Bea says: Our last film seen on the film marathon in Paris at a small cinema in the Montparnasse area. We were tossing up between a Fassbinder and this one, and went for this one on the basis that we'd seen two fairly heavy films the previous day (see previous two posts for details). This wasn't a bad film, it's just that American mainstream stuff doesn't hold up well against high-quality low-budget European cinema. In my opinion. Again a story of 6 characters, 3 storylines (told by switching between stories), with some very big names and expensive digital effects. It was good to see Meryl Streep again (seems to have been a long time) but the role didn't stretch her, and both she and Robert Redford have done too much to their faces. This has really become a big bugbear for me in mainstream cinema - actors with "youthful", frozen faces. How can you act if you can't form a facial expression!? Tom Cruise was also limited by his role, and he is someone I generally think is hugely underrated and rarely given the opportunity to display his acting ability. I have thought this about him ever since I saw his performance in "Born on the Fourth of July", although maybe the credit there was due to Stone's direction. But I digress. A bit preachy (I was already converted), stretches credibility a bit, not bad.
Cecil says: Bea got herself so upset by the botox that she forgot the plot: what should we do about Iraq ?(we Americans, that is); should we commit ?(here it's personal and political and militarily); are journalists/politicians/teachers ethical? All good questions, but why does the American way of filming this sort of stuff just not speak to a European audience? I think the problem is that the film tries to convey a message rather than let the characters develop. And for all that the message was equivocal and challenging, to be honest, I'm more interested in the characters and how they approach things. For me, the Robert Redford (tutor) dialogue with his (almost drop-out, but privileged) student was most interesting; the former Redford students, now committed and out in Afghanistan fighting, the least plausible and least interesting (why should I care that one of them is faster at hand-slapping game??); the journalist/senator dialogue was way too long (and, of course, the one with the biggest questions - and message) but even there, the characters didn't really shine through. For all my criticism, it wasn't a bad film - botox or not, I think Redford ages well (and still acts well); Bea is right: Streep is not challenged by this role. But the acting was good and the story-line gripping enough to keep me interested throughout.
Rating: ***
Cecil says: Bea got herself so upset by the botox that she forgot the plot: what should we do about Iraq ?(we Americans, that is); should we commit ?(here it's personal and political and militarily); are journalists/politicians/teachers ethical? All good questions, but why does the American way of filming this sort of stuff just not speak to a European audience? I think the problem is that the film tries to convey a message rather than let the characters develop. And for all that the message was equivocal and challenging, to be honest, I'm more interested in the characters and how they approach things. For me, the Robert Redford (tutor) dialogue with his (almost drop-out, but privileged) student was most interesting; the former Redford students, now committed and out in Afghanistan fighting, the least plausible and least interesting (why should I care that one of them is faster at hand-slapping game??); the journalist/senator dialogue was way too long (and, of course, the one with the biggest questions - and message) but even there, the characters didn't really shine through. For all my criticism, it wasn't a bad film - botox or not, I think Redford ages well (and still acts well); Bea is right: Streep is not challenged by this role. But the acting was good and the story-line gripping enough to keep me interested throughout.
Rating: ***
No comments:
Post a Comment