russell_jw
Joined May 2001
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.
Ratings586
russell_jw's rating
Reviews1
russell_jw's rating
Bobby Deerfield is not your average romantic drama especially when compared to the recent phase of Rom-Com's sweeping the screens at the cinemas.
Firstly, Al Pacino is at his best, highly intense and more importantly convincing as a character to accept. This is not surprising as his two other significant films of that decade were the masterful The Godfather and Godfather Part II. There seems to be something compelling in his role in this film which i cannot grasp to identify to you. Maybe because his co-star heightens our interest by their exchange of witty dialogue although i would point towards his stern expressions and calm voice which can explode in his characters few moments of glory.
Secondly, this film is not for the mass popcorn audience, the direction is obtuse and could be compared to the 'Art film' style that we struggle to view at all in popular culture. This is were the 'original' element of my comment of Bobby Deerfield spurs from. It is the fact that the mass audience wouldn't know what to do with the arbitrary meanings revealed. It is usually clear cut in 'Hollywood'.
To finish up, the romance and the character sparring is worth the time of a person who wants to be inspired or possibly take something away from a film that will last longer than the time it takes to see it.
Firstly, Al Pacino is at his best, highly intense and more importantly convincing as a character to accept. This is not surprising as his two other significant films of that decade were the masterful The Godfather and Godfather Part II. There seems to be something compelling in his role in this film which i cannot grasp to identify to you. Maybe because his co-star heightens our interest by their exchange of witty dialogue although i would point towards his stern expressions and calm voice which can explode in his characters few moments of glory.
Secondly, this film is not for the mass popcorn audience, the direction is obtuse and could be compared to the 'Art film' style that we struggle to view at all in popular culture. This is were the 'original' element of my comment of Bobby Deerfield spurs from. It is the fact that the mass audience wouldn't know what to do with the arbitrary meanings revealed. It is usually clear cut in 'Hollywood'.
To finish up, the romance and the character sparring is worth the time of a person who wants to be inspired or possibly take something away from a film that will last longer than the time it takes to see it.