The Dread Pirate Roberts-2
Apr. 2000 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen4
Bewertung von The Dread Pirate Roberts-2
This is a film about which everyone disagrees. Those who like it like it for different reasons. Those who hate it also do it for different reasons. Those who find it mediocre... well you get the point.
Tellingly, this is a movie that provokes argument. No one can walk away from the theatre without strong opinions and if you see it with someone else, you're bound to debate certain features for at least as long as the film's running time had been. Any movie that does that has done its job admirably, regardless of its weaknesses. And that, my friends, is the true Kubrick tradition.
Sure, this film was ultimately directed by Spielberg and it bears his signature (especially in the very beginning with its slightly strained political consciousness). But Kubrick's signature is also to be found throughout, right to the very end.
Speaking of the end, everyone who insists that Kubrick would have left the film with a downbeat ending is almost undoubtedly wrong. Kubrick's sense of bleakness is invariably a reference to the past and the present but never the future. Of his thirteen other movies, twelve of them (count 'em!) end on a hopeful note. Sure, Spartacus dies but his son will be free. Alex finally learns to think for himself. HAL is turned off. Ironically, the one downbeat ending in the whole canon is in the comedy, DR. STRANGELOVE!
No question about it. If you do your homework, you will find that Kubrick was every bit as much of a humanist as Spielberg and would surely have kept the hopeful ending had he lived to shoot this film, himself.
Tellingly, this is a movie that provokes argument. No one can walk away from the theatre without strong opinions and if you see it with someone else, you're bound to debate certain features for at least as long as the film's running time had been. Any movie that does that has done its job admirably, regardless of its weaknesses. And that, my friends, is the true Kubrick tradition.
Sure, this film was ultimately directed by Spielberg and it bears his signature (especially in the very beginning with its slightly strained political consciousness). But Kubrick's signature is also to be found throughout, right to the very end.
Speaking of the end, everyone who insists that Kubrick would have left the film with a downbeat ending is almost undoubtedly wrong. Kubrick's sense of bleakness is invariably a reference to the past and the present but never the future. Of his thirteen other movies, twelve of them (count 'em!) end on a hopeful note. Sure, Spartacus dies but his son will be free. Alex finally learns to think for himself. HAL is turned off. Ironically, the one downbeat ending in the whole canon is in the comedy, DR. STRANGELOVE!
No question about it. If you do your homework, you will find that Kubrick was every bit as much of a humanist as Spielberg and would surely have kept the hopeful ending had he lived to shoot this film, himself.
After over 130 comments, very little remains to be said about this film. Like many, I liked it better than SOTL because Will Graham is a more interesting detective than Clarice Starling (although she certainly is a fascinating character) and the Tooth Fairy is a FAR more interesting quarry than Buffalo Bill!
So what can I say that hasn't been said by one or more of the film's other admirers? One thing: No other commentator has actually praised the film's bright 80's look.
Most people who liked the film have simply excused its bright pastels and pale lighting by saying something like: `Hey, man! It was made in the 80's! What do you want?' But I feel that the bright shades actually add to the film's dark mood.
How???
Here's how: In SOTL, we are treated to a dark, dank, murky world in which disgusting fiends like Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter are expected to lurk. But in the bright, happy pastels of the 1980's, the serial killers feel more like intruders. We are treated to a cheerful world and this THING has violated it. This strikes me as far more effective.
The whole film can be visually summed up by the strange, first appearance of Hannibal Lecter. He seems a dark, filthy bug, splotched in the middle of a clean, white background.
It really works!
So what can I say that hasn't been said by one or more of the film's other admirers? One thing: No other commentator has actually praised the film's bright 80's look.
Most people who liked the film have simply excused its bright pastels and pale lighting by saying something like: `Hey, man! It was made in the 80's! What do you want?' But I feel that the bright shades actually add to the film's dark mood.
How???
Here's how: In SOTL, we are treated to a dark, dank, murky world in which disgusting fiends like Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter are expected to lurk. But in the bright, happy pastels of the 1980's, the serial killers feel more like intruders. We are treated to a cheerful world and this THING has violated it. This strikes me as far more effective.
The whole film can be visually summed up by the strange, first appearance of Hannibal Lecter. He seems a dark, filthy bug, splotched in the middle of a clean, white background.
It really works!
Most of the raves and pans you will read of this movie are equally true in their own respects. For my money, the film's weaknesses slightly outweigh its strengths but I can easily see someone else's scales tipping the other way.
The performances are splendid all around. Most especially, James Gandolfini (who had the inside track with the most richly drawn character) excels as the ambiguous villain who is actually right more than half the time.
The message which deals with the value of pride and the importance of identity and self-worth is certainly admirable. The fact that this occurs among men who have marred their own self-worth through violent crime makes the concept that much more interesting. It almost (but never quite) raises the idea of reclaiming integrity, once lost. If it had gone this extra mile, it may well have been a better film.
The weaknesses lie in the hundreds of stupid little inaccuracies which culminate into one stupid BIG inaccuracy: This place doesn't feel like a prison!
It is difficult to make a prison movie within ten years of 1994 without inviting comparisons to "The Shawshank Redemption." Rather than belaboring the obvious, I want to note one detail that is exemplary of the earlier film's superiority. Even the jolliest, funniest, most easy going prisoners in Shawshank had an underlying sense of danger about them. You didn't want to get on their bad side. You never doubt that they belong in prison (except, of course, for Andy Dufresne). But this is not so in "The Last Castle." No matter how often someone reads from a prisoner's file and discusses the horrible things he has done, none of the words, actions, or other moods conveyed by the men in this film make them seem in any way dangerous. Maybe it's a case of mass miscasting but I doubt it.
Compounding this problem is the lack of scholarship to be found in the little details. Robert Redford shaves with a safety razor in spite of the fact that no prisoner would be allowed such a tool. Razor blades, like belts and shoelaces, are potential suicide tools and, thus, prohibited in prisons. Also, people keep referring to an officer's side arm as his "gun" instead of his "weapon." These mistakes were easy to avoid and yet they remained in the film.
All of this makes a potentially fascinating film, filled with talent, seem a touch removed from reality. Like in "The Contender," director Rod Lurie has shown that his view of reality is based on his opinions rather than the other way around.
With all it had going for it, it's a shame really.
The performances are splendid all around. Most especially, James Gandolfini (who had the inside track with the most richly drawn character) excels as the ambiguous villain who is actually right more than half the time.
The message which deals with the value of pride and the importance of identity and self-worth is certainly admirable. The fact that this occurs among men who have marred their own self-worth through violent crime makes the concept that much more interesting. It almost (but never quite) raises the idea of reclaiming integrity, once lost. If it had gone this extra mile, it may well have been a better film.
The weaknesses lie in the hundreds of stupid little inaccuracies which culminate into one stupid BIG inaccuracy: This place doesn't feel like a prison!
It is difficult to make a prison movie within ten years of 1994 without inviting comparisons to "The Shawshank Redemption." Rather than belaboring the obvious, I want to note one detail that is exemplary of the earlier film's superiority. Even the jolliest, funniest, most easy going prisoners in Shawshank had an underlying sense of danger about them. You didn't want to get on their bad side. You never doubt that they belong in prison (except, of course, for Andy Dufresne). But this is not so in "The Last Castle." No matter how often someone reads from a prisoner's file and discusses the horrible things he has done, none of the words, actions, or other moods conveyed by the men in this film make them seem in any way dangerous. Maybe it's a case of mass miscasting but I doubt it.
Compounding this problem is the lack of scholarship to be found in the little details. Robert Redford shaves with a safety razor in spite of the fact that no prisoner would be allowed such a tool. Razor blades, like belts and shoelaces, are potential suicide tools and, thus, prohibited in prisons. Also, people keep referring to an officer's side arm as his "gun" instead of his "weapon." These mistakes were easy to avoid and yet they remained in the film.
All of this makes a potentially fascinating film, filled with talent, seem a touch removed from reality. Like in "The Contender," director Rod Lurie has shown that his view of reality is based on his opinions rather than the other way around.
With all it had going for it, it's a shame really.