urbisoler
Joined Feb 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
urbisoler's rating
Most of your reviewers did not know what to expect going in. That's unfortunate. They should have realized that this was meant to approximate a "possible" historic Arthur, not the Arthur of legend. I have tried to keep abreast of the latest research surrounding the Arthurian romance and I was looking forward to this treatment with anticipation.
I was really into this film for an hour. It could have been this way, I reasoned. The music score greatly helps to enforce this feeling. Then I began to realize that Clive Owen was not emotionally charged for the action, nor the love scene. I also had a hard time envisioning Guinevere as a warrior. There is no way she could compete with a towering man twice her weight. Besides, I don't know if women in battle is historically accurate. (Joan d'Arc being a remarkable exception).
I really wanted this film to succeed but it obviously hasn't. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction (hence my 6 rating) and should prepare future film makers for something meaningful. It should be obvious to ALL that Arthur is not going away; not the historic Arthur nor the Legend. The tale is just too good to lose.
I was really into this film for an hour. It could have been this way, I reasoned. The music score greatly helps to enforce this feeling. Then I began to realize that Clive Owen was not emotionally charged for the action, nor the love scene. I also had a hard time envisioning Guinevere as a warrior. There is no way she could compete with a towering man twice her weight. Besides, I don't know if women in battle is historically accurate. (Joan d'Arc being a remarkable exception).
I really wanted this film to succeed but it obviously hasn't. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction (hence my 6 rating) and should prepare future film makers for something meaningful. It should be obvious to ALL that Arthur is not going away; not the historic Arthur nor the Legend. The tale is just too good to lose.
I recognize that this film is flawed, nevertheless, I will give it a rating of 8. Why such a high number? I cannot compare it to Emily's book as others have done because the film industry cannot be expected to encompass WH in the span of 2 hours or so. I must, therefore concentrate on its forebears. And, I might as well pick on the considered classic WH, William Wyler's 1939 version.
Here is what is wrong with 1939. It is a Hollywood romance and only tells half the story. 1992 at least TRYS to tell the whole tale, flaws and all. More importantly, however, is that Emily did NOT write a romance. She wrote a tale of obsession and perhaps even of evil. Even tho' Fiennes is not physically dark enough to portray Heathcliff, he does come across as the cruel and obsessive character Emily intended. It is also significant that Steven Spielberg (who apparently can do no wrong) chose Fiennes as his concentration camp commandant in "Schindler's List" based on Fiennes' WH performance. That should tell you something.
Also, remember that this story is essentially Heathcliff's story, not Cathy's. That is why half a story cannot do it justice (and probably why Hollywood chose to make it a romance).
P.S. I also like the music score by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It is fittingly haunting. And, I must say, the Sinead O'Connor cameo as Emily Bronte is quite effective theater.
Here is what is wrong with 1939. It is a Hollywood romance and only tells half the story. 1992 at least TRYS to tell the whole tale, flaws and all. More importantly, however, is that Emily did NOT write a romance. She wrote a tale of obsession and perhaps even of evil. Even tho' Fiennes is not physically dark enough to portray Heathcliff, he does come across as the cruel and obsessive character Emily intended. It is also significant that Steven Spielberg (who apparently can do no wrong) chose Fiennes as his concentration camp commandant in "Schindler's List" based on Fiennes' WH performance. That should tell you something.
Also, remember that this story is essentially Heathcliff's story, not Cathy's. That is why half a story cannot do it justice (and probably why Hollywood chose to make it a romance).
P.S. I also like the music score by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It is fittingly haunting. And, I must say, the Sinead O'Connor cameo as Emily Bronte is quite effective theater.
I often check Roger Ebert's Movie Reviews AFTER I have seen a film to see how I measure up with the expert. After a few years of this activity, I am convinced that Mr Ebert has a social agenda which is clearly reflected in his reviews. ie. Hart's War. Mr Ebert rates this a 3 star film. I would have rated it 3-1/2 stars. Not much difference you say? The difference is significant and can be measured by the last paragraph of Mr Ebert's review:
"The movie worked for me right up to the final scene, and then it caved in. [The writers and director] put the plot through an awkward U-turn so that Bruce Willis could end up as a hero."
After telling us how "awkward" this plot twist was, he goes on to say:
"How and why he does so, is ingenious . . ."
It is not important to my argument to know what that plot twist is. But it is of major importance to read how Mr Ebert would have improved(?) the plot ending:
"I would have liked it better if the far-off bugle had been playing under a black character at the end and not a white one."
So, it looks like Mr Ebert would have preferred the continuation of the racist message the film has portrayed up to that point rather than let a white man be the hero. But, of course, if they had done so, the result would have been "just another military courtroom drama" instead of "an ingenious one".
Make no mistake. Mr Ebert sees this as a film about racism, which it is, and resents the altogether too rare plot twist that makes this film a winner. He would rather we left the theatre moaning about the plight of the black man which has been done endlessly over the last half century and, perhaps, done better elsewhere (ie. To Kill a Mockingbird).
"The movie worked for me right up to the final scene, and then it caved in. [The writers and director] put the plot through an awkward U-turn so that Bruce Willis could end up as a hero."
After telling us how "awkward" this plot twist was, he goes on to say:
"How and why he does so, is ingenious . . ."
It is not important to my argument to know what that plot twist is. But it is of major importance to read how Mr Ebert would have improved(?) the plot ending:
"I would have liked it better if the far-off bugle had been playing under a black character at the end and not a white one."
So, it looks like Mr Ebert would have preferred the continuation of the racist message the film has portrayed up to that point rather than let a white man be the hero. But, of course, if they had done so, the result would have been "just another military courtroom drama" instead of "an ingenious one".
Make no mistake. Mr Ebert sees this as a film about racism, which it is, and resents the altogether too rare plot twist that makes this film a winner. He would rather we left the theatre moaning about the plight of the black man which has been done endlessly over the last half century and, perhaps, done better elsewhere (ie. To Kill a Mockingbird).