......I can only imagine that PTSD is a different psychological horror for anyone afflicted with it. But my husband suffers from it (Viet Nam), and many of his symptoms are very similar to Mr.Firth's portrayal. I cried a lot watching him. Well done, sir.
shareI hope your husband recovers his peace of mind one day.
Please thank him, for me, for his service to our nation.
The casting is just terrible. Colin Firth's character is supposedly suffering PTSD from World War II, and Hiroyuki Sanada is cast as his main adversary. They were both born in 1960 and are obviously too young to have served in WWII, and Nicole Kidman was born in 1967. None of them were even alive during World War II, which is glaringly obvious. Nicole Kidman's father was actually born in 1938, so he would have been 4 year old in 1942 when the Japanese captured Singapore.
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
Hmmm, but it happens.
Willem Dafoe, who played Christ in 'The Last Temptation of Christ', for ex., didn't look like 1988-year old.
I suspect he wasn't even born in times when they crucified Christ. Don't you agree?
How he dared to take the part then?
Anyway, you wrote such a piece of nonsense somewhere earlier. Still no one answered, so well, I thought I must.
The Last Temptation of Christ is set during his lifetime when he essentially recognizes that he must die on the cross (to bring salvation to mankind), but nevertheless is tempted. He was 33 when he was crucified. Coincidentally, Willam Dafoe was also 33 when the movie was made.
Although The Railway Man was made in 2012, when the author died, it is set from 1980 (when the character meets his future wife) to 1995 (when the novel was written), whereas the flashbacks are set from 1942-1945. However, Colin Firth was 52 when the movie was made, although it is set earlier. However, since the setting begins in 1980, Colin Firth would have been 13 when Singapore fell (Feb. 15, 1942).
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
Wait... did I read this right? You expect actors to be born in the same year as the characters they portray and to have live through any war that the film shows?
So when Daniel Day-Lewis was cast as Abe Lincoln do you think they should have found as actor born in 1809, seeing how Day-Lewis was clearly far too young to have been alive during the American Civil War?
Lincoln was set in 1865, when Lincoln was 55, and was made in 2012 when Daniel Day-Lewis was also 55. The Railway Man was written in 1995. The author was born in 1919 and died in 2012, when the movie was made, although it was set from 1980 when he first met his wife to 1995. The problem is that Colin Firth was 52 in 2012, when it was made, (although it was set from 1980.) Notwithstanding, Colin Firth was too young to have served in WWII. Since he was 52 in 1980, he would've been 13 when Singapore Fell (Feb. 15, 1942).
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
And that's why we have make-up, prosthetics, suspension of disbelief, an imagination, or... and let me emphasise this point, why Colin Firth is an *actor* and not an impersonator. Given that "The Railway Man" is a real world drama, then Colin Firth is a 20-year-old man in 1980, possibly working in theatre, whilst Eric Lomarx is 61, getting married and facing his past. I don't think it is imperative that actors in biographical films be the exact same age of whoever the're playing – people don't have to be a certain age to look that age. I mean, the whole point of the film is to experience the situation from the POV of the characters, not to be doing the maths as to how old the actors *might* have been 38 years earier... I mean, what is the point in that? There is no "Colin Firth" in this film, it's about a man called "Eric Lomax", he was 61. Trying to do the maths and back-dating the timeline for any actor in a historical role has got to be some kind of Asperers-like behaviour.
shareHe was miscast. He is too young to have served in WWII. He was born in 1960, which is painfully obvious. Even set in 1980, he looked his age of 52, which was his age when it was made in 2012. Since the story began in 1980, he would've been 13 during the Battle and Fall of Singapore (Feb 8-15, 1942).
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
He's an ACTOR. His precise age is IRRELEVANT. He wouldn't have been any age in 1942 because he is playing a CHARACTER not himself. Your argument is contrived because it is utterly stupid. He wouldn't have been "13 in 1942" because the film isn't set in 1942 and Firth's age bears no relation to Lomax back in 1942 because it is set in 1980 and Firth is playing the older man not a boy. Are you daft or can't you separate actor from character and see than one is not the other? His age, his shoe size, his favourite colour... Lomax's and Firth's characteristics are not one and the same. This isn't a film about time-travel or bodily possession. Did you happen to notice that Young Eric was played by a different actor, not a younger Firth?
I don't think you know the first thing about movie production, and even less about how to constructively criticise a film or its cast. Some degree of logic usually applies. There's nothing "painfully obvious" about how Firth looks to the rest of us... why can't a 52-year-old man play a 61-year-old? Sounds to me like you're stereotyping and think all old men should be grey and haggard. You'd be wrong, because the real Patti Lomax said Colin Firth was spot-on. I'll take her word over yours anyday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-25186190
You need to check your glasses if you think Colin Firth looked 61 in 2012. He's actually just 55 how. Since you cannot attack the argument, you are reduced to name-calling. I am neither stupid nor daft, and I actually do know many things, and one of them is that you cannot claim to know how others think or that your opinion is right because someone else agrees. For example, many people believed the world was flat, but that did not make it so.
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
First of all: What glasses?
Secondly: I linked a BBC interview in which Parri Lomax says, quote: "Colin Firth gives me a real jolt because he looks and sounds just like my husband did." Note the "looks ... just like". This is from a woman who saw the man every day for many years, lived with him, slept with him, knew him from top-to-bottom. So her ability to assess Firth's face far, far outweights your trivialised reasoning. Unless he was having a secret affair with you that has yet to be revealed? No? Then I think it's conclusive, Patti has the over-ruling voice here, and her experience vetos your stupidity. She doesn't "agree with" me to make my opinion right, she qualifies as an eye-witness. Her opinion would be sufficient to stand up in a court of law and is virtually inalienable. What gives you cause to repudiate her; what makes you so special that your comparison of the two men trumps hers? So far you present zero credentials.
RE: "many people believed the world was flat, but that did not make it so" – kind of stretching reality there, fella – you're talking about a once-unproven science, I'm talking about whether a 52-year-old man suits the role of a 61-year-old man. Let's not make this argument anymore hyper-active than you've already made it by comparing a disproven 2,000-year-old scientific theory with facial comparisons. What are you going to cite next in your favour, Biblical miracles or scenes from "Star Trek"? The quote from Patti in the BBC page actually shows that what what YOU believe is not so, not the other way round.
Finally, RE: "I actually do know many things" – good for you. Welcome to the human race. Perhaps you should try learning to swallow your pride and start realising that your opinion isn't based on any documented "fact" it's a subjective opinion and stereotypical reasoning.
Any more stupid remarks to contribute or are you going to pull more nonsense out of your backside and try to force a circular argument because you just hate to lose face? It's pretty clear that you're flogging a dead horse... time to drop the stick and back away from the carcass.
Ciao!
It's wishful thinking. Lomax was 62 when he met Patti Wallace in 1980, and turning 65 when they got married in 1983. And since you disagree that it was blatantly obvious that Firth could never have served in WWII, then why do the publicity photos with Patti Lomax look like he's posing with his grandmother?
I'm sorry the Coen brothers don't direct the porn I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?
Firth didn't need to look like he served in WW2. Jeremy Irvine did that. That's why they're actors. Look it up in a dictionary instead of talking nonsense.
What's blatantly obvious to be is that you're full of stereotypical opinions... you're an ageist. That's a form of bigotry, you know. And you're directing it at a man who fought and served for his country. Far more than you ever will, as it seems you wouldn't even pass the IQ test. They only require an 85 minimum.
I'm sorry. If you two need a nice quiet padded cell, I'd be happy to help find you one, but I think the movie was one of the best films I've watched this year. I just came here because I watched Unbroken today and found it to be infinitely inferior to this movie in every way. I wanted to make sure my memory wasn't faulty because some of the points were so very similar that I wondered for a minute if it wasn't a remake.But no, indeed.It was a story with a similar theme but an altogether different outcome. And what splendid casting and photography.
share"Unbroken" isn't the film you want to compare it to, "Bridge on the River Kwai" is, which is probably the better choice given that it's a classic. And yes, the casting of "The Railway Man" is perfectly fine... it's just this strange fella with some kind of autism or delusional mind, who seems to think that only he qualifies as the voice of reason, even against the wife's opinion.
shareI completely agree. I saw Unbroken first, and then just recently saw this gem. Unbroken is completely lacking to this. For all that Angelina Jolie said Unbroken wasn't about the torture, it truly was, and then she glossed over the man's healing and forgiveness towards his tormentors with just a few lines on screen at the end? Did she READ the book Unbroken?
THIS was what Unbroken should have been.
~ I keep my expectations low -- then I can be pleasantly surprised.~
Wow, I congratulate you; your trolling really sucked in a lot of people.
BOHICA America!
I fully agree that Firth acted the heck out of this role - and it made me cry. And I also thank your husband for his service.
Colin Firth is such a tremendous actor that it is a sheer pleasure to watch his work, even when the subject is truly too tragic and violent for me personally. He is also a fine looking man (and I am 10 years younger than him). I don't mind if he's a few years (under 10 - not that big of a difference) younger than the author would have been at that time. His portrayal of this character on screen is such moving art that there is nothing about it that should be or should have been different.
I agree with one reviewer who said that the director should have cut some scenes shorter, and that the artsy approach resulted in scenes lagging that shouldn't have.