arzewski

In cinematographic terms, the production has quality. The photography, the location settings, the costumes, the period instruments. And at first glance, the screening I attended seemed to have promise. But then, somewhere in the middle, it started to give a hint of ridiculousness. Okay, here we are in in the early years of the 1800s, and suddenly we have a miraculous nascent of a human spirit, a mute that can play a complex musical instrument, and best of all, can play jazzy Glen Miller-like tunes? And when the fellow woman that is writing up thoughts in rime, and needs a musical assist in reciting those phrases, is that hip-hop? Or actually, it was more like Gianna Giannini, the star pop singer in modern Italy. Oh yeah, the final concert scene, what thoughts did it trigger? It was more like the sonoric revolution on opening day of Stravinsky "Rite of Spring", but here presented as a revolution and separation from patriarchal dominance, and liberation of a sisterhood, then setting themselves free to travel into the world, moving through the Swiss Alps in a caravan. Sisterhood, Thelma & Louise, but in the Venetian lagoon in 1804. I would recommend this film only to music lovers of period string instruments and musical history. Otherwise, it veered into silliness. Whoever gave money to produce it, it was to "give voices to women", "empower women", "break the patriarchy". But all at a cost of making an unrealistic flick, a fantasy, actually. Cheers.

Saw this on the plane.

Know a thing or two about adventure racing.

Cannot believe that financing was approved to make this.

First of all, the main character comes out as a PTSD suffering army veteran, exactly what you don't want.

Second of all, adventure racing is much more about camaraderie, and the characters portrayed here are often the opposite.

There are also some fallacies and flaws in how the story is told. Some holes here and there, and the sequence of events don't make sense.

At the end, it is all entertainment. You like dogs? Great. You will love this flick.

Otherwise, stay away.

From the very opening scene, I realized something was wrong. We were in late 1700s France and a bunch of people were talking and yelling in a large hall. But I was confused. All the actors were speaking in a British-accented english. Was this London?

And that was the beginning.

From the great director that gave us Blade Runner, at the end, this flick turned out to be lukewarm. Nothing memorable.

If you are into battle scenes, with attention to detail on weaponry of the time and tactics of warfare in the battlefield, with cavalry, infantrymen, artillery guns, then you would LOVE this film.

But at the end, there seems to be very little to be told about the man and the time.

By comparison, the 1970 film "Patton", directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, and written by Francis Ford Coppola, was a much better production and film, with a better outcome and feel for the story.