WHY did they make this movie?

[deleted]

[deleted]

To the OP:

One could ask why 'they' made any movie that was boring to someone. I personally hate the Lord of the Rings movies, but I understand they were made - to entertain. They won't entertain everyone, just like any other movie, but someone thought Girl with a Pearl Earring's story was good enough for a film and it turned out to be beautifully filmed and beautifully acted.

Am I putting down the Lord of the Rings - or any other movie(s) that I thought were boring? No. What you said isn't what is offending people that like the movie. The problem is HOW you said it.

For the light.

If you don't like watching light, and colors of light, and subtle shades constantly shifting, you won't like the movie. If you are totally uninterested in how painters produce art, you probably won't like the movie.

If you like light and/or paint, you'll probably love it, as I did.

Edward

I generally love movies made on historical backdrops. But I felt something wrong with "Girl with a pearl earring" from the beginning. Some art loving viewers have mentioned that people who do not have an interest in art may feel this film boring (due to their ignorance?) I do not like to accept that point.
If you're a good filmmaker you can't make films targeting a certain category of people. I guess it is a talent of a good filmmaker to make a person interested in a subject that he/she previously unfamiliar with. I would like to take "Perfume; the story of a murderer" as an example. Like this movie,"Perfume" is also based on a book, almost similar backdrop (18th century Europe) and on a subject that we're not much familiar with (making of perfumes) However, "Perfume" manages excellently to keep the audience attracted to the movie from very first scene to the end.(even though it is a rather lengthy movie)
I guess the main mistake is poor adaptation of the story from the book to the movie. It is generally accepted that when you're making a movie from a book you have to do some adjustments since they are two different media. For example, see Gye Richie's "Sherlock Holmes". Even though "Sherlock Holmes" novels are legends, if Richie had made a Sherlock Holmes exactly as depicted in the book, it would have never been a successful movie.

why do the worse people come here and make fools of themselves and the movies? Well you are wrong. From the moment i watched this and still do which is probably my ninth time watching it.. it still amazes me. I really dont get into any art but this one was really interesting. It had its slow moments but you had to get into it.. you know watch it and pay attention to it. Its a movie where you have to pay attention or else you wont be able to follow it. For the reasons i like this movie are the following.

one.... was very different than others i have seen that year.. or the years to come.. which made me happy :)

Two.. it made you think.. people dont like watching a thinking movie so they think its boring. Well these type of movies kinda entrap you to watch it from beginning to end..

Three.. a really good historical fiction made :) which some of us are into it. Wasn't boring as some of the historical fictions are. :)

Anyways as i rant about this. Maybe you should rewatch it and maybe learn something instead of being a troll and trying to hate on the movie which i see most of the people do..which is stupid.

I'm guessing you didn't like it because it didn't have:
(a)overly sexed up females/males
(b)gratuitous sex scenes
(c)vampires, witches, werewolves, etc
(d)gratuitous action scenes
(e)jokes and stupid actions

I'm glad they made this movie. So many movies today have too many of the things listed above and no good plots.

How can you not be entertained by looking at Scarlet Johansson's face for a couple of hours.