Film needed a zealous editor; many unnecessary scenes. Had about three false endings as well, i.e. points when I thought it was over and then it continued. It was going so long thought I was going to have to have dinner delivered. Film totally depends on it being a gay story; put a girl in either role and you never get the movie made. Disappointed too that we didn't get more scenery and architecture from bella Italia.
shareTremendously powerful and lovely. Didn't care for Hammer much, but Chalamet was excellent. He carried the movie. I also loved the father's final speech to his son. It was beautiful.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, long scenes with nothing much happening give a feeling of slowness. Doesn't make sense to me. We're there sitting in the movie theater anyway. Why not have something happen? Entertain us.
The scenery they show is pretty meh to look at. Compare with a movie like A Room With a View which has much more beautiful shots. Maybe they should have had the director of that one (who did the adaptation here) direct this one too.
[deleted]
I would say rather than losing focus, more beautiful scenery would have enhanced it and contributed to the feeling that seems to have been the object. I do admit there were a few very beautiful shots, but not nearly as many as I expected.
I thought another thing that contributed to a feeling of too much length were the false endings. There were three, maybe four times, when I thought the film was over, but then it went on some more. I really started to feel irritation at being teased like that.
Yes, you should see it, the 1986 version, not the later BBC made-for-TV version. It, like Brokeback Mountain, is a memorable film that I like to watch every few years. This, like Crash and probably last year's Moonlight, will probably be quickly forgotten.
Just saw the movie Letters to Juliet, also a story of an American finding love in Italy. Wow, the scenery was at least 50 times better than it was in this movie.
share