AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,7/10
1,2 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA Jewish girl in 19th-century London dreams of becoming a stage actress.A Jewish girl in 19th-century London dreams of becoming a stage actress.A Jewish girl in 19th-century London dreams of becoming a stage actress.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias e 1 indicação no total
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
Sleepwalking, dead, boring, an endurance test for the audience - all have been said before so why am I adding to the comments I agree with? There is this:
"...it isn't before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being."
This must be the reviewer's imagination talking. One can tell that this is the point of the movie that its makers are trying to make but they failed. Utterly. The only reason I kept it going in the machine was to see if they could redeem themselves. But they did not. It's a very big disappointment. There is no connection with the audience - either in the theater's audience inside the story itself or the movie audience watching this.
Too many close-ups, just way too many. I'd call it possibly a workshop on close-ups - if you're in the business. Otherwise, why waste money on this? It's just pointless.
"the film never reveals more than it needs to."
Honestly, it reveals nothing.
And yes, why was so much money thrown at this movie? I seriously wonder if the backers needed to lose money for tax purposes.
"...it isn't before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being."
This must be the reviewer's imagination talking. One can tell that this is the point of the movie that its makers are trying to make but they failed. Utterly. The only reason I kept it going in the machine was to see if they could redeem themselves. But they did not. It's a very big disappointment. There is no connection with the audience - either in the theater's audience inside the story itself or the movie audience watching this.
Too many close-ups, just way too many. I'd call it possibly a workshop on close-ups - if you're in the business. Otherwise, why waste money on this? It's just pointless.
"the film never reveals more than it needs to."
Honestly, it reveals nothing.
And yes, why was so much money thrown at this movie? I seriously wonder if the backers needed to lose money for tax purposes.
I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.
4gans
The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.
The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.
The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.
Esther Kahn made me regret every second that I spent watching it and I wished I could have reversed my trip to the video store. I'm surprised I even made it through this seemingly bad trip to purgatory. How do films like this ever get the money to have one minute of it made? And how do actresses like Summer Phoenix get work?
The characters were so boring and lifeless that I'm surprised the director stayed awake making it. I never felt any empathy or compassion towards Esther in her so-called plight towards trying to become an accomplished actress. Maybe Summer Phoenix should re-think her choice of being an actress as she was horrible. Also, listening to her Oliver Twist meets valley girl English accent was a joke.
If this is what films are coming to, I'd rather spend my time doing laundry...at least it's more dynamic and exciting than Esther Kahn.
The characters were so boring and lifeless that I'm surprised the director stayed awake making it. I never felt any empathy or compassion towards Esther in her so-called plight towards trying to become an accomplished actress. Maybe Summer Phoenix should re-think her choice of being an actress as she was horrible. Also, listening to her Oliver Twist meets valley girl English accent was a joke.
If this is what films are coming to, I'd rather spend my time doing laundry...at least it's more dynamic and exciting than Esther Kahn.
Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesChosen by "Les Cahiers du cinéma" (France) as one of the 10 best pictures of 2000 (#01)
- Citações
Nathan Quellen: Because what has to happen, is that every step you take has to be more unbelievable than the step before. E-Every step has to be - well it has to have an idea behind it, an idea t-that is so complex, it would take, 10 philosophers just to decipher it. Each step has to stretch like a rope - in the audiences mind. Until they can't bare it anymore and they wan to cry out, "Careful Esther you're going to break it".
- Versões alternativasPremiered at the Cannes Film Festival with a Running Time of 157 minutes (2 hours 37 minutes), which was then cut down by 15 minutes, against director Arnaud Desplechin's wishes, for theatrical release in France and elsewhere. The cut version essentially removes three scenes: a dream sequence of Esther, and two scenes fleshing out the Philippe Haygard character. The full uncut version was released on DVD in France and has screened in a few places such as the Lincoln Center in New York in 2019.
- ConexõesReferenced in Eu Ainda Estou Aqui (2010)
- Trilhas sonorasSuite algérienne
[by] Camille Saint-Saëns
Performed by Orchestre Philharmonique de Monte-Carlo (as The Monte Carlo Philharmonic Orchestra)
Conducted by David Robertson
courtesy of Naïve Auvidis
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Esther Kahn?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 23.371
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 5.124
- 3 de mar. de 2002
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 23.371
- Tempo de duração
- 2 h 37 min(157 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente