Reviews written by registered user
|27 reviews in total|
I loved this movie, and I am one of the older people who is not
supposed to enjoy it, or so it seems. No, this movie is not deep -- who
cares? These kinds of movies never are. But strangely, there is a
message in it. It's that we each have the potential to be whatever we
want to be.
Parker Posey is great in this movie. I've always thought that she bears some resemblance facially to Katharine Hepburn. So, it's great to see that both Hepburn and Posey made movies about librarians (Hepburn's is The Desk Set). All librarians, especially those with a sense of humor, should see Party Girl.
I gave this movie an 8. It is not by any means a great film by cinematic standards, although there are some nice shots in it. But it is incredibly charming and entertaining.
This film is one of the classics of cinema history. It was not made to
please modern audiences, so some people nowadays may think it is creaky
or stilted. I found it to be absorbing throughout. Cherkassov has
exactly the right presence to play Alexander Nevskyi, just as he did
when he played Ivan Groznyi (Ivan the Terrible) several years later.
The music was beautiful.
My one complaint was the poor soundtrack that was quite garbled. Although I only know a little Russian, it would have been nice to be able to pick out more words rather than having to rely almost 100% on the subtitles. I was watching this on an old videotape from the library, though. Perhaps by now a DVD version exists on which the sound has been enhanced. I would like to know whether the actors were using archaic Russian or even Old Church Slavonic when they were speaking. The subtitles were strangely worded, and it's hard for me to tell whether this was to reflect an older manner of speaking, or whether the subtitles were just somewhat poorly done.
I saw this on TV when it was originally broadcast back in 1978. All of
these years I've remembered Derek Jacobi's performance. I just saw the
DVD version, and he is just as brilliant as I remembered. There are
nuances to the performance that I didn't notice when I first saw it at
a lot younger age. Several of the BBC productions of Shakespeare plays
were excellent; this is one of the very best.
I also enjoyed Charles Gray and Wendy Hiller as the Duke and Duchess of York. They are almost comic characters in some ways, yet not quite. Both actors do very well in their roles.
Shakespeare plays are so timeless that this doesn't seem dated at all. I'm very glad that I saw King Richard II again.
Red Skelton was the best reason to watch this film. I laughed at his
antics several times. I was unfamiliar with Virginia O'Brien. Her
deadpan delivery also made me laugh. The unfortunate thing is, I
couldn't tell whether she intended to be funny, or whether that is the
way she is all the time. Otherwise, the plot was stale, and the film
was just much, much too long. It is less than two hours long, but felt
more like three.
Several of the songs were really good, but there isn't enough plot to sustain my interest through most of the film. I'm giving this movie 6 stars, but that is generous, because generally I just really like very old movies.
Although I didn't dislike this film entirely, it was somewhat disappointing.
I have not read the novel, but have read other novels by Edith Wharton.
Her novels create a certain atmosphere of early 20th century high-society
New York. It seemed that this film was trying to create that same
atmosphere, but was not entirely successful. The costumes and sets looked
accurate, but I was disappointed in both Gillian Anderson and Eric Stoltz.
Anderson seemed stiff and not quite comfortable in the role... this
surprised me because I had previously heard compliments on her performance
in this film. Eric Stoltz seemed immature and a bit too soft for the part
he was playing. However, some of the other actors were very good. Laura
Linney was great as Lily Bart's friend-turned-enemy. I liked Dan Aykroyd's
performance, too, and Anthony LaPaglia was particularly good as the somewhat
kind, somewhat unsympathetic Mr. Rosedale.
Despite some reservations about the acting, I managed to enjoy this film, and tears came to my eyes at the end. It's not the most upbeat of films... but, from other comments on IMDb I see that it is faithful to the novel.
I think you probably have to be a huge David Mamet fan to really love this film. I'm not a huge fan, although I also don't hate his works. As for this film, I liked it but didn't love it. The entire film was a character study, and I thought was well done -- mostly. With this cast, I don't think it could go wrong. Robert Forster was fantastic. Some of the humor fell flat for me. Still, I thought it was worth seeing. My grandfather used to work in large ships on the Great Lakes. That's mostly why I rented this film. Although I suspect that his own experiences were not much like this film, it was interesting to me to think that some of them may have been a little bit similar.
I recently saw this as part of an audience. The film was projected via a
poor-quality print at the Alliance Francaise in Chicago. I liked some of
the visual effects and shots, despite the quality of the copy we were
viewing. There was one scene where I had to close my eyes, and was glad I
did. In the rest of the audience there was some nervous laughter at first,
and then several people said "Ewww!"
I can see why some consider it a classic. It was ahead of its time in the suspense and gore departments. However, I didn't think that overall it fit the definition of a classic. One of the qualities should be that it can sustain multiple viewings. I came away from the show never wanting to see the film again.
Strangely, I have just heard that a few nights ago there was a similar theme covered in a real-life setting on Dateline.
Experiencing this film would have been a lot more relevant back in the late 1960s, when so many things were psychedelic and so many minds were altered by drugs. People thought that their visions had some sort of deep importance, but many of these people were not able to communicate the importance to others... That's what this film reminded me of. There are some really interesting shots and set scenes, but overall the meaning was inscrutable. Perhaps if I were familiar with the poet Sayat Nova the meaning of the film would have been clearer. I'm glad I saw the film because experiments are interesting, but overall the message was obscured, and so it will probably not stay in my mind for long.
I agree with a recent comment that the pacing was wrong in this film. It would have benefited from an epic length, more plot development, and less superficiality. It is a beautiful film, but empty. I did not care at all about the characters and their lives. It seemed to have no point. But, it doesn't seem like a waste of time to have watched it. I found myself picking up reading material while it was on, going out of the room without stopping the film, etc.
I found this film mildly entertaining. Braugher was great, and the rest of the cast were enjoyable to watch. Being unfamiliar with the world of karaoke, I didn't realize that it was so popular. This is no great film, but it's not bad. It has fun, quirky characters, and I grew to care about some of them.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |