brucekuehn

I SO disagree with many other writers here. Where in this movie is there anything thought provoking? The Harvey Keitel character is so one dimensional! I totally hated him. The Soviet counterpart is the more sympathetic character. Even the native Germans assigned to work with the American can't stand him. There is no balance in this film. Furtwängler, the brilliant symphony conductor, is berated, belittled and totally disrespected by a complete uncultured boob representing the US. There could have been some struggle between philosophies or a deeper look at guilt, but this movie was shallow and unsatisfying. Better to just read Wikipedia on Furtwängler and save your time. A musician that is trying to save what he can of hundreds of years of musical culture from destruction by the Nazis deserves better. Some good acting but my 6 is really way too kind.

Acting for motion pictures is a strange occupation. A whole crew of people with their equipment is standing in front of a person pretending they are not there and trying to inhabit a character different than themselves. When all the work is finally done, an audience watches and hopefully is transported away and into a story in an experience similar to a trance. In a really successful film, there are many artists who are considered for the "technical awards" and The Dig is one of those, but let me write about one actor. As an audience, we know instantly when acting is done poorly but sometimes I fear we miss when it is performed so well that it is invisible. Ralph Fiennes (he is Welsh and everyone by now should know - pronounced like Rafe Fines) delivers a performance that is so complete that it is as close to perfection as anything I've ever seen. There is not a millisecond where he is not this "excavator". He portrays a simple man who is very complex. He appears to be a common farmer who is really a self-taught intellectual. He is a humble man who knows his worth and wants to be remembered. Honest pride lies under a quiet nature. His job involves shoveling massive amounts of dirt while being directed by his acute scientific mind. All this is revealed by our actor. The body language, the shuffling gate, the stooped posture of a laborer, but the quick eyes that show his knowledge. He also is a man of his time and not ours. There is something so authentic in the performance that it suggests time travel. He reminded me immediately of the old timers I knew as a boy who are now long dead. Men who never really got all the dirt out of the deep cracks in their hands. Ralph Fiennes never cries or shouts or has the long soliloquy, but what a transformation! He simply becomes. That, to me, is what screen acting attempts but rarely achieves.

Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie! Robert Ryan is always great. Burt Lancaster was too. For being such an athletic actor, Burt is not afraid to show some thickening around the middle here. But I'm not going to mess around - what about that ending? And last chance - see the movie first before reading further. I watched it alone on Amazon Prime. This is my substitute for a discussion.

Why'd he do it? Why'd he shoot the poor guy in the back? Was he jealous? He asked Duvall if there was good land still available around there. He talked to Ryan about retiring. Did he still think he could get the old sweety and settle down? But then realized it would never work? Was he so disgusted with all the killing, he just wanted to shoot the guy like the running rabbit he was? He seemed to have a high moral code right up until he took that shot. Something snapped in him? Did he not want Ms North to think upon him kindly? "I can't have her, but I don't want her to miss me. Remember me as a real SOB." Couldn't he have shot him in the leg? (Not realistically, but cinematically since pistols are not very accurate at long distances.) Or did they just want to give the audience something to talk about leaving the theatre? Unexpectedly thought provoking either way.

Some good stuff in this but not really worth it. Creepy atmosphere - sure. A couple of reviews near the top here mention reading the book. Sorry - that is no excuse for a movie that doesn't make sense. A good movie should be self explanatory. There is plenty of other worthy stuff on Netflix. Wish I would have seen the high percentage of terrible reviews first. Was going to stop watching right at the beginning when the buffalo is in the road. Alaska Fish and Game says there are about 900 bison in the entire, huge state. Doubt that one would stand around so you have to slowly drive past it like in Yellowstone. And if I'm going to nitpick - there's a dead elk being hauled off. No elk on the mainland in AK - only on a couple of SE islands. And the boy's body - was that a basement? They don't really do basements up there with the permafrost even if they are below the Arctic Circle (since above there would be no sun on winter solstice). And wolves don't attack people - even children. Wolf guy says very rare, but never is more accurate. Not to be prudish, but indiscriminate killing of many police officers needs a little more justification for me. So much hard work goes into making a movie and the camera work is nice. All those people working up there in the Canadian cold. Too bad movie wasn't better.

I don't know why I do this, but sometimes when I watch a movie I'm streaming I will pause it and look up something that the film has made me curious about. Here I wondered if this was based on an actual violin? Answer - sort of. Let's say story inspired by the sale of the Red Mendelssohn. But there I was on my phone and in one quick synopsis they completely tell why the thing is red. So that was out of the bag. Can't unread that. Why do people give away stuff like that? Special place in Hell for them. Anyway, as I mentioned above - only for those who have seen it and want my perspective. Since there are so many reviews I'm not sure if anyone will ever see this, but I am answering some others here who didn't like the ending. I don't think that rich guy with the highest bid deserved the instrument. He even played it and Samuel L Jackson was able to talk him into believing it was inferior. The stout fellow was not able to tell it's true worth when he didn't first know it's fame and importance. Pearls before the swine. My thought is that after the varnish analysis comes back (when SLJ drops the envelope in the elevator) he is so dumbfounded that he can't allow this old buffoon to be its next owner. And his scientific audio friend must completely agree. The instrument is beyond value in money and needs a worthy person to play it. And SLJ knows the perfect person who is pure of heart and will become one with it like the little orphan boy so many centuries ago. So, for me - perfect ending!

I am so glad that I went into this without knowing much about it. I'm an old Natl Geographic kid and I loved those Cousteau TV specials. Recently, I've enjoyed the Bob Ballard documentary series. I think the whole fun of this film in question is actually believing in Santa Claus. There is that last statue at the end that sealed it, but I had some questions all along. Still, it sucked me in. I was probably watching a lot of this with my mouth literally hanging open. It is a lot more fun if you do believe. I got another kick out of reading about it on the internet after watching. Damien Hirst has gotten very, very rich indeed in the art world. To spend his money (or invest it) on the art and this film is something I think of as quite amazing. This cost a LOT of $. There is so much money rolling around at the very top of our society that if he can make millions and spend millions to make more, I say, "More power to ya!" Those people at the installation looked awestruck enough and I was also sitting in front of my TV. "He should spend his money on ...". It's really none of our business is it? There are a lot of things in modern art I don't understand or appreciate. It is not Leonardo, but it is entertaining and I enjoyed being shocked out of the ordinary. And isn't that what art is about?