Soie

Adapted from a rather short but great novel, they had space to expand it in the movie but didn't make the most of it. It has nice cinematography, a good soundtrack (with a beautiful main theme used in trailers), solid base story and good acting by Kiera Knightley. However, it's a love story and I wasn't moved by the romantic aspects one bit. I think the main fault lies with the main actor who just didn't convey emotions well enough. He looks good but seriously lacks in acting chops, at least in this one. The chemistry between the actors was also severely lacking. The pace was slow, which can sometimes work in period pieces to improve the atmosphere, but unfortunately here it was mostly a detriment. It might be worth a rental but I would pick other period romantic stories first.

Rating: 5 out of 10

This movie was very good. I know a lot of reviewers were bored and didn't like that there wasn't subtitles for the Japanese. Admittedly the issue with the subtitles would have made the movie easier to understand. In the middle of the movie there is some confusion about what exactly has transpired between Pitt and his Japanese contact and why the initial interlude between Pitt and the Japanese concubine occurs in the first place but these don't seem to be so dear to the plot that you can't remain in the dark and still get the point of the movie.

The landscape is breathtaking, the acting was great by every member of the supporting cast. I like Michael Pitt, but it seems like he can only play one character and it's the throaty sensitive guy. I was surprised that Keira Knightley took such a minor role but the punch at the end gives her character quite a bit of intrigue. As always she is wonderful and I liked Alfred Molina as well.

The cinematography was good and understated. The script was simple and it didn't seem like they wasted any words. Quite the opposite in fact.

I understand why others didn't like it but I get the impression that this is due to a lack of patience on their part.

Good movie. Try it out.

This movie tries to be an epic, period piece romantic drama. It has some of the main ingredients that are required to pull this off. There's costumes, travels, some beautiful (that's the only reason I gave it a 2/10) landscape shots, a guy, women, a not-too-subtle score to pull big emotions from us, all are present. But the most important ingredient they forgot: there's no heart. There's no passion. There's no chemistry at all. They even didn't take time to develop the Love between the main characters. Guy sees girl in bar (2 seconds). Then they walk past some flowers. Girl likes flowers. Guy eats a flower. They are in love. Sadly, I do not make this up. It is this shallow. And this is supposed to be the base for the rest of the movie. Well, it's just completely unbelievable. The dialogues are cheesy clichés and completely uninspired ("I will always love you" every time the guy goes on a trip; 4 times?), the acting is borderline amateuristic. Watching a movie can be a wonderful experience, it can draw you in, it can get under your skin, can touch something deep inside. This movie wants to be/ do all of that, but it fails completely. Bad movie making. A waste of time.

I also can understand why a person may not like this movie. However, if you can truly appreciate the goal and the direction of the director's vision than you should like it. The scenery and music added depth and meaning to the story. I think there should have been Japanese subtitles so as to not lose the audience's attention and interest. I was left wanting more. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I wanted the plot to be a bit more "spicy". But i can appreciate the director and writer's vision of the movie. This is a good movie to watch when you want to relax and mellow out. The ending was the best part of the movie. There was a bit of a twist which added meaning and understanding. Even though i wanted things to be a bit more spicy the end of the movie justified the lack of it.

Can we really watch a movie lasting almost two hours just for its stunning cinematography and some glimpse of storytelling, or should it rather be the other way around? I think "Silk" proves that it is often impossible to adequately translate a deep, emotionally charged book into a credible and enjoyable movie. Personally, I just got terribly bored less than halfway through the movie. Yes, it is visually compelling. And yes, there are some fine moments in the acting, especially from Alfred Molina. But as a whole this leaves with quite a disappointing feeling in the viewer, the feeling that with all that money and resources and brilliant actors perhaps they could have come up with something a bit different. And a little less slow.