stefan-144
Joined Jan 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.
Reviews47
stefan-144's rating
I enjoy a movie that refrains from big effects, and still manages to create tension, suspense and a dramatic acceleration. This one does.
The way it avoids closeups on murder victims, even the moments of murder, reminds me of the Hitchcock principle of less is more. It is very elegantly done, if such a word is permitted in this circumstance. At the moment when our horror of what is about to take place is at its peak, the camera moves away. Other scenes, with a more complex emotional content, are allowed to play out.
Played out competently, I must add. Both Keanu Reeves and James Spader perform with sophistication, creating a rare psychological realism. Their faces seem like clean of make-up, like those in Rembrandt paintings.
Many more things about the movie are both intelligent and original, such as avoiding to have primitive aggression played out between police officers, although Spader plays an outsider to the force, and not a very polite one at that.
There are some weaknesses as well. Primarily, I would have liked to see the relation between the main characters - the hunter and the hunted - explored further. It needed to be anchored in the story, from the beginning of it, and processed to its own dramatic conclusion.
The way it avoids closeups on murder victims, even the moments of murder, reminds me of the Hitchcock principle of less is more. It is very elegantly done, if such a word is permitted in this circumstance. At the moment when our horror of what is about to take place is at its peak, the camera moves away. Other scenes, with a more complex emotional content, are allowed to play out.
Played out competently, I must add. Both Keanu Reeves and James Spader perform with sophistication, creating a rare psychological realism. Their faces seem like clean of make-up, like those in Rembrandt paintings.
Many more things about the movie are both intelligent and original, such as avoiding to have primitive aggression played out between police officers, although Spader plays an outsider to the force, and not a very polite one at that.
There are some weaknesses as well. Primarily, I would have liked to see the relation between the main characters - the hunter and the hunted - explored further. It needed to be anchored in the story, from the beginning of it, and processed to its own dramatic conclusion.
A film of many charming features, indeed, but what struck me as the most impressive quality of it, was its delicate balance between comedy and tragedy. Strolling ahead on a tight rope, with abyss on either side - that of despair and that of burlesque - and never falling. It even succeeds in a most daring balance between pity and parody.
Portraying a boy with such a severe physical handicap, and with terrible parents at that, would normally tie any director's hands and feet, and the result would be sweet, at best. In this film, though, we are even allowed to smile at the odd clashes between the normal and that which is not, and laugh at the situation comedy evolving. The result is endearing, truly compassionate.
And the acting is tremendous, especially from Joseph Mazzello and Ian Michael Smith, the two boys in a very odd couple friendship. Mazzello is breathtaking in scenes of such emotional complexity that most actors would be wise to find an easy way out. I have no idea how he does it, but certainly it is by talent - no schooling gives that kind of tools.
The plot is overly complex, with several 'deus ex machina' events uncalled for, et cetera - probably in fear that the skilled balance of the film and the nerve of the acting would not suffice. But they do, and then some.
Portraying a boy with such a severe physical handicap, and with terrible parents at that, would normally tie any director's hands and feet, and the result would be sweet, at best. In this film, though, we are even allowed to smile at the odd clashes between the normal and that which is not, and laugh at the situation comedy evolving. The result is endearing, truly compassionate.
And the acting is tremendous, especially from Joseph Mazzello and Ian Michael Smith, the two boys in a very odd couple friendship. Mazzello is breathtaking in scenes of such emotional complexity that most actors would be wise to find an easy way out. I have no idea how he does it, but certainly it is by talent - no schooling gives that kind of tools.
The plot is overly complex, with several 'deus ex machina' events uncalled for, et cetera - probably in fear that the skilled balance of the film and the nerve of the acting would not suffice. But they do, and then some.
Good story, excellent acting - especially by Matt Damon, really outdistancing all the others - and an awakener of many thoughts. Just one thing: what do geniuses say, really?
A script writer might need to be one, too, to get it right. This film leans heavily on learning, instead of wisdom, on wits instead of brilliance, on truisms instead of innovative perspectives. The actors do a great job in hiding this flaw, but there it is.
The nature of the genius has been explored since the romanticism of the early 19th century - I'm not sure the idea of such blessed humans was even around, before that. Maybe such people exist, and maybe not. In most cases, they have very specialized talents. Some have perfect memory, others excel at math. That does in no way make them better equipped for rhetoric or social skills. Thus, a genius can be a real idiot, outside that special field of competence.
Let's say that two brilliant persons sit down and have a very enlightened conversation with each other. What do they say? How much do they have to say? And will we, the audience, at all understand? Afore such uncertainties, succumbing to a love story finale seems to be the safe way out. But that's no stroke of genius.
A script writer might need to be one, too, to get it right. This film leans heavily on learning, instead of wisdom, on wits instead of brilliance, on truisms instead of innovative perspectives. The actors do a great job in hiding this flaw, but there it is.
The nature of the genius has been explored since the romanticism of the early 19th century - I'm not sure the idea of such blessed humans was even around, before that. Maybe such people exist, and maybe not. In most cases, they have very specialized talents. Some have perfect memory, others excel at math. That does in no way make them better equipped for rhetoric or social skills. Thus, a genius can be a real idiot, outside that special field of competence.
Let's say that two brilliant persons sit down and have a very enlightened conversation with each other. What do they say? How much do they have to say? And will we, the audience, at all understand? Afore such uncertainties, succumbing to a love story finale seems to be the safe way out. But that's no stroke of genius.