Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

2 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Mozartballs (2006) (TV)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Quirky, yes, but presented lovingly, 12 January 2010

It is true that all of the folks featured in this documentary are quirky in one way or another and some are quirkier than others, but what I was most struck by was the love and respect that comes through from those who were behind the scenes. The various people affected by Mozart are all presented without being judgmental. Any negative reactions to them must come from the viewer and not from the filmmaker.

The couple who have the most time in the film are a couple of women who believe they are the reincarnation of Mozart and a woman who may have been his lover. Since they are the largest target, they are the easiest to hit. Who is to say, with 100% certainty, that they aren't the reincarnation of the 18th century couple? And what does it matter? Whether they are or not, is beside the point as far as the film goes. The point of the film is to show how, after two and a half centuries, the music and the person of Mozart still affects people in ways large and small.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Interesting, but Pacino needs to study a bit more, 5 June 2009

I really wanted to like this movie. I like Pacino and I love Richard III. Most of it is quite good, but I'm afraid that one scene will always come to mind whenever I think of this film.

Pacino is working on the following speech:

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, To set my brother Clarence and the king In deadly hate the one against the other: And if King Edward be as true and just As I am subtle, false and treacherous, This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up, About a prophecy, which says that 'G' Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be. Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here Clarence comes.

Pacino doesn't understand why Richard says that "G" will be the murderer. After all, the person that Richard is setting up is named Clarence. Instead of delving into the full meaning and believing that Shakespeare must have had a reason to use the words he did, Pacino just decides that he'll change the line to say that "C" will be the murderer.

Arrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh! It would only take one look at the list of the characters of the play to find out that the character referred to as "Clarence" is really "George, the Duke of Clarence" so that the "G" does refer to Clarence after all. Not only that, but the prophecy actually refers to Richard himself, since he is "Richard, the Duke of Gloucester." Richard is "G", the murderer.

Much of the film is very interesting and enjoyable, but I'm afraid that Pacino's hubris in thinking that he knows better than Shakespeare did will always color this film for me.