Reviews

Two stars for the special effects. For the rest pretty unbelievable. Changing from Russion to Chinese and having dreams (in English apperently). At the end she could hold here breath unbelievably long to escape from the water, but at that time I was already so worked up that I thought O No, every moment a crocodile will turn up and will end the story.

The scene which I found the most moving is when the girl Marzia, in a beautiful red dress, arrives on her bike in the hope to meet Elio again, and is so much disappointed with his dismissal of her. After four days not having contacted her, after two lovemakings, he rejects her point blank. He has not even taken the initiative to let her know that he is not interested in her anymore. The look of grief on her beautiful face is heartrendering.

And that is my main critic of the two characters of the movie: they are so insensitive to other people's feelings, and as such there is no identification of the viewer with them, gay or straight. If you have found out that you like boys more than girls, why giving girls hope that you will be her passionate lover. If anyone is a traitor in this movie, it is Elio, because of making love to Marzia, knowing he can not give her what she is prepared to give him, and Oliver, when he anounces that he is going to marry, and in 1983, that could only be to a girl.

Another flaw is in the parents: -do you think mother knows-, asked Elio his father (about his lovemaking with Oliver). I don't think so- is the answer. Of course she knows! Every mother knows intuitively that her son is gay, which is proved when she tries to console him on the way back from the station. Apperently the two parents don't talk to each other about their son, between smoking there cigarettes.

And that is my last point: why the cigarettes? In 1983 the negative effect of smoking on health was already widely known, and there you are, in beautiful Italy, a nice home with books, music, erudite guests, gardens and orchards; then follows a moving speech of the father to his gay son that he will be always there for him, while in fact after another ten years of smoking he will only be there for the oncologist or the cardiac care unit.

First of all, if you take revenge, your victim should know for what reason revenge is taken. In this story this remains a complete mystery for the concert pianist. So, what is the use of revenge? Furthermore, the wrong person is punished: in fact, it was the autograph seeker, blatantly storming into the room where the audition was held, who was so rude to intrude herself into the privacy of the concert. In fact the only thing Madame Fouchecourt could do is just sign and get rid of the autograph seeker as soon as possible. Lastly, if you love both music and playing the piano you don't give up a career so easily, only because you were kept out of your concentration, you just start again. So the base of the story is very unrealistic. And than that scene with the cellist, horrible. No, a very silly film.

After reading and hearing so much good about this star wars picture I can't prevent myself noting down some negative aspects. To be honest: it is in fact awful. It is strange and impossible to believe that someone who apparently is so inventive and creative in producing special effects on the film screen, is so utterly lacking in any sort of talent for making a real film. Most of the film consists of scenes in which Yedi-knights are wielding their laser swords; in fact no 5 minutes pass by without these things flying around. However, the acting is so really unbelievably bad, that after a few minutes of a crap of a dialog one prays for a fighting scene: all is better than this. Awful music. Absolute no humor. Babies delivered to "loving" carers with sunsets (2 suns!!) in the background and swelling choruses. Unbelievable drama: why is Mr Anikin turning to the Dark Side? Because of a nightmare??? Next time less gin in your cocktail, Mr Anikin! A possible Yedi knight, trained in wisdom, walking over to the dark side because of a sleepless night??? You need a good psychiatrist and your wife a good obstetrician, I would say. And than the fighting between two individuals: these always end with the good guy seeming to fall into a precipice, but no, he holds on with his fingernails, magnetically attracts some sort of gun laying in the neighborhood and kills the bad guy off. So, during a fight you see a precipice looming up, you know the end of the fight is near. And so on, and so on. Keep away from star wars!!!!

I have seen this film many times and every time the subtleness of the characters comes to mind. Is it a story about missed opportunities? Decisions one would like to undo? About love and duty? About the second world war and its aftermath? The acting is absolute superb, and it is Thompson and Hopkins at their best. The "bookscene" is unforgettable, and assumes growing importance when seeing this film more often.

SPOILER The only drawback may be that America was, historically seen, not much interested in the second world war, which is contrary to the American character in the film, who seems to be very much involved in European politics at that time.

But apart from that one can only applaud the producer, director, script editor and actors of making such a beautiful product.

After 1 year of anticipation TLOR has been a big disappointment. Granted, beautiful scenery, granted, spectacular computer techniques, but this is not the way to make a classic novel into a good picture. The casting of for instance Sam, a very important character in the story, is totally wrong; they made him into the fat clumsy schoolboy. Where are the lines of wisdom on Elrond's brow? How beautiful the scenery may have been, Tolkiens love lay in the Northern part of England and Scotland, where the names of the fells and river reflect those he used in the book. So why New Zealand? Most importantly, the acting was unforgivably stiff and unnatural. I don't know what people mean when they argue otherwise. The only way the director thought of showing the actors to play grief, for instance after the fall of Gandalf, was in letting them act in slow motion, already a sign of paucity. Frodo staring for minutes on end, with a tear running over his cheek, call cheap gipsy boy pictures in kitsch interiors to mind. One of the most important scenes of the first book, of course, is the council of Elrond, were the decision is made to destroy the Ring. What an opportunity for dialogue and what a farce the director made of it. The members attending the council were not properly introduced, nothing about the possibilities of using or getting rid of the ring, only a lot of noise and in the end a softheartened Frodo saying he will take it. That was that for a pivotal part in this classic novel. The music was simply awful and stomach-ache inducing. Nothing to be compared to the intelligent use of music and songs in the BBC-radioplay of 10 years ago. Arwen rescueing instead of Glorfindel's horse is doubtless put in because of Hollywood=dollar reasons. So TLOR done by this director is nothing more than a spectacular adventure story, as starwars, the lost menace and all that is. Happily the novel is so great that it won't suffer from this film; may be in twenty years time another director will have a go at it. This production is nothing more than a I think the film is a mere sacrifice to dollars and in that the quest has failed.