Dworkyll

Well,

I consider myself as a fan of the old Nordic sagas, and the movies based on them, like the Excalibur, or the 13th Warrior. So I looked forward to see this movie with great interest. Apart form the films, where the visuals cover the weaknesses of the script/directing, the script here is very good. Based on a millennium old tale, actualized by professionals: and the promise is kept. The visual experience, when we talk about action and scenery, is simply stunning. Even on a screen at home.

However when we talk about closeups, the whole thing just falls apart. The eyes are dead, and improperly used, the mimic is awful. This renders the actors(?) to puppets, and eliminates the whole humanity from the film. I do not understand, why such great actors like Anthony Hopkins, or John Malkovich let the producers to use them. What makes it more annoying, that the film industry is after 300, or Sin City, or even Shrek, where the balanced mix between technology and reality had been worked out just perfectly. Why fails here? There is one exception, the figure of Grendel. Despite his complete inhumanity, the only "acting" is performed by Grendel.

The overall feeling was that I'm watching an enormous cut-scene from some slashing computer game, and in minutes I will have control over the characters, and can start my own adventure. A twisted way of "immersion" I would say. So if you like nice CGI generated action and scenery, go and see it. If you are interested in the plot, wait for the book. If you are interested in the plot visually, I recommend the 13th Warrior, or the Excalibur.

Well, it seems the "Bridget Jones" phenomena penetrated the film-making nowadays. A talented Hungarian filmmaker lady created a nice after-shoot of the "original". She took two really pretty female characters in the summit of their single-hood, added a cool mix of guys, the not-so-bad (Tamás), the not-so-good (Péter), and the runner-up (Ali), placed these persons into the microcosmos of a theater, and voilà, there is a refreshing and a way more entertaining presentation of the original "Single-Lady-Chases-The-Father-For-Her-New-Baby" scenario.

But, as always, the secret is in the details. First, this film is a fully loaded comedy, with lots of laughable situations and sparking dialogs. But also a personal drama, about a working woman in her middle of thirties, who already gave up the chance to get a "soulmate", and the remaining, and quite serious goal is to have a baby. This dramatic motivation pushes her into pretty nasty situations, the outsiders (and the viewers) can easily laugh at.

And the story, contrary to the gags is pretty close to the real life, the characters really have depth. That is why can Mr. Csányi, (a star from "Kontroll") outperform even Mr. Firth. With ease. Same applies to a Ms. Schell - Ms. Zellwegner comparison.

And not just the drama balances the comedy. There is lots of emotion presented in the film, but with utter sensitivity. I have to mention Mr. Gulyás' picture crafting talent, some of the sequences are not just perfect, but stunning, especially when he plays with the speed. I think there is the best Budapest depiction in the last decade, compressed into less then 20 seconds. Some of his sequences gave the perfect depth of this comedy.

Let see some of the cons. First, as I mentioned, the story lacks the uniqueness. Some of the repetitions came from a theatrical archetype (secret lover escapes through the balcony), some from more recent films, (a similar scene with the applicants appeared in the "Coming to America", in the "Sea of Love", or speaking of Hungarian films in the "Kontroll"). I found some of the gags a bit too harsh, but I guess it is a question of personal taste. I have to add, even the "harsh" ones are way more civilized, than you can experience in recent "campus comedies" like "Van Wilder". And Ms. Schell's sidekick, Ms. Dobó, is simply not up to the challenge. The director most probably knew it, and adjusted the role accordingly, but she remained as a weak spot on the film.

So, if you liked Bridget Jones, if you like to see it with more humor, more life, and more beauty, you should see this film also.

Well, I do like Nora Ephron's previous works, especially the Ryan-Hanks films. I enjoy You've got Mail on a quarterly basis. Maybe that is why I found so many cross-references in this film. The score, several actors and actresses, even dialogs re-appear ("Don't cry, Shopgirl" actualized version, and Nanny Maureen, yes) But the core cast is different, Ms. Kidman is not Ms. Ryan. Why on earth she tries to be her from time to time. She is a perfect Kidman, we have learned it from really great films, why does she try to be some (less proved) actress. The funny thing, and a great evidence of her talent, that she is successfully copies Ms. Ryans acting style and techniques.

But not Ms. Kidman is the weakest point. Will Ferrel is light years behind Tom Hanks. He only once replays one of Hanks' gestures from YGM, and most of the time acts as a comedian, but I still did not see his "true" personality. He remains a hardwired comedian, even when the script drives him otherwise.

The relief from this discomfort are the set of supporting staff, lead by Mr. Caine. They are delivering perfectly what they supposed to deliver.

So Ephron fans beware, the Lady is not in her greatest shape, hammering great cast into someone else is not the best way to relieve former successes. (I even have a wild theory, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Hanks were actually invited for these roles, but they wisely turned down. And Ms. Ephron, not so wisely, did not realized this fact.)