This film deserves a rating of at least 7 if not 8. Excellent on all counts: screenplay, production, acting and costumes. Topical. Relevant. Brutal truth.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Tulip Fever
(2017)
Ignore Critics - Engrossing Film
5 September 2017
Saw this film this past weekend. I had initially checked out reviews here - which at the time were strongly biased to the negative. Having now seen the film I feel I was seriously misled. I went into the film less positive than needed. This is an excellent historical drama. At least 8 stars, and I have given 10 stars. I left the film decided to write this review to let others know that this is a decent film for entertainment, and for thinking. Well worth anyone's time.
Some negative comments made were sufficient to create such a confusing impression that they are inexplicable (imo) - examples: voice narration makes perfect sense, and there is nothing confusing about the initial 45 minutes of plot. I could go on but that should be enough to indicate that everyone should approach this film in a positive frame. If you are into period dramas and history elegantly rendered, this film definitely deserves your attention. Definitely deserves awards for costumes and sets Imo.
As stated by some others, source material for this screenplay was excellent so the story is both compelling and unique. The production is lush and beautifully realized. If you love period dramas, and good love stories, this one will do just fine, with the added joy of being an historical drama fully realized taking place in Amsterdam (rather than London). I found the tulip trade backstory fascinating.
Performances all round are uniformly excellent as well. No complaints. Well done, All.
Some negative comments made were sufficient to create such a confusing impression that they are inexplicable (imo) - examples: voice narration makes perfect sense, and there is nothing confusing about the initial 45 minutes of plot. I could go on but that should be enough to indicate that everyone should approach this film in a positive frame. If you are into period dramas and history elegantly rendered, this film definitely deserves your attention. Definitely deserves awards for costumes and sets Imo.
As stated by some others, source material for this screenplay was excellent so the story is both compelling and unique. The production is lush and beautifully realized. If you love period dramas, and good love stories, this one will do just fine, with the added joy of being an historical drama fully realized taking place in Amsterdam (rather than London). I found the tulip trade backstory fascinating.
Performances all round are uniformly excellent as well. No complaints. Well done, All.
Interstellar
(2014)
Excellent Film - Go See! :-) SPOILERS!
9 November 2014
NOTE: This review edited on 9/24/2017
Today (11/10/2014) we went to see 'Interstellar'. Kip Thorne did not disappoint. Tons of interesting ideas to sort out though it's more than a cerebral film. There is a pretty substantial human story woven through, essential to the major premise of the science. It is unique in that way. I think it is unlikely we will see this kind of 'take' in any other sci-fi film in the current climate (though we can hope).
I have been surprised at the negative vehemence with which some have reviewed this film. My advice: this film is for those who appreciate not only science fiction but speculative fiction. This is a serious work of artistry. I wish I had seen the film initially in IMAX. I didn't so can only hope for special showings one day at a film festival. The film is a classic. It sets a bar.
The film was well cast: Matthew McConaughey (stand-out), John Lithgow, Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway, Matt Damon - all excellent, with great supporting cast.
I was initially unable to understand why there were so many highly charged emotional human interest scenes. This alone hints that something unusual is afoot with this film. I soon realized that there was a definite and very significant point to what was being explored emotionally, and was, in fact, essential to the major scientific premise in the film. Agree or not - and it would seem that there are many who don't agree - imo the story premise was compelling. It's not a simple film. Overarching - it is a beautifully realized cinematic experience.
One small point: with all the high- tech, I am certain that in some not too distant time, audiences watching the use of laptops on a spaceship will be wincing. :-)
I very much liked the robots - excellent visualization. Makes perfect sense for the robots to be functional and at-will moving machines (rather than look-like-humans) and not a 'teddy bear' friendly construct. Liked that.
Also relieved that the film had an actual finish - there was a point when I was fearful we were on the verge of '2001: A Space Odyssey' ground. I would not have been happy. All-in-all, a little bit of everything and put together well imo. Excellent special effects, both on the various planets and in space. Totally realized worlds. The massive ocean wave on Miller's Planet remains an incredible effect and a moment in the film that stays with one. There are many such scenes in the film. Loved the silence of space - finally that has been done well.
It has been a film I went to see again while it was still in the theaters, and is a film I now own and have viewed many times. It has it's bumps. For me it was always the excessive emotions, though I have come to appreciate them and understand why they were essential to the plot. The film remains deeply satisfying 'after all these years'.
Final Note: It occurs to me that some of the negative reviews may be rooted in the obvious 'politics' of the film at certain junctures. That's a shame, because there are few science fiction writers who were (or are) not dabbling in political commentary one way or another (take a look at some of the classic 1950's science fiction films). Some of the best writers were (and are) doing so (Orwell. Huxley). Every film carries a baseline pov. It's unavoidable. The original Star Trek had one in spades - much of it quaint (and appallingly sexist to the point of humorous) by current sensibilities. The genre is littered with such by necessity. This film is nothing unique in that - and to dismiss this phenomenal artistic achievement on such flimsy grounds is to miss the forest for the trees. JMO.
The film stands the test of time. Great film. See it if you haven't already, but do so prepared for a unique film to be savored as such. Happy viewing!
Today (11/10/2014) we went to see 'Interstellar'. Kip Thorne did not disappoint. Tons of interesting ideas to sort out though it's more than a cerebral film. There is a pretty substantial human story woven through, essential to the major premise of the science. It is unique in that way. I think it is unlikely we will see this kind of 'take' in any other sci-fi film in the current climate (though we can hope).
I have been surprised at the negative vehemence with which some have reviewed this film. My advice: this film is for those who appreciate not only science fiction but speculative fiction. This is a serious work of artistry. I wish I had seen the film initially in IMAX. I didn't so can only hope for special showings one day at a film festival. The film is a classic. It sets a bar.
The film was well cast: Matthew McConaughey (stand-out), John Lithgow, Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway, Matt Damon - all excellent, with great supporting cast.
I was initially unable to understand why there were so many highly charged emotional human interest scenes. This alone hints that something unusual is afoot with this film. I soon realized that there was a definite and very significant point to what was being explored emotionally, and was, in fact, essential to the major scientific premise in the film. Agree or not - and it would seem that there are many who don't agree - imo the story premise was compelling. It's not a simple film. Overarching - it is a beautifully realized cinematic experience.
One small point: with all the high- tech, I am certain that in some not too distant time, audiences watching the use of laptops on a spaceship will be wincing. :-)
I very much liked the robots - excellent visualization. Makes perfect sense for the robots to be functional and at-will moving machines (rather than look-like-humans) and not a 'teddy bear' friendly construct. Liked that.
Also relieved that the film had an actual finish - there was a point when I was fearful we were on the verge of '2001: A Space Odyssey' ground. I would not have been happy. All-in-all, a little bit of everything and put together well imo. Excellent special effects, both on the various planets and in space. Totally realized worlds. The massive ocean wave on Miller's Planet remains an incredible effect and a moment in the film that stays with one. There are many such scenes in the film. Loved the silence of space - finally that has been done well.
It has been a film I went to see again while it was still in the theaters, and is a film I now own and have viewed many times. It has it's bumps. For me it was always the excessive emotions, though I have come to appreciate them and understand why they were essential to the plot. The film remains deeply satisfying 'after all these years'.
Final Note: It occurs to me that some of the negative reviews may be rooted in the obvious 'politics' of the film at certain junctures. That's a shame, because there are few science fiction writers who were (or are) not dabbling in political commentary one way or another (take a look at some of the classic 1950's science fiction films). Some of the best writers were (and are) doing so (Orwell. Huxley). Every film carries a baseline pov. It's unavoidable. The original Star Trek had one in spades - much of it quaint (and appallingly sexist to the point of humorous) by current sensibilities. The genre is littered with such by necessity. This film is nothing unique in that - and to dismiss this phenomenal artistic achievement on such flimsy grounds is to miss the forest for the trees. JMO.
The film stands the test of time. Great film. See it if you haven't already, but do so prepared for a unique film to be savored as such. Happy viewing!
Star Trek Into Darkness
(2013)
Not For The Serious Science Fiction Fan
18 May 2013
Huge disappointment. Shallow fare. I realize this is a derivative film - but while the first one of this re-cast was a clever re-spin, factoring in a changed time-line - and hence suggesting intriguing possibilities for all future story-lines - this film is a re-hash, making the past banal. I was bored by the time the dying character appeared on the screen - and that was pretty early on in the film.
All smash-bang with inordinate moments of 'meaningful feeling' - what a waste. Where was the character driven story? This could have been so much better given the outstanding beginning made with the very good 2009 "Star Trek". Even the excellent actor Benedict Cumberbatch fails to animate this nostalgia-drenched turn of the Star Trek franchise.
All smash-bang with inordinate moments of 'meaningful feeling' - what a waste. Where was the character driven story? This could have been so much better given the outstanding beginning made with the very good 2009 "Star Trek". Even the excellent actor Benedict Cumberbatch fails to animate this nostalgia-drenched turn of the Star Trek franchise.
From Time to Time
(2009)
A Lovely Film From Another Time....
9 December 2010
This is a film that would easily have been made 40 years ago - that it was made now is remarkable. I never read the book upon which it was based so I came to it on its own merits - and it stood more than just well. This is a film to be savored like a fine wine - it has rich nuances. There is so much that is good about it - from writing and acting to photography and set design.
It is an atmospheric film. Beautifully captured - the two time periods are both portrayed in evocative detail. The mood for 1941 feels iconic but real - like it would have been - in memory - quiet, all in muted wintry grays with the detail of the house and its rooms presented to the eye like paintings. By contrast, 1811 has a warm and vivid lushness like a dream. Fascinating choices.
Beautifully acted - of exceptional note is Maggie Smith. Hugh Bonneville gives a wonderful performance as Captain Oldknow. I found the marital relationship between the Captain and his foreign wife, as acted by Hugh Bonneville and Carice van Houten, as his wife Maria, intriguing. Made me wonder about how that relationship was portrayed in the book. Pauline Collins and Timothy Spall and Dominic West all excellent, as are the actors playing the children. Well done all round.
This film made me curious about the book. In fact, I will likely read the book now.
It is an atmospheric film. Beautifully captured - the two time periods are both portrayed in evocative detail. The mood for 1941 feels iconic but real - like it would have been - in memory - quiet, all in muted wintry grays with the detail of the house and its rooms presented to the eye like paintings. By contrast, 1811 has a warm and vivid lushness like a dream. Fascinating choices.
Beautifully acted - of exceptional note is Maggie Smith. Hugh Bonneville gives a wonderful performance as Captain Oldknow. I found the marital relationship between the Captain and his foreign wife, as acted by Hugh Bonneville and Carice van Houten, as his wife Maria, intriguing. Made me wonder about how that relationship was portrayed in the book. Pauline Collins and Timothy Spall and Dominic West all excellent, as are the actors playing the children. Well done all round.
This film made me curious about the book. In fact, I will likely read the book now.
French Film
(2008)
A Thinking Person's Film
1 July 2009
Rare in these days that a film of this depth was successfully made - while still being funny, which will throw some people off because they will assume it's just a frothy romantic comedy with a few pertinent things to say. It even gets better with each successive viewing - which makes a DVD purchase a must for those who understand why this film received two awards at Monte Carlo (for Best Actor and Best Screenplay). May be too subtle for some who are looking for a broad stroke - but it is laughing out loud funny in many parts (if you get the complexity) due to the writing, directing and excellent ensemble cast. They all do well but of special note is Hugh Bonneville (who won for Best Actor at Monte Carlo) as the lead character Jed. Douglas Henshall is his best friend Marcus and Anne-Marie Duff and Victoria Hamilton are the girlfriends.
Tell Your Friends