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.
Reviews162
name99-92-545389's rating
No matter how much of WW2 you see, there's always some new angle that can just tear your heart out. I wasn't sure quite what to expect from this, maybe spy action, maybe clumsy moralizing? But by the end I will admit that this 57 yr old man was weeping like a child.
We start with what seems like a fairly conventional post-WW2 movie -- we have our Allied investigators looking into the backgrounds of various suspects, presumably ultimately to be tried for war crimes or otherwise punished. After twenty minutes or so things come into focus, we're going to be investigating specifically what happened to a group of twenty children.
But along the way the tone changes. We get flash-forward scenes, to real life in the present as we see the child actors in various situations, and two child survivors, now old adults, talking and walking around the camps. We get flash-back scenes, to during the war, as we see the children in the camp.
The contrast between all three situations is just unbearable, from the safety of now, to the at least tolerable situation after the war to the reality of life in the camps. No matter how often you see it and hear about it it, how can you not just burst into tears?
So yes, even if you have seen this sort of thing before, Schindler's list or, whatever, watch this one. It's a well-executed addition to the canon.
We start with what seems like a fairly conventional post-WW2 movie -- we have our Allied investigators looking into the backgrounds of various suspects, presumably ultimately to be tried for war crimes or otherwise punished. After twenty minutes or so things come into focus, we're going to be investigating specifically what happened to a group of twenty children.
But along the way the tone changes. We get flash-forward scenes, to real life in the present as we see the child actors in various situations, and two child survivors, now old adults, talking and walking around the camps. We get flash-back scenes, to during the war, as we see the children in the camp.
The contrast between all three situations is just unbearable, from the safety of now, to the at least tolerable situation after the war to the reality of life in the camps. No matter how often you see it and hear about it it, how can you not just burst into tears?
So yes, even if you have seen this sort of thing before, Schindler's list or, whatever, watch this one. It's a well-executed addition to the canon.
This should have been a movie that hit all my notes. I'm partial to this sort of "stage acting" movie with very few characters (in this case two) who do nothing but talk the entire movie. I'm happy to accept magic realism under the right circumstances. There were even flashes of just why Meg Ryan was so appealing and attractive in her youth.
And yet. In the end it just doesn't connect.
I think the basic problem is that English has approximately ninety squintillion plays and movies like this; if you're trying to do something in this genre, you need to bring something new.
The wrapper idea, lovers with a past that gets revealed, is OK, a reasonable start; As are some of the particular scenes along the way.
But there are also the lazy pointless elements that are thrown in - the woo-woo girl, the pot scene that every movie since 2005 seems to feel it has to have, the utterly pointless and going nowhere alcohol scene. I have no idea why Hollywood insists on adding these stupid, boring, oh-so-cliched elements that we've all seen a million times, and that mostly detract from what would otherwise be a reasonable piece of work.
And yet. In the end it just doesn't connect.
I think the basic problem is that English has approximately ninety squintillion plays and movies like this; if you're trying to do something in this genre, you need to bring something new.
The wrapper idea, lovers with a past that gets revealed, is OK, a reasonable start; As are some of the particular scenes along the way.
But there are also the lazy pointless elements that are thrown in - the woo-woo girl, the pot scene that every movie since 2005 seems to feel it has to have, the utterly pointless and going nowhere alcohol scene. I have no idea why Hollywood insists on adding these stupid, boring, oh-so-cliched elements that we've all seen a million times, and that mostly detract from what would otherwise be a reasonable piece of work.
It was a bold choice to decide to remake Chasing Amy just six years later, and using Ben Affleck in the same role. Also cute to see Joey Lauren Adams given a small role in the middle of the movie as "Crazy suicidal ex-girlfriend".
But basically not a success. Throwing in a whole lot of additional parallel plot about criminals and the mentally handicapped alongside the basic Chasing Amy "can I get this lesbian to fall in love with a Jersey Shore stereotype" rom-com plot was surely a bad idea. Hybrid movies can work; something like The Whole Nine Yards is a fine mashup of romance, comedy, and crime. But the more elements you add, the more precise you need to be; and the fine details that make such a hybrid work are lacking here.
It's not as bad as the 2.6 rating would have you believe. But it's not great. I can't put my finger on quite what's wrong with it, but there's just no magic; all very competent, all very carefully weighed so as not to offend anyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, mental ability, or criminality stance. But just doesn't sparkle.
But basically not a success. Throwing in a whole lot of additional parallel plot about criminals and the mentally handicapped alongside the basic Chasing Amy "can I get this lesbian to fall in love with a Jersey Shore stereotype" rom-com plot was surely a bad idea. Hybrid movies can work; something like The Whole Nine Yards is a fine mashup of romance, comedy, and crime. But the more elements you add, the more precise you need to be; and the fine details that make such a hybrid work are lacking here.
It's not as bad as the 2.6 rating would have you believe. But it's not great. I can't put my finger on quite what's wrong with it, but there's just no magic; all very competent, all very carefully weighed so as not to offend anyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, mental ability, or criminality stance. But just doesn't sparkle.