Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:40 am Posts: 25451 Location: 111 Archer Ave.
This thread title reads more like an imperative sentence than the name of a film. The Sofia Coppola one you posted seems a bit like some sort of poetic thought. I wouldn't mind seeing more of these threads.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
The film was hindered for me by the absolute shocking brilliance of the novel. The film tries really hard, though. And succeeds in unexpected ways. But some of the narrative changes from book to film made no sense to me, and hurt the film.
I need to watch it again once I'm further removed from the literary experience. But Carey Mulligan OWNS this film. She deserves another nomination, for sure.
carey mulligan is already the best actress of the year ....yeah.. i havent read the book yet, but the film makes me wanna go and bought it..thats like the best compliment for a movie right? i really liked how romanek finished the movie....the whole story is so sad, and yet the movie put a little aspect of joy and life in the end. its talking straightfoward to the viewer...
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
VinylGuy wrote:
carey mulligan is already the best actress of the year ....yeah.. i havent read the book yet, but the film makes me wanna go and bought it..thats like the best compliment for a movie right? i really liked how romanek finished the movie....the whole story is so sad, and yet the movie put a little aspect of joy and life in the end. its talking straightfoward to the viewer...
Romanek handled the film as well as anyone could reasonably expect. He captured a lot of the atmosphere and nuance of the book. He really knocked his part of the experience out of the park, other than the pace. I wish the film had taken it's time a little more. But most of my problems stem from the script; which hurts because I hold Alex Garland in such high regard.
It's also too short. But it's a movie I highly recommend, especially if you haven't read the book.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
The novel isn't drivel, but it's not much better either. I've heard the movie is leagues above the book, which makes sense. Ishiguro's boring writing style would actually translate really well if all his descriptions were shown visually.
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
Mickey wrote:
The novel isn't drivel, but it's not much better either. I've heard the movie is leagues above the book, which makes sense. Ishiguro's boring writing style would actually translate really well if all his descriptions were shown visually.
Yeah, if you're not a fan of Ishiguro (or the book), you're probably going to love the movie. It gets a lot right. But it's misses are painful, for me.
romanek its building an interesting career with this one and one hour photo... here the good choice is not to have any particular "cool" moment....just storytelling...something david fincher has been doing with zodiac and facebook,,,they have learning how to tell a story...
I saw this last and... ummm.... yeah. I'll man up and admit I was tearing up by the end. I enjoyed the movie, but I have been sad for almost 20 straight hours now because of it. Carey Mulligan was amazing.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 7633 Location: Philly Del Fia Gender: Female
I loved the book. The movie felt like it was trying to be mysterious and suspenseful and instead it just came across and depressing and slow to me. There seemed like a real, "Wow. life sucks for us, let's roll over and take it" reaction to EVERYTHING.
If they had spent more time focusing on Tommy and Kathy's whole friendship as they grew up, I think the impact of what Ruth had done, the hope for the deferral, and everything else would have come across a lot more powerfully.
If they had spent more time focusing on Tommy and Kathy's whole friendship as they grew up, I think the impact of what Ruth had done, the hope for the deferral, and everything else would have come across a lot more powerfully.
I agree, these are legit criticisms of the film. More playful interactions (dare I suggest a montage?) between Tommy and Kathy as kids would have added more weight to the story. It's probably tough for an editor and director to pace a film like this. Too much dawdling and you lose your audience, too little and the audience won't connect with the characters.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
I loved the book. The movie felt like it was trying to be mysterious and suspenseful and instead it just came across and depressing and slow to me. There seemed like a real, "Wow. life sucks for us, let's roll over and take it" reaction to EVERYTHING.
If they had spent more time focusing on Tommy and Kathy's whole friendship as they grew up, I think the impact of what Ruth had done, the hope for the deferral, and everything else would have come across a lot more powerfully.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Really, really liked this. Actually thought the early relationship between the Kathy and Tommy, was fine, but I am a "less is more" kind of guy. A very beautiful and quietly powerful film. And the use of the fake song was just perfect.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum