Reviews written by registered user
|26 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Just like the other reviewer had already said, this film is uneven. The
plot had potential to be gripping, but failed to achieve it. There are
some holes to fill in. Some actions of the main character make sense,
the others don't. You just don't start messing up with a drug
dealer(s), without making sure your family is secure, especially after
they had ransacked your house. What is it exactly he was planning to do
with her daughter's boyfriend? I could not figure this out. Why did
Óttar got into Finnur' car and allowed him to drive to who knows where?
We know that Óttar was not stupid. Besides, Óttar is not the main
player in the drug business. There were certainly others who ransacked
his house and who would certainly go after Finnur to get their money
back. That scene where Óttar talks about his
troubled childhood has reminded me a scene in "Breaking bad", Episode 3, where Walt cannot decide whether or not to kill Krazy-8. What was the purpose of bringing into this movie Finnur' childhood? Besides, how would Anna know? They want us to believe that Finnar had told it to her? I could continue with plot holes, but see for yourself. The main 3 character's acting was not bad in my opinion. I am giving it 5 for it is a well-made film overall. Filmmakers should have watched BreakingBad a couple of times to get an idea how to deal with drug dealers.
I deeply disagree with the plot summary written by Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I guess this is just an opinion of a south-American male. I can clearly see that respect and dignity for women is lacking in Latin America. European and American/Australian viewers will have a different perception. I enjoyed watching this movie. Great actors, acting, and the story is original. It is clever and funny. Lots of love making scenes with semi-nude Monica Bellucci, but nothing is vulgar. So what this movie is about? I think everyone will come out with their own opinion. In my view it is about role of sex in people's lives, about loneliness and human emotions. And it is shown in a funny way.
The meaning is in the eye of a perceiver. I liked this movie. The acting was superb, which is expected from french actors. Louis Garrel is a very talented actor. I disagree with the reviewer from Oklahoma in regards to "actors dress and personal hygiene " and "The woman in the film regarded as an outstanding beauty would not be so to most American viewers". I am not French, but have European upbringing and I find this opinion as arrogant and stuck-up. There is nothing in this movie suggests that the actor"s hygiene is poor and they dress like slobs. Hollywood movies actors are so fake, so polished , so unrealistic and talentless, that I stopped watching it long time ago. As for the Monica Bellucci's beauty, once again, American standards are fake beauty of over-groomed people, while Monica Bellucci is a classic beauty. I can't name one single modern American actress that is a real, classic beauty. There are few young Hollywood actresses that are natural beauties, but they are not born American (Natalie Portman,Kate Beckinsale,Charlize Theron).
I did not like this film. Nauseatingly boring, predictable, clichés, poor acting, miscast. Yeah, Sophie Marceau is hot, but was not impressed with her performance. Francois Cluzet did not quite fit for this role, especially after seeing him in The Intouchables. Did not feel real chemistry between them. All children in this film were acting poorly. "What if" passages were rather annoying. Everything seemed so pretentious in this film. Lots of empty dialogues. Another recent french cinema disappointment was Un homme au pair (2013). I hope they do not start following Hollywood path of making real garbage, just like Un homme au pair.
I would not call this movie "a waste of time". While the younger audience might not like or understand it,the more mature one might resonate with it. This movies is about aging,loneliness,the inescapable burden of taking care of ailing parents, loosing connection with grown up children and finding again life's purpose when there seems to be none. It is about letting go and letting in. The performances were great. I liked the plot. Someone has mentioned that it had been explored many times before, -I can't recall any. The ending was surprising and somewhat unrealistic since nothing in this movie had led to it.
My attention to this movie only lasted 27 min,quite a long time to attract one's interest to continue. So what did it show in the first 27 minutes? Empty, pointless and dull dialogues that have nothing to do with developing of the story. That verbal exchange between Adam and Phoebe in a park was annoying and meaningless. Josh Gad's character was quite absurdous and did not go well with me. The scene where he talked to a doctor and some sort of device fell out of his sleeve was the point where I decided to stop wasting my time. Tim Robbins could not be associated with his character. The group "sharing" part was very bad,especially Dede's (Pink).Well, I could only last through her introduction. And above all,we have seen it all many many times before-the 12 step program.Nothing is new or original here-not a material for a movie.
I enjoyed watching this movie, but overall have mixed feelings about it. Alicia Vikander again impressed me, but I want to see her in different roles. She is very, very talented. The film attempts to explore a different approach to group therapy. Erika is behind the idea of becoming somebody else, whilst temporary, in an attempt to overcome depression. While the idea seems interesting and plausible, it did not unfold well in the movie. Some scenes were not believable; some characters were too grotesque. It left some questions unanswered. It is impossible to know the extend of brain damage of a newborn. Why the child remained in the hospital? The Peter's story line is not believable at all. I give it 7 for the great performances and original screenplay.
The original name of this film is "интимные места". I am sure this film would be misunderstood, misinterpreted by many, especially in its country of origin- Russia. This is because for generations Russian people pretended that sex doesn't exist, that it is something dirty and to be ashamed of. For decades everything even remotely suggesting sex was cut out of foreign films. You would not see a simple kiss on a big screen or TV. One would say that things have changed in Russia, including its "acceptance" of sex as part of people's life. Things might have changed, but it appears that majority of Russians still see it as something dirty. Where one would see an art in a beauty of a naked human body (of any shape), a Russian person most definitely would see a porn. The word "porn" dominates many Russian critics reviews. However,there is absolutely nothing in this film, even remotely, that would classify as porn. In my opinion this film is brilliant and worthy of the international exposure. I can't categorize it, but it is definitely not a melodrama or comedy. It is closer to a documentary exploring sexuality of several very different people. I don't know how much will be lost in translation, but in its original language, the film is outstanding- the music, colors, dialogues (not many), slow moving camera, general mood deliver what it was intended by its director- exploration of what is happiness and true freedom through sexuality. This movie is about hidden sexual frustration and unfulfilled sexual fantasies of the average people. The film has won a prize for Best Debut in 2013 Russian film festival Kinotavr and DIPLOMAS OF THE GUILD OF FILM CRITICS AND FILM SCHOLARS "White Elephant".
I did not click with this movie or this movie did not click with me. As much as I like French movies, this one disappointed me. The performances were good,Fanny Ardant is beautiful, but...nothing new in here and everything is so predictable. In my opinion, in this film was no connection on any level (physical or emotional) between two main characters . At least I did not notice. Fanny Ardant' character, so self- conscious of her age, so insecure, so needy of assurances or clarifications of what is next, of knowing how she is going to be "dropped", looked rather pathetic and out of place. It also did not show why the young man was attracted to her in the first place. It is usually class and self-assurance that attracts younger men to older women; this movie is silent about it. Love scenes were rather dismal. Overall, the film did not convey what the book it was based on might have done. I did not read the book.
I give this one a 10, because it deserves it. It took me awhile to get back to reality after watching this great french movie. La robe du soir is slow burning and intense film,very touching and heartbreaking, buoyed by terrific performance by the little girl,a child actor who is so good she doesn't seem to be acting. One of the things I really liked about this movie was that it didn't need to have every moment filled with dialog like a lot of movies. If you like this film, there's a good chance you'll like these 2 french movies "Tomboy" (2011) and "Water Lilies"(2007). The other 2 movies with terrific child-actors I recommend are "The Return"(Russian) ,"Last Ride" (Australian).
|Page 1 of 3:||  |