Reviews

I read the novel some three years ago, so may be my memory failed me here - but I remember reading a very different novel. The novel had an air of mystery surrounding Hailsham, Hailsham was almost like a character in its own right. What is Hailsham? Or the Gallery? Who is madam? Why Cathy, Ruth and Tommy's lives are the way they are? Are they orphans? Are they part of an experiment? The questions are innumerable - and Ishiguro keeps them suspended until the very end. The mystery unraveled slowly, the truth didn't emerge fully until the last pages. And once it did, the result was crashing, devastating. The book doesn't even pretend to answer all the ethical and philosophical question it raises (which, by the way, is a hallmark of Ishiguro).

The film, on the other hand, was a listless affair. It remains insular to the end, the drama never picks up and fails to evoke a paralytic affliction as the book does. Hailsham didn't get enough importance, the relationship between the three main characters was downplayed. Mr. Romanek's interpretation of the book appears to be archetypal and he ended up attempting a tear-jerker (albeit, with little success).

The film had some stylistic choices, all of which didn't sit well with me. For instance, it was populated with numerous inserts of bird, trees, bushes and whatnot. Now from a narrative point of view, they didn't seem to carry any significance. While they looked pretty and helped to control the pacing of the film to some extent, personally I think they were unnecessary. Then there is the voice-over. The fact that it was there is enough to raise controversy. The way Mr. Romanek used it, it was a waste. Cathey's voice did not convey the slightest emotion which definitely was intentional, and a bad choice.

The use of shallow DOF comes with its downside, as the subject of interest is always at a risk of going out of focus. But in this case, the trade-off was necessary. The film mixes static camera footages with some hand-held shots in places. This, if well-intended, didn't achieve its purpose. These, and a number of other shots in my opinion, had a music video-ish look not suitable for the mood of the film.

If I'm allowed a bit of indulgence, I'd like to quickly rate the key people: Mark Romanek (direction): 0 (failure to make good choices, failure to direct the child actors, failure to create a gripping narrative) Adam Kimmel (cinematography): 5 (for the whole look of the film, especially the way he shot the lonely buildings, sky, rain, sea and the sense of deep melancholy created by them) Mark Digby (production design): 5 (absolutely impeccable) Andrew Garfield (acting - Tommy): 4 (although I think he is better in The Social Network) Music was just the way it should have been and the costume department did a marvelous job too.

To those of you who liked the book, or are planning to read the book (which I think you definitely should), I strongly recommend not watching the film. You are sure to be disappointed.

While I think The Kids are All Right is one of the better movies of this year (2010), and I consider it to be on par with You Can Count On Me, I understand that it is not everybody's cup of tea. Let's just say - "People who like this kind of things will find that they like exactly this kind of things." But where I want to focus is Ruffalo's performance.

I strongly believe it's time Mark Ruffalo gets a film which does justice to his acting talent. It is heart-breaking to see him do one after another small to medium roles in low-budget indies which do little to exploit his extraordinary skills. The guy can pull off a one man show, and he deserves that chance. What he gets instead are these small roles in big-budget flicks like Shutter Island where people are too busy noticing Leonardo-Hollywood-A-Lister-Caprio.

The only big Hollywood film that did some justice to his talent (personal opinion, admitting that I haven't seen all his films) was David Fincher's Zodiac.

While critics have been appreciative of his work, I think what we've seen are just flashes. I'd love to see Ruffalo in more leading roles, and of course challenging roles.

Director Ermanno Olmi's ambition is colossal, and he will settle for nothing less than an epic about the whole spectrum of human existence. The film is unusual in the sense that it rarely focuses on a character or a plot. Yet Olmi threads a unity with mastery unmatched by anything else I've seen before. Also, the background score provides a nice touch. But this is where the good things end for me.

The film suffers from an abundance of religious propaganda. The scene where a terminally ill animal recovers miraculously after drinking some sort of holy water really disgusted me. Also, I felt like the film idealizes peasant life to some extent - especially the women. It seems like the only thing the women do is pray. (Of course, the director may have a point here.)

I think the lack of a dedicated cinematographer shows. The focus is off in a number of shots, exposure within a scene is not always consistent. There are interior scenes where you can see two or three overlapping shadows of the same person cast by different sources - supposed to be candles. But candles don't cast that kind of hard-edged opaque shadow. I am not sure if it's just me, but the lighting seems really amateur.

While the film is beautiful, a work of genius and is a must see for anyone interested in serious filmmaking, beware of the religious stuffs, if you are not into that kind of things.

What do you expect out of an escape plot? That it should be convincing. This is not achieved by getting a guy to say that no system is full-proof. Contrast this film with something like 'The shawshank redemption'. With minimal physical action, the latter convinces us that it is actually possible to escape from shawshank. Nowhere in the film I felt like the hero has really outperformed the authority.

The plot seemed to be confused at best. This is an escape plot shot like a rescue film. It wastes too much time trying to answer "why" and in the end fails there too. The narrative pace never fully takes off and just when I thought its pacing up, the film ended abruptly. What I want to see in a rescue film is "how", where the film falls flat on its face.

Very little effort has been made to explain why would the guy want to break her out of prison, what convinces him that she is innocent? I know that she's his wife, but she's not our wife - and in the end what matters is why WE want to see her out of prison. Do we sympathize with the victim? I couldn't. She is probably going nuts in her cell, but we never get to see what she is actually going through inside the prison. Being gorgeous is not enough to relate with the audience.

I gave it four points for the craftsmanship behind the film - good cinematography and great editing. I hear Hollywood is getting it's own version of the film. I believe that film will benefit from cranking up the action slightly and tension a lot.

The director wasn't aiming at an action film that's for sure. Edward is like Philip Marlow with a heart (if that's what it means to fall in love with a prostitute). I haven't read the original novel, but I've got a feeling that the original story probably has psychological depth which the film lacked.

By the way, i saw a 96 min. cut. It seemed short for the intended story. I felt that the narrative lacks unity, direction and cutting both very loose. Acting is not where is should have been; especially from the priest, Father Benedetto (Paolo Bonacelli). Clooney's love interest, Clara (Violante Placido), manages to throw in some gratuitous nudity - thats all.

Throughout the film, you get a feeling that Clooney's character is going through an inner turmoil. But very little of it shows on screen.

I don't mean to offend anyone who has liked it. But honestly, this film has been a waste of time for me.