OK, guys, let's give this movie a break. Of course it's not very realistic, of course it's silly, call it shallow, and I won't argue, but there is a HUGE redeeming factor: this movie is not trying to be more than it is. At times (may be not often enough) it mocks itself. So those `messages' get delivered gently, with a better result. I'll tell you this: if you don't know how to deliver them serious and important messages cleverly, deliver them lightly, gently, laughingly, and at least you won't annoy your audience, which will give you a better chance to get through. Watch this flick and then compare it with `The Contender' and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's enjoyable. If it drags at times, you get sufficiently compensated by watching charming performances by Hoffman, Davis, Andy Garcia and others. Part of me agrees that Hoffman is just not nearly revolting enough for his role, but hey, it's good to see him anyway. Come home after a long workday, leave your brains at the doormat, sprawl on the couch and enjoy this one.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Gosford Park
(2001)
Not THAT subtle.
11 July 2002
First, out with the confession. I watched it on DVD with the subtitles, and played back quite a number of times in order to read every word. May be that spoiled the film for me, because by the time of the murder I knew there were four people who had very good reasons to commit it, three more who had weaker reasons and potentially more people who hated the guy. So I expected some likes of `Murder on the Orient Express'. The murder scene shown in the film was a huge giveaway, so at that time I KNEW there would be some likes of `Orient Express'. One suspect was VERY OBVIOUS.
By the time of the murder I guessed almost all personal histories and connections explained in the very end, all the important ones anyhow. There are PLENTY of very obvious hints if you can manage to hear or read every word. There are many clues altogether, but somehow the ones that turn out true are much stronger and more believable from the beginning, so the wrong ones don't hinder your guesswork. So as far as mystery is concerned, there is not much of it the film.
How about the social life of British aristocracy and their servants? Don't know about you, but in my school I was taught from grade four (the first year we had history) that aristocracy, or any ruling class before the dictatorship of the proletariat, was stupid, idle, self-absorbed, while the lower classes were honest, loyal, patriotic, hard-working and selfless. So that message didn't sound very original or believable for me either. As a formerly brainwashed person, I don't appreciate anything that resembles the ideas that were once stuffed into my head.
Until the very end of the film I expected a miracle a plot twist. It didn't happen. And here is the real twist: despite of all said above I really enjoyed watching the film. Acting was superb, Scottish accent as lovely as smooth jazz, cinematography, and just the whole mood was interesting and captivating. I do recommend watching it, but I think you will benefit tremendously from renting a DVD and reading subtitles.
By the time of the murder I guessed almost all personal histories and connections explained in the very end, all the important ones anyhow. There are PLENTY of very obvious hints if you can manage to hear or read every word. There are many clues altogether, but somehow the ones that turn out true are much stronger and more believable from the beginning, so the wrong ones don't hinder your guesswork. So as far as mystery is concerned, there is not much of it the film.
How about the social life of British aristocracy and their servants? Don't know about you, but in my school I was taught from grade four (the first year we had history) that aristocracy, or any ruling class before the dictatorship of the proletariat, was stupid, idle, self-absorbed, while the lower classes were honest, loyal, patriotic, hard-working and selfless. So that message didn't sound very original or believable for me either. As a formerly brainwashed person, I don't appreciate anything that resembles the ideas that were once stuffed into my head.
Until the very end of the film I expected a miracle a plot twist. It didn't happen. And here is the real twist: despite of all said above I really enjoyed watching the film. Acting was superb, Scottish accent as lovely as smooth jazz, cinematography, and just the whole mood was interesting and captivating. I do recommend watching it, but I think you will benefit tremendously from renting a DVD and reading subtitles.
In the Bedroom
(2001)
Not Great? Greater than 99.99% of the Hollywood fodder.
11 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Way too many people didn't like it. I understand. Most people object to the ending of this film, saying that from character exploration it switches to a revenge flick. Yes, the ending did feel unsatisfactory, yet to me it didn't turn this film into `a movie about revenge'. In fact the topic of this whole exploration as I understand it is `how much a relatively decent and normal human being can change when pushed in the corner (locked in the bedroom)'. The film suggests an answer. Do I agree with this answer? Do I believe it's realistic? To tell you the truth, I don't want to believe it. Yet, the question itself is quite capable of sending the chills down my spine. I don't want to find out what good people are capable of when subjected to incessant mental pain, with any hope of recovery taken away *** SPOILER *** by the constant presence of their son's killer, free and even happy.
Good people are just that: people. Is a mother who punishes her little son severely for dropping his glove in the mud a good person? Don't know, but good people good parents, mind you sometimes manage to do things like that. Are good people capable of alienating their teenage children to the point when every attempt to have a conversation meets a brick wall? Easily, meaning it's very easy to get to this point, and very hard not to. Do good people let their only child do things that are wrong (very clearly wrong to me, may be less clearly wrong to them) because they are afraid to alienate him even more? Yes, I can imagine that, especially when the child has reached legal age, and it's not much you can do to force him to straighten his act anyway. Do husbands and wives in good solid families rely upon each other in difficult situations more than they should? Don't know about your family, but to me `call the police!' `if you want to do it do it yourself' kind of dialog is not something I totally can't relate to.
But this is about where the familiar land ends. Would the entire world stop making sense to me if a tragedy like theirs struck? I don't want to know. Would I become capable of blaming my husband for being not more than a human, only to hear the same kind of accusations from him, even more hurtful, because they are true? I hope I'll never find out. Would I be able to become a cold-blooded murderer in their circumstances? My heart screams `NO', but in some corner of my brain there is a fear that in fact I don't know.
Now, the next question on my mind is: where did Andre Dubus got this story from? If he's got it from first-or-second-or-third hand experience, it's something he had to reveal to people, even if he didn't know what conclusions to draw out of it; I understand that need. If he made it up, it's cruel and I refuse to believe in the statement it makes. Yet the movie makes the transformation more believable than I would ever think possible. The torture of the minds and souls is portrayed with relentless, drilling persistence. You are forced to watch the torture until you feel tortured yourself. This is clearly the director's goal, and while you can debate its merit, it's hard to deny the director's and the actors' mastery over their art in achieving this goal. You don't like to be tortured when you come to movies? Tell me about it! And this was supposed to be a date movie with my husband. Yet, all things considered, it's not such a bad choice for a date WITH A HUSBAND. We got to talk about raising our preteen kids - a long and good conversation.
I writhed in pain for the first 2/3 of the film. Yet I'm glad that my heart still denied Dr.Fowler's and his wife's deed. And God help us all to never find out what are we capable of `in the bedroom'.
Good people are just that: people. Is a mother who punishes her little son severely for dropping his glove in the mud a good person? Don't know, but good people good parents, mind you sometimes manage to do things like that. Are good people capable of alienating their teenage children to the point when every attempt to have a conversation meets a brick wall? Easily, meaning it's very easy to get to this point, and very hard not to. Do good people let their only child do things that are wrong (very clearly wrong to me, may be less clearly wrong to them) because they are afraid to alienate him even more? Yes, I can imagine that, especially when the child has reached legal age, and it's not much you can do to force him to straighten his act anyway. Do husbands and wives in good solid families rely upon each other in difficult situations more than they should? Don't know about your family, but to me `call the police!' `if you want to do it do it yourself' kind of dialog is not something I totally can't relate to.
But this is about where the familiar land ends. Would the entire world stop making sense to me if a tragedy like theirs struck? I don't want to know. Would I become capable of blaming my husband for being not more than a human, only to hear the same kind of accusations from him, even more hurtful, because they are true? I hope I'll never find out. Would I be able to become a cold-blooded murderer in their circumstances? My heart screams `NO', but in some corner of my brain there is a fear that in fact I don't know.
Now, the next question on my mind is: where did Andre Dubus got this story from? If he's got it from first-or-second-or-third hand experience, it's something he had to reveal to people, even if he didn't know what conclusions to draw out of it; I understand that need. If he made it up, it's cruel and I refuse to believe in the statement it makes. Yet the movie makes the transformation more believable than I would ever think possible. The torture of the minds and souls is portrayed with relentless, drilling persistence. You are forced to watch the torture until you feel tortured yourself. This is clearly the director's goal, and while you can debate its merit, it's hard to deny the director's and the actors' mastery over their art in achieving this goal. You don't like to be tortured when you come to movies? Tell me about it! And this was supposed to be a date movie with my husband. Yet, all things considered, it's not such a bad choice for a date WITH A HUSBAND. We got to talk about raising our preteen kids - a long and good conversation.
I writhed in pain for the first 2/3 of the film. Yet I'm glad that my heart still denied Dr.Fowler's and his wife's deed. And God help us all to never find out what are we capable of `in the bedroom'.
Bounce
(2000)
Bounced off Planet Hollywood
27 February 2002
The more Hollywood flicks I watch, the more I feel like the place where they come up with these movies must be located on some other planet. Not the one where I live. Not the one where anybody I know lives.
Some planet where people don't feel guilty for getting married and divorced five times, for abusing drags and cheating on their spouses, but they imagine feeling guilty and blaming others for something totally out of their control. A planet where the whole courtroom can be turned into an AAA meeting and the long repentance speech is broadcast on TV. A planet where a skirt-chaser, about as deep as a puddle in your backyard, demonstrates a very quick and profound understanding of a child's psychology (better than I, a mother of two, would do in his place). And lots of other equally improbable things happen.
But this movie is not only absolutely unbelievable. The lack of chemistry in it is pretty amazing, considering Affleck and Paltrow's history. Some actor (can't remember who, sorry) said that creation of chemistry on screen is totally in the hands of the director. I would agree, plus I would hold the scriptwriter accountable as well. Here is what Ian McKellen said when asked how he achieves to portray the profound wisdom and humanity of his character:' `I long ago learnt, particularly when acting Shakespeare, that sometimes it is enough to speak the lines without too much interference of interpretation. The innate qualities of the characters in a good script can be conveyed in the words themselves. Turn it around and you get this: when the script is stupid, all the actors can do is deliver their stupid lines with the best skill they possess.
And what is the actor's skill? In my humble opinion it's the ability to become someone else, plus some technicalities. OK, plenty of technicalities. In the end if you are not capable of becoming a person you are portraying, all that remains is the technicalities. I'd say Paltrow gets into her character's skin every time it's humanly possible. When her character starts behaving like an alien from planet Hollywood, she still demonstrates her technical abilities. Can't say the same about Affleck. Or may be I just don't like his face when he's crying. Or may be his character always behaves like an alien.
And let me add in the end: when there is no chemistry in the romance, kissing scenes are literally painful to watch.
Some planet where people don't feel guilty for getting married and divorced five times, for abusing drags and cheating on their spouses, but they imagine feeling guilty and blaming others for something totally out of their control. A planet where the whole courtroom can be turned into an AAA meeting and the long repentance speech is broadcast on TV. A planet where a skirt-chaser, about as deep as a puddle in your backyard, demonstrates a very quick and profound understanding of a child's psychology (better than I, a mother of two, would do in his place). And lots of other equally improbable things happen.
But this movie is not only absolutely unbelievable. The lack of chemistry in it is pretty amazing, considering Affleck and Paltrow's history. Some actor (can't remember who, sorry) said that creation of chemistry on screen is totally in the hands of the director. I would agree, plus I would hold the scriptwriter accountable as well. Here is what Ian McKellen said when asked how he achieves to portray the profound wisdom and humanity of his character:' `I long ago learnt, particularly when acting Shakespeare, that sometimes it is enough to speak the lines without too much interference of interpretation. The innate qualities of the characters in a good script can be conveyed in the words themselves. Turn it around and you get this: when the script is stupid, all the actors can do is deliver their stupid lines with the best skill they possess.
And what is the actor's skill? In my humble opinion it's the ability to become someone else, plus some technicalities. OK, plenty of technicalities. In the end if you are not capable of becoming a person you are portraying, all that remains is the technicalities. I'd say Paltrow gets into her character's skin every time it's humanly possible. When her character starts behaving like an alien from planet Hollywood, she still demonstrates her technical abilities. Can't say the same about Affleck. Or may be I just don't like his face when he's crying. Or may be his character always behaves like an alien.
And let me add in the end: when there is no chemistry in the romance, kissing scenes are literally painful to watch.
What Women Want
(2000)
Boring and... boring
11 June 2001
Really, it's hard to find another adjective to describe this "comedy". Boring, and that's really it. It's so boring that it's boring to write about it.
The reason I'm writing is that after reading a number of reviews I'm thinking one of my favorite thoughts : "How come the same thing can be extremely funny or deeply moving for some people and totally boring for others?" I think it all comes down to a surprise factor. People who study the anatomy of humor, say that things that are absurd, but bear some resemblance to reality, are humorous. Needless to say, the sense of absurd and reality is deeply individual, based not only on our life's experiences, but also on our temperament, philosophy, outlook - you name it. While first (the experiences) are somewhat correlated by the fact that we live at the same time in the same society (that's why there is such thing as "national humor" - good luck catching some of my favorite Russian jokes), the other factors differ greatly from individual to individual.
Let's come back to "What women want". The three (supposedly) funniest moments in the movie, the three "hilarious" examples of female thinking (all covered in trailers or other reviews already, so I'm not spoiling anything here) are:
1) woman taking Advil to fake a headache and avoid sex
2) Hunt being horrified by the fact that she looked (just looked, nothing else) below Gibson's waste (she didn't even stop her eyes there, which would've made her horror understandable - anyone who went through sexual harassment training at work knows what I'm talking about)
3) Gibson's daughter admiring the dress she'll be wearing on the night she's planning to loose her virginity.
This is a simple tester. If you find the three above funny - the movie is for you. I don't find it funny. Not absurd at all (especially the Advil one), not very realistic either (except for the Advil one). This is not to undermine anybody's sense of humor: I truly believe in individuality of it. If you want to know what women think: generally we don't tend to believe that our way is necessarily the best or the only way.
Speaking about actors: Mel Gibson is not my kind of a guy. He dances real well, and that's it for me. Helen Hunt tastes like tofu without soy sauce or anything else. Served cold. But again, if Gibson is your kind - the movie may be for you.
I won't rate this movie. I'd put it this way: I don't have an appreciation for this kind of entertainment.
The reason I'm writing is that after reading a number of reviews I'm thinking one of my favorite thoughts : "How come the same thing can be extremely funny or deeply moving for some people and totally boring for others?" I think it all comes down to a surprise factor. People who study the anatomy of humor, say that things that are absurd, but bear some resemblance to reality, are humorous. Needless to say, the sense of absurd and reality is deeply individual, based not only on our life's experiences, but also on our temperament, philosophy, outlook - you name it. While first (the experiences) are somewhat correlated by the fact that we live at the same time in the same society (that's why there is such thing as "national humor" - good luck catching some of my favorite Russian jokes), the other factors differ greatly from individual to individual.
Let's come back to "What women want". The three (supposedly) funniest moments in the movie, the three "hilarious" examples of female thinking (all covered in trailers or other reviews already, so I'm not spoiling anything here) are:
1) woman taking Advil to fake a headache and avoid sex
2) Hunt being horrified by the fact that she looked (just looked, nothing else) below Gibson's waste (she didn't even stop her eyes there, which would've made her horror understandable - anyone who went through sexual harassment training at work knows what I'm talking about)
3) Gibson's daughter admiring the dress she'll be wearing on the night she's planning to loose her virginity.
This is a simple tester. If you find the three above funny - the movie is for you. I don't find it funny. Not absurd at all (especially the Advil one), not very realistic either (except for the Advil one). This is not to undermine anybody's sense of humor: I truly believe in individuality of it. If you want to know what women think: generally we don't tend to believe that our way is necessarily the best or the only way.
Speaking about actors: Mel Gibson is not my kind of a guy. He dances real well, and that's it for me. Helen Hunt tastes like tofu without soy sauce or anything else. Served cold. But again, if Gibson is your kind - the movie may be for you.
I won't rate this movie. I'd put it this way: I don't have an appreciation for this kind of entertainment.
The Contender
(2000)
Bleary tale
30 April 2001
One motif in this movie, that could've made it worthwhile is the contender's refusal to let anyone in her private and personal life. To me this is the only valid and even interesting statement in this movie. Even despite the fact that I agree with everything Laine Hansen stands for. But her beliefs can only serve as filling (or fluff) in the movie, they don't provide the contents.
And here's what's the contents look like:
"Once there was ONE bad guy in Washington, I mean very bad, almost as bad as the monster under your 2-year old's bed. He used to dump buckets of muck on every good guy. But once he tried to dump a bucket on a lady, and there came this President, who was a good guy, and threw the bad guy out of the planet. And everybody in the forest, I mean, the planet, I mean, Washington cheered and became happy and good ever after."
Honestly, it seems as simplified as that. You can't really take it seriously, so even the very worthy (and unorthodox) idea that people's personal lives should be left personal as long as they don't break the law, even this very admirable idea loses its value.
If the movie's title were "Mission Impossible/Revision 100.01.345" all the "good guy kicks the bad guy's you know what in the end" junk and extra-cute-super-smart secret agent with her sugary devotion to women's cause would all belong. But this movie pretends to be serious and realistic. Or did I miss something?
But despite of silly plot, I really liked Joan Allen. I think she did a good job. Other than that - very forgettable.
And here's what's the contents look like:
"Once there was ONE bad guy in Washington, I mean very bad, almost as bad as the monster under your 2-year old's bed. He used to dump buckets of muck on every good guy. But once he tried to dump a bucket on a lady, and there came this President, who was a good guy, and threw the bad guy out of the planet. And everybody in the forest, I mean, the planet, I mean, Washington cheered and became happy and good ever after."
Honestly, it seems as simplified as that. You can't really take it seriously, so even the very worthy (and unorthodox) idea that people's personal lives should be left personal as long as they don't break the law, even this very admirable idea loses its value.
If the movie's title were "Mission Impossible/Revision 100.01.345" all the "good guy kicks the bad guy's you know what in the end" junk and extra-cute-super-smart secret agent with her sugary devotion to women's cause would all belong. But this movie pretends to be serious and realistic. Or did I miss something?
But despite of silly plot, I really liked Joan Allen. I think she did a good job. Other than that - very forgettable.
Enemy at the Gates
(2001)
A true story
19 March 2001
I know about the World War II not only from the books. My mother was 6 years old when her village near Smolensk was occupied by Germans. Memories of mass killings, neighbor village burned along with its population, their entire village moving to live in a nearby forest, bombings, famine, decease, blood-drenched fields, hanging of a traitor, are forever imprinted in her mind. My (Jewish) father's 9-year old memories of evacuation from Kiev in one of those cars you can see in "Enemy at the Gates", being separated from his mother on the way (she stayed in one of the train stops to bury her infant son who didn't survive evacuation).
I can't take War stories just as "stories". They are my family's life. "Enemy at the Gates" from the first scenes struck me as very true to what I heard from my mother and father, what I've seen in Stalingrad' museums when I visited the city as a child.
I'm really surprised by tepid reviews this movie received. Some say it's not deep enough, others say that the romantic part of it could be left out. May be it's not very deep, but it's true. The "meat grinder" scenes, Soviet officers killing unarmed "cowards" who showed their backs to the enemy, "creation" of a hero, and love and lovemaking amidst it all: it's all true and it did happen. Somehow it's important to me that people know and remember it all. I have this stupid hope that if people know and remember, they will not let it happen again.
Obviously this is a very personal and emotional view. Watching a desperate half-armed attack of Soviet troops, I whispered to my husband "This is how your and my grandfathers were killed". Of course we'll never know if they were killed by German bullets. This film is very important to ME, because I BELIEVE that knowing my homeland history is important. Watch this movie if knowing true history is important to you. Skip it if you are fishing for entertainment, or for very deep lessons about life, or for deep and interesting character development. I'm not sure how deep comrade Zaitsev was. Maybe he was a common person put in very uncommon circumstances.
I give this movie 10 for truthfulness. In this particular case everything else is less important to me.
I can't take War stories just as "stories". They are my family's life. "Enemy at the Gates" from the first scenes struck me as very true to what I heard from my mother and father, what I've seen in Stalingrad' museums when I visited the city as a child.
I'm really surprised by tepid reviews this movie received. Some say it's not deep enough, others say that the romantic part of it could be left out. May be it's not very deep, but it's true. The "meat grinder" scenes, Soviet officers killing unarmed "cowards" who showed their backs to the enemy, "creation" of a hero, and love and lovemaking amidst it all: it's all true and it did happen. Somehow it's important to me that people know and remember it all. I have this stupid hope that if people know and remember, they will not let it happen again.
Obviously this is a very personal and emotional view. Watching a desperate half-armed attack of Soviet troops, I whispered to my husband "This is how your and my grandfathers were killed". Of course we'll never know if they were killed by German bullets. This film is very important to ME, because I BELIEVE that knowing my homeland history is important. Watch this movie if knowing true history is important to you. Skip it if you are fishing for entertainment, or for very deep lessons about life, or for deep and interesting character development. I'm not sure how deep comrade Zaitsev was. Maybe he was a common person put in very uncommon circumstances.
I give this movie 10 for truthfulness. In this particular case everything else is less important to me.
The Big Kahuna
(1999)
The best film made in America in 11 years I have lived here
20 February 2001
Boy, I don't even know where to start. Script turned me inside out and made me cry in pain in the end. It also was the first thing in many years that made me understand that knowing and painfully feeling meaninglessness of this life doesn't make ME worthless. May be I'm still a good person. Just like Phil, with whom I identify 100%. Every word he says, his daydream of flying away to freedom: all of it could be me. Of course, somewhere inside me there still lives Larry, confined to a far corner of my soul and consciousness: honest and blunt Larry, really wanting to become the Big Kahuna. But he's fading away... he'll be gone soon. I've met couple of "Bobs" in my life, one of them approved of two books only: "The C++ Programming Language" and the Bible... the portrait is very recognizable. Was I a "Bob" once? It's quite possible, although a little hard to admit. May be these three people show us stages in development of a human, who's desperately trying to fill the void inside him? First you fill it with borrowed truths and aspirations, then with strive to be on the top, and then... then you just let this void be, even though it hurts so badly, that you want to fly down from the 16th floor Hospitality Suite window. Acting is beyond praise. Like I said, I identify with De Vito's character like crazy, and I'm a person of different gender, very different age and marital status. I'm supposed to be much happier. But that's the thing: feelings, emotions and thoughts De Vito so brilliantly conveys cross all the status boundaries. Spacey shows the desperation and shamelessness of a mature cynic. You laugh at him, and you feel a little sorry for him. He'll become a better person after he survives the blow. Facinelly delivers really good performance, especially in the end. I think his performance is a little underestimated, because his role seems to be easy. But it is in fact very difficult in the end, where he says very few words, but has to express a range of many conflicting emotions: defiance mixed with confusion and just a hint of doubt, may be for the first time in his life. That's where his acting talent shines. I gave this film 10.
The End of the Affair
(1999)
I was very sure I would like it, but I didn't
22 January 2001
Everything about this movie indicated I would like it: the actors, the director, the tag line... Every comment I read here about this movie (negative or positive) indicates I should've liked it: it's slow (my kind of a movie), romantic, it explores the questions of religion (or faith should I say) and miracles, jealousy and acceptance. Yet, I was not moved at all by this film. Nothing penetrated the skin. I really have no explanation why. Somehow the story seems a little outdated. I haven't seen the old movie (filmed in 1955), but when I learned that there was one, I thought that naive and earnest style of old films would fit this story better.
OK, being objective I think it's a good film. Not empty, not stupid, beautifully filmed, with superior acting. Nothing about it is cliche. May be it has to appeal to your personal taste and likings. Interesting how some people weep over it, while others find it icy cold. I think I do find it a little cold.
If you don't like slow films, don't bother to rent. But even if you do like slow films, Ralph Fiennes and English weather, be prepared that you might not like this one.
OK, being objective I think it's a good film. Not empty, not stupid, beautifully filmed, with superior acting. Nothing about it is cliche. May be it has to appeal to your personal taste and likings. Interesting how some people weep over it, while others find it icy cold. I think I do find it a little cold.
If you don't like slow films, don't bother to rent. But even if you do like slow films, Ralph Fiennes and English weather, be prepared that you might not like this one.
The Perfect Storm
(2000)
So what?
22 November 2000
First of all I have to reveal that I watched the movie on a plane, so I missed all the special effects... May be this is why I simply don't get why so many people like this movie. A little side effect of watching it on a plane was that turbulence added to the special effects, since for some mysterious reasons the plane shook in sync with the boat ;-).
Apart from special effects (which I can't judge), there is really nothing much in it. What is it about? What kind of character development some people manage to see there? We are shown a bunch of immature old boys playing a silly teenager's game "we'll see who's a man here" and we are supposed to admire them? May be that's the way it really was, may be such things truly happen, but what's the point of making a movie out of it? What does it tell me?
OK, may be it is a fact of life that some people on this Earth never mature and are forever driven by pride, greed and hormones until it leads them to their graves (or prison cells). May be some of these people are even capable of eternal love that defeats death... And may be just these facts alone fascinate some viewers (what else would explain popularity of various crime and war shows). But I expect a book and a movie to reveal or to give some meaning to the facts of life, which "The Perfect Storm" fails to do.
Well, I can talk about cliche scenes, which are supposed to draw tears, but cause a toothache instead. But I know that this is very subjective. If the movie as a whole made sense to me, I would probably even cry at the cliche scenes. Apart from special effects, which I can not rate, I would not give it more than 3 out of 10 (for some decent acting).
Apart from special effects (which I can't judge), there is really nothing much in it. What is it about? What kind of character development some people manage to see there? We are shown a bunch of immature old boys playing a silly teenager's game "we'll see who's a man here" and we are supposed to admire them? May be that's the way it really was, may be such things truly happen, but what's the point of making a movie out of it? What does it tell me?
OK, may be it is a fact of life that some people on this Earth never mature and are forever driven by pride, greed and hormones until it leads them to their graves (or prison cells). May be some of these people are even capable of eternal love that defeats death... And may be just these facts alone fascinate some viewers (what else would explain popularity of various crime and war shows). But I expect a book and a movie to reveal or to give some meaning to the facts of life, which "The Perfect Storm" fails to do.
Well, I can talk about cliche scenes, which are supposed to draw tears, but cause a toothache instead. But I know that this is very subjective. If the movie as a whole made sense to me, I would probably even cry at the cliche scenes. Apart from special effects, which I can not rate, I would not give it more than 3 out of 10 (for some decent acting).
Onegin
(1999)
Very good
3 October 2000
This is a very good film overall. Having grown up in Russia and being, as we would say here, `a great Pushkin's fan' ;-), I was caught between curiosity and caution when deciding whether I should even rent this film. Then I saw Ralph Fiennes name and thought that it could not be all that bad.so curiosity won. I was pleasantly surprised that the film is fairly faithful to the original. Not completely, of course, but when I think about horrible mutilations other filmmakers perform on marvelous works of literature, I'm very grateful that the producers of `Onegin' read the poem very well and chose scenes and changed some of them with care. I won't talk a lot about beauty of scenes in the film: it's a pleasure to watch. Here are some of the things I didn't like. First of all I was a little disappointed by the film's interiors. Several of them look very natural (some of the room's in Larin's and Onegin's houses). Others (like Petersburg palaces) more than anything resemble theatrical decorations. I don't think this was intentional, since the overall scenery is very realistic. Another objection is the lovemaking scene. I don't think it belongs or was needed at all. Was it just a due paid to modern filmmaking? Why not do Tatyana's dream instead (this is a meaningful symbolic scene in the poem, not filming it could hardly be an accidental decision, I would love to know what was the reason)? The third, kind of big problem is that married Tatyana is not clearly portrayed as the queen of Petersburg's society. This detail is very important for understanding of Onegin's character: a tragic figure who can only exist within the laws and decorations of high society - the very society he despises more than anything else. Tatyana, the queen of this society, a complete part of it and yet completely not involved with it, comfortably within and yet far above the chattering crowd - that very likely is the only thing Onegin can love. Unfortunately the question `am I noble enough for you now?' which Tatyana throws at Onegin during the climax scene of the film, does not fully convey that understanding and is an oversimplification compared to the speech that Pushkin's Tatyana gives to her fallen and still loved hero.
Stalker
(1979)
a work of a powerful mind
3 October 2000
It's very obvious to everyone that this film is not a movie. Why is it not equally obvious that it is not an entertainment either? It is not even a work of art. It's a work of mind, a powerful mind of a philosopher. Why don't we take works of Kierkegaard and let an average American reader rate it?
OK, I don't need to sound so angry. I don't even pretend that I understand it all. The film makes you think about as many different topics as your particular brain can harbor and approach. What a mighty stir! But you can only take it as far as you are capable of. I don't know what I would do if this film were not as slow as it is. I think my head would explode. Or I'd simply stop reacting to what the film is trying to tell me, simply become numb, as we become numb to crime, war, famine and market chronicles in the daily news. But the film's intention is not to stop me from thinking, but to make me think. And in that it succeeds more than any other film I have ever seen.
It can not be compared with other films and therefore should not be rated.
It is NOT FOR EVERYONE. But EVERYONE, who approaches it as he would approach a serious book, will come out of this experience richer and wiser than before.
OK, I don't need to sound so angry. I don't even pretend that I understand it all. The film makes you think about as many different topics as your particular brain can harbor and approach. What a mighty stir! But you can only take it as far as you are capable of. I don't know what I would do if this film were not as slow as it is. I think my head would explode. Or I'd simply stop reacting to what the film is trying to tell me, simply become numb, as we become numb to crime, war, famine and market chronicles in the daily news. But the film's intention is not to stop me from thinking, but to make me think. And in that it succeeds more than any other film I have ever seen.
It can not be compared with other films and therefore should not be rated.
It is NOT FOR EVERYONE. But EVERYONE, who approaches it as he would approach a serious book, will come out of this experience richer and wiser than before.
Tell Your Friends