absolutely no idea why so many people have been so harsh with this excellent film. The performances were amazingly raw and powerful. The directing was breathtaking (with gorgeous cinematography) and the screenplay, which some have said was poor; I felt was deeply honest as well as poetic and emotional. I would actually give this film 4 stars and I don't say that about too many movies. I think the only reason anyone would say otherwise is if they were a previous Ed Zwick hater or perhaps too upset by its message to truly take it in. But I for one loved it and I think it should be counted as one of the best movies of the year.

okay, well, here's my review for what it's worth. btw, I preface it by saying I extremely disliked The Last Samurai - it wasn't that it was badly made or really badly acted; some of the Japanese actors were actually great in it and Cruise himself was "ok" though I can't stand him and probably that colors my view of his acting in any movie. But I hated that it was SO predictable, you knew what was coming in almost every scene, it was so cliched. So I went into Blood Diamond, totally expecting it to be the same and yeah, gotta say some scenes, I felt like "cringe" - paint by numbers dialogue- BUT the big BUT is what saves this movie almost singlehandedly (yeah, I know I'm a Leo fan but I think I'm fairly objective even when it comes to him) is Leo and the character of Danny Archer. The way he plays him and the type of character he is really interesting; it made me want to see Leo playing this character in another movie. Perfectly honestly, this is a movie kinda hard to watch because a lot of the scenes are disturbing and not something I wanna sit through and watch again; it's like I don't need to see that kind of reality; I like movies as an escape. But I know this issue about conflict diamonds and what went down, required those scenes so I can't fault the director or whatever, the writer I guess. But in the end,I don't think its really a possible thing to successfully make a serious film about such an issue and then mix it up with action/adventure/semi-love story - the whole movie seemed like it had multiple personalities. But anyway, Leo was great in it; I agree w/josephc that he's like on another level when compared with some of the perfs. post-Titanic and it's something new from him and couldnt have said it any better; I really feel like he could do anything now.

Abstract, these are mostly my feelings on the film, too. Although, must admit, never really cringed. I did, however, leave the theater after the mountain scene because I heard that the last 10 minutes or so felt tacked on. That's where the movie probably should have ended. This is, for me, one of the best Leo perfs ever. It also sets the stage for the possibility of wonderful performances in the future -- I'm hoping he does the TR project with Scorsese now because that could be a fascinating movie. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most fascinating men ever to sit in the White House. A film on his younger years could be amazing.

View Full Version: A "review" of Blood Diamond