When you go to a five-star restaurant, you expect a five-star meal. If, at the end of your dining experience, you find yourself feeling unsatisfied, your review of it will get an extra edge of harshness. I think this explains to a large extent why users and critics are attacking this movie with such little restraint.
I do agree that there are many things that could have been done better, but I think that rating it anything below 4 must be a result of the emotion I described above, and doesn't do the movie any justice.
I believe that with a different approach to the script and the buildup of the movie, the results might have been better. I guess it's always a challenge to try and "do a book". I'm pretty sure Dee Rees was aware of that, as she described Joan Didion's book as 'fragmented' and 'jumping around in time'. Since watching a movie is an entirely different experience compared to reading a book, choices must be made to clear up that fragmentation. It seems that Rees wanted to stay true to the novel, more than is good for her movie.
The result of this approach has been that established and experienced actors do not end up placed in the story in a way that allows them to shine and display their best talents. The ever-charming Anne Hathaway still did an acceptable job, but that's the thing. Your lead protagonist has to shine, always. There just aren't many exceptions to this rule, in much the same way as the lead vocal in a song has to be stable and clear in order for any song to be appreciated by its listeners.
This could have been a really good movie. You have the budget, you have a strong cast, you have great locations, you have good cinematography, and, let's not forget this: you have a good story. Yes, a good story. It's just hard to follow, and you can remedy that by reducing the disjointedness that apparently worked for the book, but pretty much buries the story if you use the same approach for a movie.
I'm sure that Dee Rees will learn a lot from this experience, and I am confident she will give continue to give us great movies in the future. I still have a good degree of sympathy for this film, which is why I rated it six stars. I didn't feel like I wasted my time. I had a meal that satisfied my hunger, but not the expectations that I started it with.
I do agree that there are many things that could have been done better, but I think that rating it anything below 4 must be a result of the emotion I described above, and doesn't do the movie any justice.
I believe that with a different approach to the script and the buildup of the movie, the results might have been better. I guess it's always a challenge to try and "do a book". I'm pretty sure Dee Rees was aware of that, as she described Joan Didion's book as 'fragmented' and 'jumping around in time'. Since watching a movie is an entirely different experience compared to reading a book, choices must be made to clear up that fragmentation. It seems that Rees wanted to stay true to the novel, more than is good for her movie.
The result of this approach has been that established and experienced actors do not end up placed in the story in a way that allows them to shine and display their best talents. The ever-charming Anne Hathaway still did an acceptable job, but that's the thing. Your lead protagonist has to shine, always. There just aren't many exceptions to this rule, in much the same way as the lead vocal in a song has to be stable and clear in order for any song to be appreciated by its listeners.
This could have been a really good movie. You have the budget, you have a strong cast, you have great locations, you have good cinematography, and, let's not forget this: you have a good story. Yes, a good story. It's just hard to follow, and you can remedy that by reducing the disjointedness that apparently worked for the book, but pretty much buries the story if you use the same approach for a movie.
I'm sure that Dee Rees will learn a lot from this experience, and I am confident she will give continue to give us great movies in the future. I still have a good degree of sympathy for this film, which is why I rated it six stars. I didn't feel like I wasted my time. I had a meal that satisfied my hunger, but not the expectations that I started it with.
Tell Your Friends