I saw a trailer or interview with Bardem on Youtube and he said he hated that haircut that the Coen Brothers insist he wear. It did alter his appearance and he looked frightful, but mainly it was the look in his eyes that was truly scary - like nothing was behind them at all, blank, empty sort of - hard to describe, like dead eyes. One interesting aspect of the story, is that none of the characters chasing each other are in the same scenes together. I hope that does not give away the story to you; but note it when you do view the film. I had not noticed this fact, until it was pointed out in the "Special Features".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
Nossa, I know exactly what you mean in this paragraph; I agree. People do form false impressions from films. Also, it is appalling that 8, 9, 10 yr olds are permitted to see these films with NC17 ratings. I hate heavy bad language - it starts to make me ill, personally. It is funny, but this Coen movie did not resort to much or any of that. I was glad of that fact. I don't think it is really necessary, as much as it is used at times.Quote:
I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.
Tonight, having been prompted by a discussion on "Wuthering Heights", in it's own thread, I watched the adaptation version of:
"Wuthering Heights"
Starring Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall. Some may know her from her fine performance in Lawrence Olivier's "King Lear". I like Dalton very much in the BBC version of Jane Eyre, with is more like an intimate stage play on film. This movie also felt more intimate, as a play would feel, although much takes place in the exteriors and on the moors, of course. First off, the cinematography is amazing, truly stunning at times, and depicts perfectly the wild austere aspects of the moors. It feels absolutely authentic and the angles that both closeups of faces and other scenes are filmed is commendable and very artistic. I truly love this version. I found the film quite by accident at a thriftstore for $1 - VHS tape, but the tape had lines across it. Still the movie and Timothy Dalton's mesmerizing eyes, kept my sister and I watching intently, putting up with his annoying flaw - we simply could not turn it off. Since then, I have invested in the DVD and tonight was the first time I have watched it on my new HD TV - it looked marvelous and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am still thinking of how mesmerizing Dalton's (Heathcliff)face appeared in some of the scenes; they feel ingraved now on my mind. His performance was absolutely noteworty and very strong/fine. He was quite young, I believe, when this film was made. He certainly had innate talent at a young age. I don't know how well known he was then, but the film is certainly worth watching, just for his performance, alone. I felt he captured the complexity and diabolical qualities of Heathcliff. I also felt that Anna Calder-Marshall was amazing; she also has such hypnotic eyes - they were the perfect match. One alternately, felt sorry for her and then angry with her, for being so selfish. I think the fact she could embody this kind of 'ambiguity' made her performance even more worthy. I think the same with Dalton. One did not know whether to hate them or love them both. I felt like I wanted to cry and felt that this story was truly a tragedy. Afterall, they both were very young and foolish in their own ways, but the strong love/passion they possessed for each other, always surfaced and you could feel this strongly numerous times throughout the film. I have seen other versions of "Wuthering Heights" advertised, one is with Juliet Binoche and Ralph Fiennes, but I can't personally see how they would fit the role. I feel they both possess a maturity, that would not translate to the roles of Heathcliff and Kathy. In this film, I didn't just see but I felt their immaturity, and their weaknesses/flaws, and their deep pain. Therefore, I feel this adaptation did what it set out to do. The only criticism I might have is that the ending is slightly altered, but to me, it does not damage the story; it is rather stunning and beautiful in the way it does end. One can never fully capture the book and I think taking some liberties is sometimes necessary. It has been a long time since I read the novel, so I am not sure how much was altered throughout the film, but I do think, standing alone, as a film based on the novel, it is a very well done and fine film. Good supporting cast as well. I highly recommend this and also the BBC version of "Jane Eyre" also starring Timothy Dalton.
