PennyLANE77
Joined Jun 2003
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.
Reviews12
PennyLANE77's rating
I went into the cinema to see this film with sky high expectations given the domestic and international reviews of it. Phrases like "modern classic" and "landmark film" made me think that I was in for something truly special in terms of film history along the lines of Citizen Kane and The Godfather.
Turns out I wasn't, well not all the way anyway. I won't bother with the whole plot line, since it's very sprawling and complicated, but suffice it to say that my main disappointment with the film stems from the fact that the thematics of the story simply are too limited and ordinary compared to the potential impact of the film's gimmick: the fact that you can enter somebody's dream to steal information or plant ideas.
The plot revolves mainly around industrial espionage, a theme which simply does nothing for me emotionally. Who cares if one industrial tycoon wants to stop another? The dream concept of the film is truly magical and innovative and is a very compelling feature of the film itself. But why in heaven's name marry it to something as pointless as industrial espionage? What happened to something like the fight for world domination? It would have given the film infinitely more punch if the plot had centered around some political intrigue in stead. Especially given the unstable nature of the world today with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge climate issues, and so forth.
The subplot involving Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard's characters to me comes off very flat, their on screen chemistry not being very strong. This is a shame, for the premise of the subplot has great emotional potential.
All in all, somewhat of a disappointment, despite the wallop one inevitably receives from the film's take on the concept of entering someone else's dreams.
Turns out I wasn't, well not all the way anyway. I won't bother with the whole plot line, since it's very sprawling and complicated, but suffice it to say that my main disappointment with the film stems from the fact that the thematics of the story simply are too limited and ordinary compared to the potential impact of the film's gimmick: the fact that you can enter somebody's dream to steal information or plant ideas.
The plot revolves mainly around industrial espionage, a theme which simply does nothing for me emotionally. Who cares if one industrial tycoon wants to stop another? The dream concept of the film is truly magical and innovative and is a very compelling feature of the film itself. But why in heaven's name marry it to something as pointless as industrial espionage? What happened to something like the fight for world domination? It would have given the film infinitely more punch if the plot had centered around some political intrigue in stead. Especially given the unstable nature of the world today with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huge climate issues, and so forth.
The subplot involving Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard's characters to me comes off very flat, their on screen chemistry not being very strong. This is a shame, for the premise of the subplot has great emotional potential.
All in all, somewhat of a disappointment, despite the wallop one inevitably receives from the film's take on the concept of entering someone else's dreams.
How can I start praising this wonderful, incredibly romantic film? Many males probably label this a chick movie. But it is for anyone with a weakness for believable, touching movie romance.
Hauer and Pfeiffer are nothing less than a match made in heaven. They suit each other like sticks and sushi, Shafer and Letterman, you name it. They both take real, down to earth, understated approaches to their roles and in my opinion, it just comes off as one of the most emotionally charged pairings in motion picture history. And as an added perk, the boys can ogle Michelle and us girls can take a gander at Rutger.
The storyline is gripping, dramaturgically even and not too fanciful. The costumes are a matter of taste, but personally I like them. One of the film's tour de forces is also the magnificent, masterful editing.
The only things preventing this film from getting the full 10 are the dodgy music (which does work in places) and Brodericks performance, which comes of as offbeat and cute at first but starts to get a little bit under your skin towards the end.
Hauer and Pfeiffer are nothing less than a match made in heaven. They suit each other like sticks and sushi, Shafer and Letterman, you name it. They both take real, down to earth, understated approaches to their roles and in my opinion, it just comes off as one of the most emotionally charged pairings in motion picture history. And as an added perk, the boys can ogle Michelle and us girls can take a gander at Rutger.
The storyline is gripping, dramaturgically even and not too fanciful. The costumes are a matter of taste, but personally I like them. One of the film's tour de forces is also the magnificent, masterful editing.
The only things preventing this film from getting the full 10 are the dodgy music (which does work in places) and Brodericks performance, which comes of as offbeat and cute at first but starts to get a little bit under your skin towards the end.
If you have the chance, catch this splendid Ivanhoe remake on the tube or on VHS (it is a crying shame that this doesn't come on DVD, Amazon). It punches several well deserved holes in the tedious, pompous and dire 1952 version with the two Taylors, each performing worse than the other. Come on, Robert Taylor as Ivanhoe?? The 1952 film is clearly a case of a movie being made at the wrong time in Hollywood history.
Anyone questioning the acting capabilities of Anthony Andrews clearly hasn't seen Brideshead Revisited. He is a great, believable, and may I add, gorgeous Ivanhoe.
The film boasts a great, thought provoking script (which granted does take some liberties with the source material although much of the lovely dialog from Scott's book has found its way into the film), great performances (especialy by Neill, Mason and Hussey and the incomparable George Innes as Wamba) as well as beautiful production values and photography.
And, as an added bonus, it is a virtual babe fest (Wilson, Neill and Andrews are all at their physical prime here)!
Anyone questioning the acting capabilities of Anthony Andrews clearly hasn't seen Brideshead Revisited. He is a great, believable, and may I add, gorgeous Ivanhoe.
The film boasts a great, thought provoking script (which granted does take some liberties with the source material although much of the lovely dialog from Scott's book has found its way into the film), great performances (especialy by Neill, Mason and Hussey and the incomparable George Innes as Wamba) as well as beautiful production values and photography.
And, as an added bonus, it is a virtual babe fest (Wilson, Neill and Andrews are all at their physical prime here)!