(The following may be considered as over-generalizations.)
Maybe, American story writers and directors are more "direct," maybe.
Maybe, American story writers and directors are more "action-oriented," maybe.
But one thing is sure, I just 95% of European feature-film to be profoundly bloated and boring.
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: It's not a bad story, but neither is it an interesting one. This story is mis-titled, and should have been called "A Journey through Dust." Or perhaps, "The Hit ... that took forever."
British film is remarkable for the pattern of endless dialogue and clinically bloated story. I love good dialogue that threads a story together - that's great. But not this. It just goes on and on .... and then, on and on some more.
This is why I don't like British film (for the most part) - it's too wrapped up in its own intellectualism.
ACTING: On the flip side, no one produces better actors than the British. Not even us Americans.
But there's not much here to cheer about because these are some painfully dull characters.
ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate value, depending on your tastes
TEMPO: S ... l ... o ... w
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Occasionally it's fine, then more dust
MUSIC / SOUND: More often than not, when music runs through a film it's not a sign of quality
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Frears began in TV, switched to features, then back to TV. So, either: a) He was experimenting or trying to stretch (kudos if that's the case) b) He couldn't (or can't) make up his mind (possible) or c) He really should stick with TV because his feature skills are wanting (probable)
I think his technical skills are fine, but if he had anything to do with the form and motion of the film, then his creative skills are lacking. Thus, TV-land is his real home.
Writers: Prince = TV, TV and more TV (can you smell a pattern here?)
Is it a good film? Average, but I wouldn't call this "good"
Should you watch this once? Maybe if you're accustomed to this film style
Rating: 7.0 (not a penny more)
Maybe, American story writers and directors are more "direct," maybe.
Maybe, American story writers and directors are more "action-oriented," maybe.
But one thing is sure, I just 95% of European feature-film to be profoundly bloated and boring.
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: It's not a bad story, but neither is it an interesting one. This story is mis-titled, and should have been called "A Journey through Dust." Or perhaps, "The Hit ... that took forever."
British film is remarkable for the pattern of endless dialogue and clinically bloated story. I love good dialogue that threads a story together - that's great. But not this. It just goes on and on .... and then, on and on some more.
This is why I don't like British film (for the most part) - it's too wrapped up in its own intellectualism.
ACTING: On the flip side, no one produces better actors than the British. Not even us Americans.
But there's not much here to cheer about because these are some painfully dull characters.
ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate value, depending on your tastes
TEMPO: S ... l ... o ... w
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Occasionally it's fine, then more dust
MUSIC / SOUND: More often than not, when music runs through a film it's not a sign of quality
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Frears began in TV, switched to features, then back to TV. So, either: a) He was experimenting or trying to stretch (kudos if that's the case) b) He couldn't (or can't) make up his mind (possible) or c) He really should stick with TV because his feature skills are wanting (probable)
I think his technical skills are fine, but if he had anything to do with the form and motion of the film, then his creative skills are lacking. Thus, TV-land is his real home.
Writers: Prince = TV, TV and more TV (can you smell a pattern here?)
Is it a good film? Average, but I wouldn't call this "good"
Should you watch this once? Maybe if you're accustomed to this film style
Rating: 7.0 (not a penny more)