Ankhoryt
Joined Jul 1999
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.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews17
Ankhoryt's rating
I saw this movie at home more than thirty years after it was first made, and without the background to appreciate the director and his style of directing, which frankly got on my nerves. I also dislike "biographies" which take wild liberties with the actual facts of their subject's lives.
But oh, the sets! Oh, the wardrobe! And most especially, oh, Nureyev!! Now lost to us due to AIDS, international ballet star Nureyev did well in this movie, over-acting and under-acting apparently per the director's instructions. Of course, every dance scene is exquisite. (I flinched at the reviewer here who burbled that golly, he's a better dancer than Al Pacino! Yes, dear; a moment on Wikipedia would tell you why.)
And, given who and what Nureyev was, the nude scenes are exquisite, too, and plainly show a great deal of acting ability (neither over- nor under- ) on his part. Alas, the beautiful seduction scene in the tent has *talking*. Ah, had they only shut up! The grumpy, intrusive dialog is acidic enough to stifle the eroticism of the encounter. For that scene, one could wish this movie about the silent-film era were silent itself.
Trivia: compare his nude photo shoot scene with the two women to the costuming by Bakst for Nijinsky in "Afternoon of a Faun." (Google all that to see pics.) I felt terrible when I missed the revival of the Bakst costumes and Nijinsky's choreography when "AoaF" came to my area in the early 1990s; the photo session scenes in this movie made me feel that at least, I have seen the Faun. This means that the director did the work to reproduce the 1912 original wardrobe over a decade *before* the same exhausting work was done for the 1990's revival.
The rest of the movie was essentially one long jangle and blare, with artsy flashbacks and an early stab at what I guess might be magical realism, or something else disjointed, recursive, and melodramatic. In any case, it was enough to alienate me and I never did get fully into the narrative thread (narrative snarl?) of the film. So, five stars - raves for the settings and wardrobe and Nureyev, and just "eh" for everything else.
But oh, the sets! Oh, the wardrobe! And most especially, oh, Nureyev!! Now lost to us due to AIDS, international ballet star Nureyev did well in this movie, over-acting and under-acting apparently per the director's instructions. Of course, every dance scene is exquisite. (I flinched at the reviewer here who burbled that golly, he's a better dancer than Al Pacino! Yes, dear; a moment on Wikipedia would tell you why.)
And, given who and what Nureyev was, the nude scenes are exquisite, too, and plainly show a great deal of acting ability (neither over- nor under- ) on his part. Alas, the beautiful seduction scene in the tent has *talking*. Ah, had they only shut up! The grumpy, intrusive dialog is acidic enough to stifle the eroticism of the encounter. For that scene, one could wish this movie about the silent-film era were silent itself.
Trivia: compare his nude photo shoot scene with the two women to the costuming by Bakst for Nijinsky in "Afternoon of a Faun." (Google all that to see pics.) I felt terrible when I missed the revival of the Bakst costumes and Nijinsky's choreography when "AoaF" came to my area in the early 1990s; the photo session scenes in this movie made me feel that at least, I have seen the Faun. This means that the director did the work to reproduce the 1912 original wardrobe over a decade *before* the same exhausting work was done for the 1990's revival.
The rest of the movie was essentially one long jangle and blare, with artsy flashbacks and an early stab at what I guess might be magical realism, or something else disjointed, recursive, and melodramatic. In any case, it was enough to alienate me and I never did get fully into the narrative thread (narrative snarl?) of the film. So, five stars - raves for the settings and wardrobe and Nureyev, and just "eh" for everything else.
Superb acting, writing, and directing, and I'm boggled that it didn't get major theatrical play and multiple award nominations. The material is difficult, handled with grace and maturity. Is that what doomed it to limited release? It very nearly went direct to cable and DVD, and that's a shame.
It's hard to write a review without spoilers, so I'll just say that this is a movie which takes eternal love seriously and unbearable loss realistically.
Aside from that, the cinematography is beautiful, and the eroticism is gently but powerfully portrayed. There's a lot of eye candy in this movie: rich colors, Indian-American culture, dance, landscape... all are treated with the same tender respect and celebration as the central relationship which defines the movie's dramatic arc.
There was no bad acting in this film, but Kal Penn (best known as Kumar as in "Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle") and lead actor Erick Avari were both painfully good. Kal Penn has shown he can do a lot more than comedy; look for him in dramatic leading-man roles, including some where his ethnicity will be a footnote and not an innate part of the narrative.
It's hard to write a review without spoilers, so I'll just say that this is a movie which takes eternal love seriously and unbearable loss realistically.
Aside from that, the cinematography is beautiful, and the eroticism is gently but powerfully portrayed. There's a lot of eye candy in this movie: rich colors, Indian-American culture, dance, landscape... all are treated with the same tender respect and celebration as the central relationship which defines the movie's dramatic arc.
There was no bad acting in this film, but Kal Penn (best known as Kumar as in "Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle") and lead actor Erick Avari were both painfully good. Kal Penn has shown he can do a lot more than comedy; look for him in dramatic leading-man roles, including some where his ethnicity will be a footnote and not an innate part of the narrative.