ella-48
may 2006 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos3
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Calificaciones33
Clasificación de ella-48
Reseñas32
Clasificación de ella-48
Went to see this expecting it to be, at the very least, interesting and hopefully more than that. It was decidedly more than that.
The narrative is straightforward and linear, but that really is all it needs to be, as the unavoidable, ugly truth of Shelly's situation is quite enough gristle to chew on, and is handled very well. Anderson's performance as Shelly Gardner is magnificent throughout, and the chemistry between Shelly and Annette (Jamie Lee Curtis) is very satisfyingly believable.
My only quibbles are both technical ones, to do with the photography:
1. A lot of the fast-moving action is shot in pretty tight close-up using a hand-held camera. On a small screen this wouldn't have been a problem, but projected to cinema size, I found the effect visually jarring - there were times when I had to look away from the screen to avoid it.
2. Throughout the film, a choice has been applied, either by post-production effects or the use of special optics, to make it look as if the whole thing has been shot using a very poor quality lens that blurs significantly toward the edges of the picture. I didn't understand the need for this and felt that in most shots, the effect was too strong, rather distracting from the actors' performances. At times it honestly was like looking through the bottom of a coke bottle! I didn't like it and didn't feel it added anything helpful to the narrative
...either that or there was something seriously amiss with the projection equipment at my local cinema!
The narrative is straightforward and linear, but that really is all it needs to be, as the unavoidable, ugly truth of Shelly's situation is quite enough gristle to chew on, and is handled very well. Anderson's performance as Shelly Gardner is magnificent throughout, and the chemistry between Shelly and Annette (Jamie Lee Curtis) is very satisfyingly believable.
My only quibbles are both technical ones, to do with the photography:
1. A lot of the fast-moving action is shot in pretty tight close-up using a hand-held camera. On a small screen this wouldn't have been a problem, but projected to cinema size, I found the effect visually jarring - there were times when I had to look away from the screen to avoid it.
2. Throughout the film, a choice has been applied, either by post-production effects or the use of special optics, to make it look as if the whole thing has been shot using a very poor quality lens that blurs significantly toward the edges of the picture. I didn't understand the need for this and felt that in most shots, the effect was too strong, rather distracting from the actors' performances. At times it honestly was like looking through the bottom of a coke bottle! I didn't like it and didn't feel it added anything helpful to the narrative
...either that or there was something seriously amiss with the projection equipment at my local cinema!
Have just got home from watching "LEE" at my local Picture House.
Blimey, that was DARK. Well, it isn't all dark, but by the time you get to the last half hour... oooft. Let's just say that "feelgood" isn't a term anyone's ever going to apply to this one.
It's not like I went in unprepared: I'd seen Kate Winslet doing the promotional chat show appearances, and as I am already a great admirer of Lee Miller's photojournalism, I knew the kind of subject matter we'd inevitably be exploring, but still... don't say you haven't been warned. This film presents you with you the hideous fact of Nazi genocide, very convincingly as the revelation it must have been in the moment, without (thankfully) a scrap of sentimentality.
Winslet is magnificent in the title role - as is everyone else, to be honest: there are no shoddy performances to be found - and, speaking as a Rolleiflex TLR user myself, it was clear that she had done her homework viz how to wield that lovely machine convincingly. There were moments when the nit-picky photography pedant in me did query whether some of the interior photos were being taken in such low light that it was unlikely to have left any usable impression on the relatively slow film stock available in the 1940s, but let's not quibble!
It's quite a long movie and events are presented in a simple, linear fashion (via a series of chronological flashbacks) with rather uniform pacing throughout - personally, I would have preferred a bit more variation in pace; your taste may differ.
My only really negative criticism has to do with one, frankly bizarre, piece of casting. The role of Englishman Roland Penrose is given to Swedish star Alexander Skarsgård - whose plucky attempt at an English accent is ...I think "variable" is the kindest word for it. It was hard to tell what part of England he was supposed to be from, or indeed what social class, and there were several moments when he didn't sound any kind of English at all. I had to suspend my disbelief on some pretty strong elastic whenever he opened his mouth. Ah well... go figure!
Blimey, that was DARK. Well, it isn't all dark, but by the time you get to the last half hour... oooft. Let's just say that "feelgood" isn't a term anyone's ever going to apply to this one.
It's not like I went in unprepared: I'd seen Kate Winslet doing the promotional chat show appearances, and as I am already a great admirer of Lee Miller's photojournalism, I knew the kind of subject matter we'd inevitably be exploring, but still... don't say you haven't been warned. This film presents you with you the hideous fact of Nazi genocide, very convincingly as the revelation it must have been in the moment, without (thankfully) a scrap of sentimentality.
Winslet is magnificent in the title role - as is everyone else, to be honest: there are no shoddy performances to be found - and, speaking as a Rolleiflex TLR user myself, it was clear that she had done her homework viz how to wield that lovely machine convincingly. There were moments when the nit-picky photography pedant in me did query whether some of the interior photos were being taken in such low light that it was unlikely to have left any usable impression on the relatively slow film stock available in the 1940s, but let's not quibble!
It's quite a long movie and events are presented in a simple, linear fashion (via a series of chronological flashbacks) with rather uniform pacing throughout - personally, I would have preferred a bit more variation in pace; your taste may differ.
My only really negative criticism has to do with one, frankly bizarre, piece of casting. The role of Englishman Roland Penrose is given to Swedish star Alexander Skarsgård - whose plucky attempt at an English accent is ...I think "variable" is the kindest word for it. It was hard to tell what part of England he was supposed to be from, or indeed what social class, and there were several moments when he didn't sound any kind of English at all. I had to suspend my disbelief on some pretty strong elastic whenever he opened his mouth. Ah well... go figure!
