drifkind
Joined Nov 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.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
drifkind's rating
I entered the theater with fond memories of Fred Zinnemann's 1973 "Day of the Jackal", expecting a chance to scoff at a butchered remake of a fine, suspenseful and tensely-paced film. After the first half-hour or so, it suddenly occurred to me that what I was seeing was not a remake at all, but a parody. Then I began to enjoy myself.
Watching to see what modern filmmaking sensibilities had made of the more memorable scenes from the original kept me thoroughly entertained for the rest of the show. Edward Fox's neat little sniper's rifle--with its disguise constructed from a marvelous, high-tech material called "stainless steel"--metamorphosed into an immense carbon-fiber contraption suitable for demolishing an armored battalion. Fox's deadly silent assassination of a cantaloupe turned into a market-garden recreation of the Battle of the Bulge. And so on.
I don't think my companion, or anyone else in the theater, appreciated my snickers and occasional belly laugh. Too bad. I had a great time.
Watching to see what modern filmmaking sensibilities had made of the more memorable scenes from the original kept me thoroughly entertained for the rest of the show. Edward Fox's neat little sniper's rifle--with its disguise constructed from a marvelous, high-tech material called "stainless steel"--metamorphosed into an immense carbon-fiber contraption suitable for demolishing an armored battalion. Fox's deadly silent assassination of a cantaloupe turned into a market-garden recreation of the Battle of the Bulge. And so on.
I don't think my companion, or anyone else in the theater, appreciated my snickers and occasional belly laugh. Too bad. I had a great time.
Some movies, like some literature, will change you. You can't watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" without wanting to be a better, stronger person. This is the first movie I've seen that I feel has actually made me a worse person. I would like to erase the experience from my life.
The fact that the movie is beautifully and strongly made only deepens the anger I feel toward the makers. Its only message seems to be, "You want to see this--you know you do." No, I don't.
The fact that the movie is beautifully and strongly made only deepens the anger I feel toward the makers. Its only message seems to be, "You want to see this--you know you do." No, I don't.
Tarkovsky's film, based roughly on the brothers Strugatsky's novel Roadside Picnic, is not the success his more-famous Solaris is. Where the book mixed reality with elements of myth, Stalker skips the reality and goes straight for myth. The result lacks the ability to convince. The bizarre dangers of the Zone that give Roadside Picnic its color appear here only by the most indirect reference. The Stalker's terror, and his apparent fetishism over a handful of nuts and bolts, are hard to take seriously. The film is partly redeemed by stolid acting (yes, I meant stolid) and beautiful, haunting cinematography.
In a way, this film is Solaris turned inside-out: not the psyche as seen by the universe, but the universe as seen by the psyche.
In a way, this film is Solaris turned inside-out: not the psyche as seen by the universe, but the universe as seen by the psyche.