Change Your Image
lasker_98
Reviews
Daniel Deronda (2002)
Period Romance with Substance
As a film of social and interpersonal dimension, Daniel Deronda is impressive. It is refreshingly easy to forgive that it is not an Ivory production complete with exquisite costumes, sets, and revelatory photography. There is an engaging account to make up for it.
The series encapsulates the respective stories of the heroic Daniel Deronda and the spoiled aristocrat, Gwendolyn Harleth whose lives first intertwine at a casino. The first images of the roulette and the covert glances Gwendolyn and Daniel share transport us immediately into the Victorian period with its secrets, niceties, and excesses. It is the only period that such a film could take place. Their encounter is a chance one. She is called away, once she receives the news, to attend to her impoverished family; he is not a gambler. Yet, his return of the jewels she sold to provide money for her family lays the foundation of their relationship that lasts until the end of the series. Gwendolyn, despite her self-centeredness and arrogance, sees value in him that transcends her attraction. His generosity is an impression which deepens each time she sees him, and, to a degree, transforms her.
Romola Garai masterfully registers the complexities of Gwendolyn Harleth, who is the more pivotal character. Her facial and vocal expressions continually convey the conflicts in her nature that on one hand consists of a superficial expectation of wealth, and on the other hand contains her desire to be a better person than she could possibly become. Gwendolyn's decisions, involving situations which are morally complex, result continuously in dichotomies that benefit some to the absolute detriment of others. She is haunted by these ambiguities, her uncomfortable reflections on her motivations, and her tragic belief in Daniel Deronda. That she often suffers as a result of circumstances and conscience, does not give her comfort. Yet the initial understanding of her lack of substance disappears. Her character is considered the most impressive ever written by Eliot, and Garai is award-worthy in capturing her.
Hugh Dancy has the requisite gallantry and innocence of Deronda, who finds a social purpose in aiding the Jewish people in their pursuit of their homeland. His romantic interest in Gwendolyn is a fascinating aspect that gives the series its thrilling effect. One is compelled to wonder and hope throughout if they will have a future together.
Marie Antoinette (2006)
a tranquilizing take on the most indulgent period in history
Hitchcock once said that film was real life with all of the dull parts cut out. I certainly never believed there was a dull minute in Marie Antoinette's life until this movie.
Lost in Translation might be one of the most overrated movies of all time, but assuming that it was as poignant as many critics and audiences felt it was, it worked in a modern Japan, and it had a story.
Marie Antoinette is a subject that doesn't work without opulence and indulgence: into the costumes and sets, and into a court where a queen made revelry to distract herself from the pains of an unfulfilled marriage. Coppola assumes that anyone interested in Marie Antoinette has no interest in the court she created, and assumes the audience might respond to the taciturn Lost in Translation formula in a period movie.
If adding contemporary music was not tasteless, it did not serve its intended purpose of adding life into the movie. Life might have come from the pain of Marie Antoinette's predetermined life, but instead of a breadth of insights, the viewer is made to suffer through a simple and non-faceted point that she was married to a sexually unresponsive man for over an hour. The rest of the film focuses on the escape of a garden and a child, rather than on the extravagance of Versailles court life. The movie that so long tries to make Marie Antoinette sympathetic does not even give a reason for this attempt. The film sidesteps her controversy with the people of France altogether and misses her beheading, and her imprisonment.
Kirsten Dunst, whose youthful voice surely earned her the role, is flat and without range even for a role that required little.
For those expecting fantastic costumes, those in Marie Antoinette are predictable. Few are memorable, and many more are simplistic. The fabric is incredible, but there is little detail save for some imaginative albeit limited trimmings.
In short, you can't make a movie about anything, no matter how seemingly grand and interesting, without a plot.
Emma (1996)
I love it
Emma was a great film. It was exciting and romantic tale of friends that become lovers and have match making be represented as a hard job that need luck and a great understanding for peoples intentions. Also the cast was wonderful and include many familiar faces. This is a cutting edge romantic tale and should be held dear by everyone. It is a 19th century look on a good concept and lesson to all. It fallows the book very well and only skips the boring conversations and unimportant dialog. and still it doesn't change the meaning. Emma is one of the best experiences you will have in a movie theater or in the privacy in your own home. It will be a great experience and can watch Emma with your hole family because there is nothing in it that should prevent anyone from seeing it.
Dogville (2003)
A combination of genius and obvious mistakes
Nicole Kidman gives the best performance of her life and one of the best performances ever given. She has this consistent warmness and a use of her eyes that is astounding. She really kept the film together, and she really gave an extraordinary performance.
The set was very creative, and I believe that it added to the film.
My problems with the movie were with the direction. I do believe that human beings are in general immoral, although not cruel, and never all-good or all-bad. It was almost as if Lars Von Trier was borderline and splitting the townspeople.
It would've worked better if the town had not entirely died and there had been a few righteous people.
Ben Gazzara's character was probably the only decent character in the entire movie, and he wasn't saved. Anyway, I would've liked to have more righteous characters to make it realistic, and I would've liked for the ending to be more in tune with the rest.
Basically, I see academy award nominations for Kidman (who should win), Gazzara, Hurt, Bettany, and art direction. I think that overall, it's good enough to see the great performances, and a great conversation piece.
I just would've done things differently.
Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)
It was easily the best picture of the year, and one of the best performances delivered by Scarlett Johansson.
This was an extraordinary movie and although a bit slow, I was taken away by the sets, cinematography, reality, and Scarlett's performance. I felt that I was literally placed in the Flemish landscape, and I could feel the winter on the lake and everything was filmed beautifully. There wasn't much dialogue, or much complication, but the artistic value was incredible, and that alone made it a great movie. Scarlett, although having little to say, gave a great performance through her eyes, and a great performance through her modesty, and her speech about the clouds, which I could sense as such a wonderful artistic endeavor. The elegance of the film was extraordinary too. I loved it. Plus, the direction came across as subtle and beautiful. I'm definitely looking forward to what he does in the future. I'll also be sure to get the movie when it comes out on video.
Dogville (2003)
A combination of genius and obvious mistakes
Nicole Kidman gives the best performance of her life and one of the best performances ever given. She has this consistent warmness and a use of her eyes that is astounding. She really kept the film together, and she really gave an extraordinary performance.
The set was very creative, and I believe that it added to the film.
My problems with the movie were with the direction. I do believe that human beings are in general immoral, although not cruel, and never all-good or all-bad. It was almost as if Lars Von Trier was borderline and splitting the townspeople.
It would've worked better if the town had not entirely died and there had been a few righteous people.
Ben Gazzara's character was probably the only decent character in the entire movie, and he wasn't saved. Anyway, I would've liked to have more righteous characters to make it realistic, and I would've liked for the ending to be more in tune with the rest.
Basically, I see academy award nominations for Kidman (who should win), Gazzara, Hurt, Bettany, and art direction. I think that overall, it's good enough to see the great performances, and a great conversation piece.
I just would've done things differently.