For some reason, just about every film with good big-budget production values that contains symbolism and metaphors seems to get a lot of good reviews here at IMDb, and I am starting to suspect that at least some of these reviews have been authored by folks that feel that symbolism and metaphor mixed with good big-budget production values automatically make a movie good. I suspect that it somehow makes people feel good about themselves when they understand a metaphor--makes them feel smarter perhaps--and so they give good reviews to the movie that is responsible for those feelings.
The film is mostly pretty to look at, which is why I didn't give it a 1. But that's all I can say for it.
It's pretty boring. And it's nearly 2.5 hours long. I don't know about you, but the only films I want to spend 2.5 hours seeing are ones that are very interesting and not boring.
It's got a couple of those clichéd plot-thickening devices Hollywood continually uses in its big dramas and action films that automatically, at least in my book, disqualify films from being good ones. These parts of the film ought to have most cinephiles groaning.
The star of the film Ben Whishaw does not give a particularly good performance, although, to be fair, with a boring character such as this who does not talk much, it's got to be tough.
The story is dominated by metaphor and, in the end, makes no sense whatsoever on a literal level. It's fine to use symbolism and metaphors in your films, but, in my view, most good films that involve symbolism also make sense on a literal level and can be enjoyed without thinking at all about any of their symbolic aspects. But if one were to view this film without an understanding of the concept of symbolism, it would be completely ridiculous.
Now, the above is not true for novels. The book seems to garner near-universal praise, and I don't doubt it is worthy of that. But, what happens often with stories like these is that all the symbolism that works well in the book is just silly when translated to the screen, and that's exactly what must have happened here.
In the end, the film version of that allegorical novel is just silly, and, unless you are the sort that thinks that any movie with good production values and some metaphors is a good one, you will probably not really enjoy this one. I am absolutely shocked that there are so many good reviews of this film here at IMDb.
I think it's insane to give a film a good review but to suggest that one need read the book version first, as some have done with regard to this film--if it isn't good unless you have read the book first, in my view, that just means it's not a good film.
There are good metaphorical movies and bad metaphorical movies, and this is a bad one.
The film is mostly pretty to look at, which is why I didn't give it a 1. But that's all I can say for it.
It's pretty boring. And it's nearly 2.5 hours long. I don't know about you, but the only films I want to spend 2.5 hours seeing are ones that are very interesting and not boring.
It's got a couple of those clichéd plot-thickening devices Hollywood continually uses in its big dramas and action films that automatically, at least in my book, disqualify films from being good ones. These parts of the film ought to have most cinephiles groaning.
The star of the film Ben Whishaw does not give a particularly good performance, although, to be fair, with a boring character such as this who does not talk much, it's got to be tough.
The story is dominated by metaphor and, in the end, makes no sense whatsoever on a literal level. It's fine to use symbolism and metaphors in your films, but, in my view, most good films that involve symbolism also make sense on a literal level and can be enjoyed without thinking at all about any of their symbolic aspects. But if one were to view this film without an understanding of the concept of symbolism, it would be completely ridiculous.
Now, the above is not true for novels. The book seems to garner near-universal praise, and I don't doubt it is worthy of that. But, what happens often with stories like these is that all the symbolism that works well in the book is just silly when translated to the screen, and that's exactly what must have happened here.
In the end, the film version of that allegorical novel is just silly, and, unless you are the sort that thinks that any movie with good production values and some metaphors is a good one, you will probably not really enjoy this one. I am absolutely shocked that there are so many good reviews of this film here at IMDb.
I think it's insane to give a film a good review but to suggest that one need read the book version first, as some have done with regard to this film--if it isn't good unless you have read the book first, in my view, that just means it's not a good film.
There are good metaphorical movies and bad metaphorical movies, and this is a bad one.