lukas-5

You could try to imagine a worse film, but why bother? As a film and as an adaptation ("freely adapted" is perhaps the greatest understatement since our involvement in Vietnam was labeled a "police action") of a book, it's a complete failure. The acting ranges from the clueless to the atrocious. Gary Oldman is apparently trying to do a Scottish accent, Demi Moore is just plain terrible, and Robert Duvall is nuts. The soft-glow sex scene is risible. There's no tension to the story because Oldman & Moore don't appear to have souls to lose. Instead of a perceptive & morally soaked tale of guilt, sin, and conscience, this is a trite, gushy story about being true to yourself. It's basically a Disney cartoon message, except without as sophisticated a presentation. The script (it's idea of 17th century English is lots of thees & thous) is as bad as everything else, substituting a nick of time rescue happy ending for Hawthorne's. So bad that it's not even enjoyable on a camp level. C-R-A-P.

possibly the dumbest film ever to win best picture. the battle scenes are undeniably impressive-brutal & well staged, but that can hardly compensate for the film's length, bombast, &, most offensively, it's self-importance. it's surfeited with blowhard sentiments about vague concepts like "freedom" & "honour", which are meant to stir the audience up against the cartoonishly evil british. it dares to give us blood & guts and then to lecture. it can't just be unpretentiously entertaining. in addition, it feels like a colossal ego trip for gibson (did he really win an oscar for best director?)

the ending is ludicrous. even though he's been torn apart, somehow, in the deep reserves of his being, he finds the strength to bellow "freedom!"

laughably bad & turgid.

dreadful, bloodless, cobwebbed version of shakespeare's comedy. one couldn't imagine a worse version. it misses everything that is essential to shakespeare. it is utterly tame and well behaved, the actors standing and intoning their lines in almost comically formal british accents. most high school productions would put the sets and costumes to shame. they look like some leftovers from a fairy tale project. this is most notable for featuring a young olivier. it is perhaps time to reconsider his reputation as "greatest actor of his generation". i'm sure he was brilliant on stage, but here (& in w. heights, p. & prejudice, henry v, etc.) he is listless & unconvincing. he does every line in the exact same voice, with the exact same emphasis. he might as well be reading the evening news. shakespeare's language is trampled on, then drained of all pith and marrow by the so-called actors. a terrible film (all point & shoot camera work) & a terrible interpretation of shakespeare.

The best thing to be said for this film is that Ving Rhames, usually a supporting player, gets a role he can really sink his teeth into. He alone tries to carry the film with his charismatic, vivid performance. The film itself is typical made for tv fare-conventional, fairly unimaginative cinematically, competent enough to be semi-entertaining.

Like Whit Stillman, there is little dramatic momentum in Burns's film, but lots & and lots of chatting, most of it uninteresting. Stillman at least has some flashes of wit & insight.

The acting, aside from Cameron Diaz & John Mahoney, is shallow and annoying. Little better than a mediocre sitcom, but at least a sitcom has commericial breaks.

Though stately, impressive, and vaguely powerful at times, it nonetheless demands more patience than this viewer had. It's well filmed, but rather static and aloof. None of this is aided by its nearly 4 hour length.