bdickson-2
Joined Jan 2007
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
bdickson-2's rating
Produced barely a handful of years after the tumultuous period in question, the film delves further into events and attitudes that would have been comparatively unfamiliar to North American audiences - perhaps explaining, in part, its middling box office performance.
One can only speculate as to whether the project was part of a Cold War ploy to woo India away from its affection for Russia; however, dialogue early on does make specific reference to worries about Russian influence. If there's any validity to that speculation, then its ambitions extended beyond the box office (and might have been realized..?).
I agree with those commending director Cukor for his handling of the wide screen spectacle and action. I suspect that Richard Attenborough took notes from Cukor's visual approach in pre-planning his "Gandhi." Yes, other directors (e.g., Victor Fleming, Gone With the Wind, to mention but one) achieved more memorable tableaux; but this was an honourable entry in a still-evolving format at the time.
I'll yield to others' opinions on the performances - with the exception that I found Bill Travers's character and his portrayal were a one-note annoyance throughout. I mean, at least get a dialogue coach and find a credible accent, already!
It would be interesting to recover Cukor's original cut of the film, notwithstanding the apparently negative audience reactions at the time. The voice over post-facto narrative technique the studio imposed was hackneyed even then.
One can only speculate as to whether the project was part of a Cold War ploy to woo India away from its affection for Russia; however, dialogue early on does make specific reference to worries about Russian influence. If there's any validity to that speculation, then its ambitions extended beyond the box office (and might have been realized..?).
I agree with those commending director Cukor for his handling of the wide screen spectacle and action. I suspect that Richard Attenborough took notes from Cukor's visual approach in pre-planning his "Gandhi." Yes, other directors (e.g., Victor Fleming, Gone With the Wind, to mention but one) achieved more memorable tableaux; but this was an honourable entry in a still-evolving format at the time.
I'll yield to others' opinions on the performances - with the exception that I found Bill Travers's character and his portrayal were a one-note annoyance throughout. I mean, at least get a dialogue coach and find a credible accent, already!
It would be interesting to recover Cukor's original cut of the film, notwithstanding the apparently negative audience reactions at the time. The voice over post-facto narrative technique the studio imposed was hackneyed even then.
...when is this d*mned film going to end?
There's far too much plot and verbal exposition and too many characters given equal prominence. The lead, in particular, is wooden and unengaging; and the rest of the cast - save for Philippe Noiret's stand out performance.as Jarré and for John Vernon - were almost interchangeable.
That said, it's nothing that a skilled editor could not improve with a couple of weeks in an editing suite. Trimming a half hour of its fat, perhaps even more, might produce something taut and memorable- albeit uninspiring, visually. (Well, maybe some inventive cutting, juxtapositions and the like could serve to deliver in that department).
Now, where did I leave my cutting shears...?
There's far too much plot and verbal exposition and too many characters given equal prominence. The lead, in particular, is wooden and unengaging; and the rest of the cast - save for Philippe Noiret's stand out performance.as Jarré and for John Vernon - were almost interchangeable.
That said, it's nothing that a skilled editor could not improve with a couple of weeks in an editing suite. Trimming a half hour of its fat, perhaps even more, might produce something taut and memorable- albeit uninspiring, visually. (Well, maybe some inventive cutting, juxtapositions and the like could serve to deliver in that department).
Now, where did I leave my cutting shears...?