Being a guy, I initially had some doubts about this movie but I was pleasantly surprised after watching it. Usually I'm not a big fan of chick flicks but I really think this movie deserves at least an 8.0 rating. It was a well paced, simple and well-executed movie. I just wonder why others think it deserves anything less than an 8.0.
shareThis movie was insufferable! I'm glad I rented it from the library.
shareWell, the scene at the end was supposed to be a tear jerker, but Naomi Watt's reaction was not very emotional that the tear just stopped half way through my eyes after seeing her not so emotiomal reaction. I expected a more touching and emotional crying scene from her.
shareDo we always have to have over-the-top bawling in such scenes? Her reaction was fine and fitted.
shareMy review gives it a rating of "5" because it distorts Maugham's original vision. The movie and the book are not even the same story, and that bothers me quite a bit. Maugham's version is superior, but the filmmakers water it down and make the ending more "fluffy" than it was in the book.
[WARNING, SPOILERS FOR THE BOOK]
In the book, Kitty never loves Walter, is relieved when he dies, goes right back to Charlie, imposes on her father's newfound freedom, and is just as rotten, spoiled, and selfish as ever. The film should have stuck to the original ending, as it is much more poignant and imparts some important wisdom to the reader (e.g., not to go for 'bad boys', not to treat good people unkindly, not to marry people if you can't love them or be faithful to them, that rotten people sometimes win and good people sometimes lose, etc). The book is more true to human nature than is the film. The book's power, in its tragic sort of beauty, is (at least for me) to make people stop and think about the decisions that they make and how they treat people. The book raises the question (paraphrasing slightly) of "why do we despise people because they love us"? and (again, paraphrasing) "why are we unable to love people who are admirable and yet love those who are worthless"? I think that those are important things to think about.
"Regardes, Platero, toutes ces roses qui partout tombent..."
I agree with you completely. I've really gotten into Somerset Maugham's stories with "The Razor's Edge" and the 1929 version of "The Letter." The 1929 "The Letter" is much more faithful to the original story than the 1940 version with Bette Davis, which (like this version of "The Painted Veil") bastardizes the original story quite a bit- it's a shame, people just don't have the guts to film Somerset Maugham's stories the way they're meant to be portrayed, exceptions being perhaps "The Razor's Edge," and "Rain."
I was originally taken in by the 2006 "The Painted Veil" because of the beautiful cinematography, wonderful performances, great chemistry between the leads, and the fact that it is one of the few chances (Watts deserves so much more) Watts really shines as she should.
While the love story, in itself, is actually well done, the original story is so much better. Comparing the two, the 2006 movie just comes off as so cheesy, especially with that godawful ending, that I cannot bring myself to rewatch the movie, no matter how much I actually, personally, want to.
Also, I don't agree that Kitty remains "rotten, spoiled, and selfish." True, she doesn't have the (extremely cheesy) journey that movie Kitty has, but she does change. She succumbs to Charles again only to be disgusted by him thereafter and not let herself be privy to his kind again and takes steps to make sure that her child doesn't fall into the same misery and shortcomings that his parents did.
I just saw this movie for the first time, and thought it very good indeed. A terrific story and a brilliant cast. This was Naomi Watts' best performance in what is probably her best role.
Curran had a great screenplay, and his direction kept it moving and following a simple path, straightforward but with such an interesting story and setting. This is the REAL "Love in the Time of Cholera"--literally.
This film should have done much better at the box office. Was it lost in the Christmas shuffle when released? Whatever the case, this is a wonderful film and I would recommend it to anyone. And, for me, it is NOT a chick flick. One of the best films I've seen this year, including some Oscar nominees.
Being a guy, I like good movies, and by saying so, I can't quite understand what you mean by "chick flicks". You must be talking about all movies without fast cars and big explosions I suppose.
Glad you liked this great film, by the way. There's still some hope for you, I guess.
by makeshiftcar (Wed Dec 12 2007 23:10:42)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Being a guy, I initially had some doubts about this movie but I was pleasantly surprised after watching it. Usually I'm not a big fan of chick flicks but I really think this movie deserves at least an 8.0 rating. It was a well paced, simple and well-executed movie. I just wonder why others think it deserves anything less than an 8.0.
I mean no disrepect, but I really cannot understand why people come in here and say 'this movie deserves an 8' or whatever.
I mean, if it (in your opinion) deserves an 8, then that's what you vote it as. The averages will take it into account. At the moment the vast majority agree with you (30% people gave it an 8). 5.6% of people gave it <5, which is pretty much nothing. (The guy below your post says 8.5... how he can give it an 8.5 I have no idea).
So, the VAST majority (94.4% of people) thought it was good enough to be >5
Statistically that tells me that nobody hated this movie. Perhaps some people went in expecting something else and were disappointed, but not in the movie itself in the choice they made.
SpiltPersonality
Are you a statistician? your focus on rating algebra make me curious.
shareNo, I'm not. I just get frustrated with the 'should be blah'. It's almost saying 'everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about... only [u]MY[/u] opinion counts.
The thing with ratings (in the IMDB) is that it takes into account everyone's opinion.
Personally I love this movie. I think it's one of the best movies I have ever seen. I have also seen "the English Patient" and thought it was utter tripe. I mean, I was dead seriously going to walk out of the theatre... for the life of me I can't see how anyone can rate "the English Patient" above this movie, yet they both come out at about the same (currently 7.5 for this and 7.3 for 'the English Patient'). The global audience believe that they are similarly rated. I respect that, even if I don't understand or agree with it.
SpiltPersonality
I really enjoyed the movie....I thought the book was awful though!!!
CoffeeSnob :)