I found this movie tolerable for what it is - and it is a movie VERY LOOSELY referencing a true story. I think 'based on' is just too defining. This is a portrayal based on a few letters - and even the words in those real letters written by the gal herself were just one small side of the story.
I read a few reviews where people felt this portrayal of E. H was in no way accurate.
I guess for everyone who felt that way, they must be still be the exact same person they were at 20 as they are at 60?
Still, for some reason, I do feel O'Donnell was miscast as E. H. But the lack of intense chemistry between the actors &/or the characters was useful - because this relationship was never meant to be. Honestly, and I don't mean to negate the need or importance of it - but the number of short-lived romances that occur in war out of need & fear & many other emotions - is endless. They're meaningful in the moment - realistically most participants understand that. I think E. H. didn't want that fact to be true. To me, that whole concept what the movie portrays.
I can certainly imagine him as a competitive, brash 20 year old with idealistic expecations of war - and I did like that the movie portrayed he 'grew up' at least a little bit during his time in Italy. But nothing but decades matures us physically, mentally, & emotionally, and then, many are terribly stunted in one or both of the latter two.
As for his later writing about war - it's largely from observation rather than participation. That's the gifted writer. They don't necessarily have to and many never personally experience the stuff they write. So why expect or demand that of them?
As far as a war-romance-drama goes this was entertaining on that level only.
Don't go in expecting a completely true story. Don't leave it thinking you saw history.
Just accept the genre for what it is.
I read a few reviews where people felt this portrayal of E. H was in no way accurate.
I guess for everyone who felt that way, they must be still be the exact same person they were at 20 as they are at 60?
Still, for some reason, I do feel O'Donnell was miscast as E. H. But the lack of intense chemistry between the actors &/or the characters was useful - because this relationship was never meant to be. Honestly, and I don't mean to negate the need or importance of it - but the number of short-lived romances that occur in war out of need & fear & many other emotions - is endless. They're meaningful in the moment - realistically most participants understand that. I think E. H. didn't want that fact to be true. To me, that whole concept what the movie portrays.
I can certainly imagine him as a competitive, brash 20 year old with idealistic expecations of war - and I did like that the movie portrayed he 'grew up' at least a little bit during his time in Italy. But nothing but decades matures us physically, mentally, & emotionally, and then, many are terribly stunted in one or both of the latter two.
As for his later writing about war - it's largely from observation rather than participation. That's the gifted writer. They don't necessarily have to and many never personally experience the stuff they write. So why expect or demand that of them?
As far as a war-romance-drama goes this was entertaining on that level only.
Don't go in expecting a completely true story. Don't leave it thinking you saw history.
Just accept the genre for what it is.