Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews4
farmerdave74's rating
As one who has lived in Japan and has eaten REAL Ramen, I enjoyed this movie just from that perspective. However, I was touched on other levels as well.
There is a depth to this movie that sadly many viewers simply will not be able to comprehend. This is a movie that goes beyond the technicality or "head thinking" aspect of a craft and addresses the heart or "spirit" of doing something.
This is clearly a movie about redemption. It is a movie about relationships. And, it is a movie about cross-cultural understanding and communication.
Ramen Girl touched my heart, and I hope it will touch yours as well.
There is a depth to this movie that sadly many viewers simply will not be able to comprehend. This is a movie that goes beyond the technicality or "head thinking" aspect of a craft and addresses the heart or "spirit" of doing something.
This is clearly a movie about redemption. It is a movie about relationships. And, it is a movie about cross-cultural understanding and communication.
Ramen Girl touched my heart, and I hope it will touch yours as well.
I was a little puzzled by all of the negative reviews this movie has already received. After finally viewing the movie for myself, I can honestly say that it is a pretty good movie, one definitely worth watching for anyone interested in American history.
What partially explains the negative criticism is the fact that people with 21st century minds are trying to critique a movie about American life in the mid 19th century. The culture of this country in the Civil War era is quite different from today's culture. Unfortunately, the public educational system (from which I presume most negative critics received their education) is nearly completely secularized. History has been sanitized and revised to the point where the role of religion in American history becomes completely irrelevant.
But religion was extremely important to a significant portion of the population in the United States in the days of the Civil War. Hence, it is no surprise to see General Jackson sharing a passage of Scripture with his wife prior to his departure. Also, it is no surprise to hear Stonewall repeatedly refer to God and His providence throughout the movie.
Plus, please understand that these people were about to go to WAR. When you face your own mortality and immense destruction that war can bring, you tend be a little more sober in your thinking and speech. You also tend to get a little more eloquent about your beliefs. That is why the movie contains so many little speeches in the context of conversations. War was weighing heavily on their minds, and they wanted their words to count. Plus, the original historical sources bear this out.
Some have criticized the low quality graphics of the birds' eye views of the some of the towns in Virginia. I believe that the less-than-graphical imagery was deliberate and not amateurish, as some would suppose. The sense I got from the image of the towns was that of a painting in a history book. I think that this is appropriate, considering the movie was a living history book of sorts.
Another reason some did not like this movie is due to the favorable view presented of the South. Any historian worth his or her salt knows that slavery was not the primary reason the Civil War began. To be sure, it served as a catalyst, but the issues go deeper than this abominable practice. The fact of the matter is that states from the North INVADED Virginia. The citizens of Virginia felt it their duty to defend their state (which in their time and in their mind was equivalent to their country). With the exception of two tactical battles, the South never invaded the North. This movie does a great job of explaining the Southern mindset and their reasons for going to war with the Union.
I wonder if some of the criticism of this excellent movie is due more to a case of Bible-phobia than it is to an honest assessment of the film (which some could not honestly make, seeing that they walked out before the thing was half over).
I look forward to seeing the movie on DVD, when (I HOPE) I will be able to see the full six hours of the movie. There is a lot of great acting, and I would love to see Stephen Lang get an Oscar (or at least nominated). He certainly hit a home run in this one!
Though it is not a perfect movie, I still give it a 9 out of 10.
What partially explains the negative criticism is the fact that people with 21st century minds are trying to critique a movie about American life in the mid 19th century. The culture of this country in the Civil War era is quite different from today's culture. Unfortunately, the public educational system (from which I presume most negative critics received their education) is nearly completely secularized. History has been sanitized and revised to the point where the role of religion in American history becomes completely irrelevant.
But religion was extremely important to a significant portion of the population in the United States in the days of the Civil War. Hence, it is no surprise to see General Jackson sharing a passage of Scripture with his wife prior to his departure. Also, it is no surprise to hear Stonewall repeatedly refer to God and His providence throughout the movie.
Plus, please understand that these people were about to go to WAR. When you face your own mortality and immense destruction that war can bring, you tend be a little more sober in your thinking and speech. You also tend to get a little more eloquent about your beliefs. That is why the movie contains so many little speeches in the context of conversations. War was weighing heavily on their minds, and they wanted their words to count. Plus, the original historical sources bear this out.
Some have criticized the low quality graphics of the birds' eye views of the some of the towns in Virginia. I believe that the less-than-graphical imagery was deliberate and not amateurish, as some would suppose. The sense I got from the image of the towns was that of a painting in a history book. I think that this is appropriate, considering the movie was a living history book of sorts.
Another reason some did not like this movie is due to the favorable view presented of the South. Any historian worth his or her salt knows that slavery was not the primary reason the Civil War began. To be sure, it served as a catalyst, but the issues go deeper than this abominable practice. The fact of the matter is that states from the North INVADED Virginia. The citizens of Virginia felt it their duty to defend their state (which in their time and in their mind was equivalent to their country). With the exception of two tactical battles, the South never invaded the North. This movie does a great job of explaining the Southern mindset and their reasons for going to war with the Union.
I wonder if some of the criticism of this excellent movie is due more to a case of Bible-phobia than it is to an honest assessment of the film (which some could not honestly make, seeing that they walked out before the thing was half over).
I look forward to seeing the movie on DVD, when (I HOPE) I will be able to see the full six hours of the movie. There is a lot of great acting, and I would love to see Stephen Lang get an Oscar (or at least nominated). He certainly hit a home run in this one!
Though it is not a perfect movie, I still give it a 9 out of 10.
I saw this movie in 1975 about eight times in the theatre. As a young man in his late teens, this movie really blew my mind! The music was great (in spite of the attempts by Oliver Reed and Jack Nicholson to sing), including then-stars Eric Clapton, Tina Turner, Elton John, and Ann-Margret. Most of the other songs were done by the Who.
Having seen the move again more than 27 years later, I still felt some of the "magic" I experienced in 1975. I don't believe I've seen Ann-Margret act better in her life. The emotional scenes, such as when her son witnessed the murder of his father, are done by Ann with incredible realism. I remember as a young man having a crush on Ann. Now I can see why!
In 1975, the movie's music and cinematography most captured my mind. In 2002, I am also impressed with the plot and message of this rock opera. Several scenes appear to be blasphemous (e.g., the "church" of Marilyn and Tommy becoming the "new Messiah"). However, they are really not-so-subtle attacks upon organized religion. Tommy's religious cult fails miserably, as it should. The movie ends with Daltry's character climbing a mountain and worshipping God (the one Whom Tommy rejected on his first Christmas after becoming deaf, dumb and blind).
Although some folks obviously did not enjoy this movie, I think everyone can agree that it is unique. I haven't seen another one quite like it!
Having seen the move again more than 27 years later, I still felt some of the "magic" I experienced in 1975. I don't believe I've seen Ann-Margret act better in her life. The emotional scenes, such as when her son witnessed the murder of his father, are done by Ann with incredible realism. I remember as a young man having a crush on Ann. Now I can see why!
In 1975, the movie's music and cinematography most captured my mind. In 2002, I am also impressed with the plot and message of this rock opera. Several scenes appear to be blasphemous (e.g., the "church" of Marilyn and Tommy becoming the "new Messiah"). However, they are really not-so-subtle attacks upon organized religion. Tommy's religious cult fails miserably, as it should. The movie ends with Daltry's character climbing a mountain and worshipping God (the one Whom Tommy rejected on his first Christmas after becoming deaf, dumb and blind).
Although some folks obviously did not enjoy this movie, I think everyone can agree that it is unique. I haven't seen another one quite like it!