03-17-2006, 09:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2006, 11:03 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Maitre,Mar 17 2006, 02:23 PM Wrote:I'm hoping to sneak into a screening this week-end in order to decide for myself. The wife won't see anything in the theater unless it 1. is a "romantic comedy," 2. is a princess story, or 3. stars Sandra Bullock (please don't ask me why, I don't understand either).I suspect that critic probably doesn't buy the Moore line about anarchy being a solution any more than I do. I understand his critique, but I find his forgetting to review the movie on its own merits a shortcoming of his review.
edit: corrected some parenthetic issues
[right][snapback]104868[/snapback][/right]
The story is blatantly dystopian, in structure, from word one. Aldous Huxley would probably have approved of this film, though it nods to Orwell more than Huxley in story line. Hunter seems not to have forgiven Portman for her association with Star Wars and Closer. This calls his integrity and objectivity as a reviewer into quesiton.
Given the story and the role, Portman did well, as did Weaving.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete