Capitaine Corelli

Unlike many, I have not read the book and so I watched this purely as a film in its own right. I'm not especially keen on romance dramas, and I expected this to be a bit slushy and/or operatic so I was rather hesitant about going to see it in the first place...

But I'm glad I did, because it was good. Beautiful, "feel good" scenery and with a light touch of humour that made it rather more endearing than a straight drama would have been. The romance was gentle, inoffensive and sufficiently interwoven with enough "proper" story-telling to keep my interest, and the score was not too obtrusively operatic.

Overall, the film takes a satisfying circular route from start to finish, inducing a range of emotions as it progresses. It's about 2 hours long, but I didn't find myself fidgeting or looking at my watch once - and that's quite a feat for me!! Very enjoyable.

When I was watching this movie one thought had come to my mind for several times: "It's not really what I expected, I thought it would be better", but now that I finished watching it I realize: why should I expect a better result from this movie? Isn't it just a "love story" made up in Hollywood show's standards? Of course, it is! If so, why expect more?

Captain Corelli's mandolin is a romance story in war time (WWII) and the plot which I was noticed about before watch the movie seemed very interesting to me. All that I didn't count was the "Hollywood standard's" touch... What I mean by this is that I expected a story a bit more realistic and with a stronger plot (which was not full of "plot holes" as this one is!) instead of this "sweet story romance, with the perfect ending", which we're used to watch in a great part of Hollywood's movies! Another Hollywood standard's gaffe which is very common is the natives' languages issue. The differences between Italian, Greek and German languages were all done just by a stupid accent, and all people seem to understand each other very well. The Italian and the German army arrive to a "forgotten" Greek island and they all understand each other very well as they all speak the same language! Of course it's just little technical details that don't even matter to the plot, but are all this little details which separate a good from a bad production!

But the movie has not just bad-sided arguments! On the good side, I can find the original idea (which comes from a book), and the thought that is possible to be Human, and have Human feelings, even inside a War. It's possible to sing and be happy, have good feelings, to love and to be loved in a War time! Was because of that main idea that I wanted to watch this movie, and at this particular point I wasn't disappointed! I just was dissatisfied about the way it was made! Another good-sided argument is History's knowledge… The movie is not very deep at that issue, but it's good enough to have a little idea how was the WWII in the Eastern-South Europe.

Globally Captain Corelli's mandolin is not a bad movie but it's not as good as I initially though either, mostly because of the "Hollywood show's standards" up-mentioned.

I have to admit that I approached this movie with a sense of expectation and dread. Louis de Berniere's bestselling novel is one of my favourites and anyone who has read it will realise that there is no way in hell that any screen adaptation can be 100% faithful.

All the way through I found myself convincing myself that the movie was unsuccessful, and had stripped the book's plot back so far as to render it redundant. The ending, however, is much better than that in the novel, and I could not stop thinking about the movie afterwards. Still, the plusses (John Toll's magnificent cinematography, Stephen Warbeck's great score, etc) I felt did not outweigh my initial negatives (Cage's miscasting, a heavily diluted script).

But, two days later, I was queuing again to see Corelli, and although not perfect, I have to admit now that the movie is the best anyone could have expected. Cage is actually brilliant in a role that even de Berniere was concerned was not a fully rounded character: his carefree spirit which gives way to shattered remorse is spot on, and complements the superb double act of Penelope Cruz and John Hurt perfectly. David Morrissey is quietly effective as Weber, the Nazi officer trying to reconcile his feelings for his newfound Italian friends and his inbred superiority complex to those around him. And the fine Greco-Italian supporting cast bring de Berniere's sundrenched world of Cepholonia dazzlingly alive.

On leaving the cinema second time around, I finally let go my passion for the novel which prevented me from fully appreciating the story of WW2 Cepholonia in cinematic terms. My hat goes off to John Madden who, despite the almost expected critical drubbing he is receiving from the British critics (any director who has had a major success like Shakespeare in Love behind them is always a target for these moaning ninnies!),has managed to transfer a terrifically difficult book to the big screen with such heart, verve and humanity (the core virtues of the novel, in fact) that he has created another classic love story that will probably only be fully appreciated when the dust has settled a few years from now.

If you are a fan of the book, like me, it's hard, but try not to make the same mistake on your initial viewing. Try to erase the book from your mind for two hours, bathe yourself in the glorious Mediterranean atmosphere, and discover Corelli, Pelagia, Mandras, Dr Iannis, as if for the first time (pretend you're watching something made from an original screenplay), and I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

In fact, you'll be eagerly waiting to own your own copy of this delightful movie on video or DVD.

8/10

After reading the book thought I would give the film a watch. As with any book adaptation the story is slightly changed and big chunks are missing, are they key parts yes. The film doesn't flow as well and you find yourself not very interested in some of the key players in the book. But I never wanted to stop the film which I think is key, it has something about it which keeps you glued. Perhaps the back drop.

I should have seen this movie earlier but seeing it at this late date after release did in no way diminish the tremendous enjoyment of the film. I admit it-I love non-American films-even if those films are American products. But this was so totally non-Hollywood in texture, locations and substance that I can easily forgive the intrusion of Hollywood personalities.

The script, the acting and the remarkably beautiful cinematography were so engrossing that the minor problems of plot simply were drowned in beautiful images. John Toll's brilliant camera work immediately impresses the viewer-so good that this viewer will rent the video more just to appreciate the beautiful play of light and dark in the screens images. I honestly felt that those images were three dimensional-that they could be lifted from the theatre and carried away.

Early on in his career, I watched Cage in what I thought was a dog of a film-something about angels in white robes standing on California beaches and subsequently dismissed him but after watching Corelli I must reassess his work-I thought the casting of him as the semi-professorial Corelli was a master stroke.

To make any comment on the events that occurred on Corelli's island is to trivialize those events because somebody sitting in Fremantle looking back can never appreciate the monstrousness of what happened. Hindsight is not an aide in this case but I do believe that movie magic was laid before viewers of this film.