Dick-42
A rejoint le mars 2000
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges3
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis35
Note de Dick-42
Other reviewers have been fascinated by a fairly standard Hollywood story of a youthful courtship. It's good (I'd say a 7 on the scale of 10), but not the real story of the movie.
An elderly man (whom I can relate to because I'm writing this on my 81st birthday) has an interest in a co-resident of his nursing home, an old woman who seems "out of it," but who responds somewhat to the story he reads to her each day -- of the young lovers. (That story, of course, is told in flashbacks, and constitutes maybe 90 percent of the movie. I can relate to it, too, because the lovers are just about the ages of my wife, of 60 years, and me.) However, a second story also develops between the contemporary elderly people, that to me is the heart of the movie. My wife called it a tear jerker. I agreed, though I hadn't shed any tears. Nevertheless, unlike most movies that are forgettable, this one remains vivid, and doesn't lose its punch with time. When I thought about it the next day, I was, indeed, moved emotionally. It's a beautiful story, and if you don't get it, I'm sorry. You need to be alert to catch the point -- or "punch line" -- as the "Notebook" is shown in a close-up near the end.
A beautiful, and marvelous movie! It loses just a point in the ratings because of unnecessary, though implied, sex -- not characteristic of movies of the 40s. (The CODE, you know.)
An elderly man (whom I can relate to because I'm writing this on my 81st birthday) has an interest in a co-resident of his nursing home, an old woman who seems "out of it," but who responds somewhat to the story he reads to her each day -- of the young lovers. (That story, of course, is told in flashbacks, and constitutes maybe 90 percent of the movie. I can relate to it, too, because the lovers are just about the ages of my wife, of 60 years, and me.) However, a second story also develops between the contemporary elderly people, that to me is the heart of the movie. My wife called it a tear jerker. I agreed, though I hadn't shed any tears. Nevertheless, unlike most movies that are forgettable, this one remains vivid, and doesn't lose its punch with time. When I thought about it the next day, I was, indeed, moved emotionally. It's a beautiful story, and if you don't get it, I'm sorry. You need to be alert to catch the point -- or "punch line" -- as the "Notebook" is shown in a close-up near the end.
A beautiful, and marvelous movie! It loses just a point in the ratings because of unnecessary, though implied, sex -- not characteristic of movies of the 40s. (The CODE, you know.)
This little greeting from Lewis Stone, speaking for the entire movie industry was obviously intended for release in Christmas week of 1941, say about December 15 to 22. It starts with a view of Stone addressing the theater audience from behind a desk, cuts to stock footage of military maneuvers, probably from the mid-30s, and salutes these guardians of our liberty who will be far from home on Christmas. Given movie distribution schedules, it was probably made during the peaceful Summer or Fall of 1941.
Unfortunately, the world, at least as viewed from the United States, changed completely on December 7, 1941! Thousands of these noble Guardians of Liberty died on Pearl Harbor Day -- the Day of Infamy! The rest were either fighting for their lives on various Pacific islands, or were rushing to the aid of their brothers. By Christmas, we at home didn't know the full extent of our own families' and friends' losses, but the news was not encouraging.
A Christmas greeting from the film industry might have been appropriate, but this sweet little piece would not have been it. I wonder if it was released.
Unfortunately, the world, at least as viewed from the United States, changed completely on December 7, 1941! Thousands of these noble Guardians of Liberty died on Pearl Harbor Day -- the Day of Infamy! The rest were either fighting for their lives on various Pacific islands, or were rushing to the aid of their brothers. By Christmas, we at home didn't know the full extent of our own families' and friends' losses, but the news was not encouraging.
A Christmas greeting from the film industry might have been appropriate, but this sweet little piece would not have been it. I wonder if it was released.
This 1923 adaptation of a mid-1921 novel is one of the most faithful-to-the-original screenplays I have ever seen. Granted, large blocks of the book are omitted or greatly condensed, but who wants a 20-hour movie? The basic story line is retained and well developed.
The cinematography is superb, and the print we saw on cable was sharp and clear. It shows there is no excuse for the foggy, low-contrast prints we see in so many of the early thirties films. The sets, costumes, performances, and overall production are outstanding for any era. The silent film has been provided with a fine score, and even with its limitations is infinitely superior to the 1952 so-called "remake," which is virtually no relation to the book.
The two-hour-plus production moves along briskly (with perhaps a few too many minutes of the final mob scenes) and is exciting. Suspense is maintained very well, though my wife anticipated the ending. It was hard to keep my previous knowledge of the plot to myself.
I loved this production and give it an enthusiastic and unqualified 10.
The cinematography is superb, and the print we saw on cable was sharp and clear. It shows there is no excuse for the foggy, low-contrast prints we see in so many of the early thirties films. The sets, costumes, performances, and overall production are outstanding for any era. The silent film has been provided with a fine score, and even with its limitations is infinitely superior to the 1952 so-called "remake," which is virtually no relation to the book.
The two-hour-plus production moves along briskly (with perhaps a few too many minutes of the final mob scenes) and is exciting. Suspense is maintained very well, though my wife anticipated the ending. It was hard to keep my previous knowledge of the plot to myself.
I loved this production and give it an enthusiastic and unqualified 10.