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.
Reviews8
nhoney1's rating
Rating: 6/10
It took me a while for me to realise this is not a standard romantic comedy. The first half of the film more or less fits the romantic comedy conventions, but then the second half progressively moves away from them.
I liked the way that the movie showed some of the problems that can arise from intergenerational relationships. The characters of the three friends were nicely drawn, each being, not too extremely, contrary to the stereotype of their occupations.
The film did, however, continue the romantic comedy tradition of having a casual disregard for plausibility. Even the most love-struck head of a school is unlikely to give the students the afternoon off. And while I did enjoy the wedding scene, it was beyond the bounds of plausibility. In spite of the serious bits, the film is essentially light and trivial, rather than deep or artistic.
I eventually realised that, in spite of the central role of the romantic interest, the film is actually about the friendship between the three women. And that brings me to the major flaw of the film as a story. Aspiring authors are advised to consider how their protagonists are changed by the events described in the story. If there is no change, you have to wonder what is the point, what was the story trying to say? In Crush', there is no change in the relationships between the friends, or even real change in the women themselves, regardless of the various things that happened. The film started with the friends together, gossiping about their lives, and it ended exactly the same way.
The film was enjoyable enough and easy to watch, which is fine if all you want is a light piece of entertainment.
It took me a while for me to realise this is not a standard romantic comedy. The first half of the film more or less fits the romantic comedy conventions, but then the second half progressively moves away from them.
I liked the way that the movie showed some of the problems that can arise from intergenerational relationships. The characters of the three friends were nicely drawn, each being, not too extremely, contrary to the stereotype of their occupations.
The film did, however, continue the romantic comedy tradition of having a casual disregard for plausibility. Even the most love-struck head of a school is unlikely to give the students the afternoon off. And while I did enjoy the wedding scene, it was beyond the bounds of plausibility. In spite of the serious bits, the film is essentially light and trivial, rather than deep or artistic.
I eventually realised that, in spite of the central role of the romantic interest, the film is actually about the friendship between the three women. And that brings me to the major flaw of the film as a story. Aspiring authors are advised to consider how their protagonists are changed by the events described in the story. If there is no change, you have to wonder what is the point, what was the story trying to say? In Crush', there is no change in the relationships between the friends, or even real change in the women themselves, regardless of the various things that happened. The film started with the friends together, gossiping about their lives, and it ended exactly the same way.
The film was enjoyable enough and easy to watch, which is fine if all you want is a light piece of entertainment.
Rating 6/10
I found it hard to enjoy the film much. It was not easy to be sympathetic to the protagonist. She moped around and was rather dull. I know Antonia's husband had just died and she then discovered his dread dark secret, but even so she did not provide a strong core for the film to be structured around. The film contrasted the coldness and sterility of her life (didn't she have any friends?), with the warmth of her dead husband's lover and his circle of friends. The movie didn't give any convincing reason why she wanted to insert herself into her dead husband's secret life, or why his lover and circle of friends wanted her in their lives. Then when she didn't need them any more, she moved on.
Another difficulty was that I had trouble deciding what the film was trying to say. I might could describe it as a 'slice of life', but that is something of a cop-out unless you can define what particular slice of life the film is trying to show. Otherwise, you might just as well have a camera following some random family going about its normal business. Oh yes, we do and it's called reality TV. And no-one has ever accused reality TV of having any pretensions of having any intellectual or artistic value.
I thought for a while that the main theme was the importance of honesty and the cost of keeping secrets. But then Antonia had her own secret that she was quite happy keeping, for no good reason that I could see. I ended with the conclusion that the film is about the widow coming to terms with her husband's death. But does that mean that the husband's homosexual side was nothing but a plot device of the worse possible thing that a wife could find out about her husband?
That brings me to the question of why is the film titled "Ignorant fairies"? Sure, it describes a particular plot device and it refers to the fact that the lover and many of his friends were gay. But does fairy have the same negative connotation in Italian as English? And why ignorant? If anything, it was Antonia who was ignorant because of her unawareness of her husband's secret life.
By the end of the film I was left feeling vaguely uneasy about the intentions of the director and the subtext of the film.
I found it hard to enjoy the film much. It was not easy to be sympathetic to the protagonist. She moped around and was rather dull. I know Antonia's husband had just died and she then discovered his dread dark secret, but even so she did not provide a strong core for the film to be structured around. The film contrasted the coldness and sterility of her life (didn't she have any friends?), with the warmth of her dead husband's lover and his circle of friends. The movie didn't give any convincing reason why she wanted to insert herself into her dead husband's secret life, or why his lover and circle of friends wanted her in their lives. Then when she didn't need them any more, she moved on.
Another difficulty was that I had trouble deciding what the film was trying to say. I might could describe it as a 'slice of life', but that is something of a cop-out unless you can define what particular slice of life the film is trying to show. Otherwise, you might just as well have a camera following some random family going about its normal business. Oh yes, we do and it's called reality TV. And no-one has ever accused reality TV of having any pretensions of having any intellectual or artistic value.
I thought for a while that the main theme was the importance of honesty and the cost of keeping secrets. But then Antonia had her own secret that she was quite happy keeping, for no good reason that I could see. I ended with the conclusion that the film is about the widow coming to terms with her husband's death. But does that mean that the husband's homosexual side was nothing but a plot device of the worse possible thing that a wife could find out about her husband?
That brings me to the question of why is the film titled "Ignorant fairies"? Sure, it describes a particular plot device and it refers to the fact that the lover and many of his friends were gay. But does fairy have the same negative connotation in Italian as English? And why ignorant? If anything, it was Antonia who was ignorant because of her unawareness of her husband's secret life.
By the end of the film I was left feeling vaguely uneasy about the intentions of the director and the subtext of the film.
Rating - 7/10
The story couldn't be simpler, as it is about a little girl who is trying to get a bunch of blue flowers for her mother's birthday.
I am always ready to walk out of a move that I don't like, as I am not a subscriber to the attitude of suffering through a film to the end, just to "get your moneys worth". On the contrary, there is a great sense of relief and pleasure in escaping a dog of a movie. The drawback, however, is that I am sometimes too ready to walk out of a film before giving it a fair chance. That almost happened with Iris.
But what I did eventually appreciate was that the point of the film is a portrait of rural life in a small island somewhere near Sicily. We saw this largely from Maria's perspective, in her encounters with various adults. Each encounter was a separate small story about that person. The relationships between Maria and the rest of her family was also shown. She was a truly stubborn little girl, who bent her entire family to her will. But the story of the family was ultimately heart-warming, although never saccharin-sweet.
The children, Maria and her older brothers, were very natural and convincing, in their speech and behaviour. An example was how easily Maria was distracted from her quest for the flowers.
There were some nice cinematic touches, such as when Maria was walking through the market and the film was cropped to just above her head. This meant that all we saw of the adults was from the waist down, that is, from Maria's perspective.
One small gripe I have about this and a number of other Italian films I have seen over the years, is that the actors often seem to be shouting, judging from the volume and tone of voice. And this can occur, even when the dialogue doesn't seem to justify it. I don't know whether they are bad actors, or it is a particular cinematic style sometimes used in Italy, or whether Italians commonly speak like that.
By the end of the film I came to appreciate the simple and subtle pleasures of seeing the portrait of island life and Maria and her family.
The story couldn't be simpler, as it is about a little girl who is trying to get a bunch of blue flowers for her mother's birthday.
I am always ready to walk out of a move that I don't like, as I am not a subscriber to the attitude of suffering through a film to the end, just to "get your moneys worth". On the contrary, there is a great sense of relief and pleasure in escaping a dog of a movie. The drawback, however, is that I am sometimes too ready to walk out of a film before giving it a fair chance. That almost happened with Iris.
But what I did eventually appreciate was that the point of the film is a portrait of rural life in a small island somewhere near Sicily. We saw this largely from Maria's perspective, in her encounters with various adults. Each encounter was a separate small story about that person. The relationships between Maria and the rest of her family was also shown. She was a truly stubborn little girl, who bent her entire family to her will. But the story of the family was ultimately heart-warming, although never saccharin-sweet.
The children, Maria and her older brothers, were very natural and convincing, in their speech and behaviour. An example was how easily Maria was distracted from her quest for the flowers.
There were some nice cinematic touches, such as when Maria was walking through the market and the film was cropped to just above her head. This meant that all we saw of the adults was from the waist down, that is, from Maria's perspective.
One small gripe I have about this and a number of other Italian films I have seen over the years, is that the actors often seem to be shouting, judging from the volume and tone of voice. And this can occur, even when the dialogue doesn't seem to justify it. I don't know whether they are bad actors, or it is a particular cinematic style sometimes used in Italy, or whether Italians commonly speak like that.
By the end of the film I came to appreciate the simple and subtle pleasures of seeing the portrait of island life and Maria and her family.