Nikolai1968
Joined Jan 2010
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.
Badges7
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
Nikolai1968's rating
This is a very well needed film for the documentary industry. A moment of self reflection to hopefully allow filmmakers (I doubt that many 'subjects' will see this) to ask themselves key questions before embarking on a documentary.
Told through the eyes of participants in a wide variety of high profile films, Camilla Hall and Jessica Tiexiera respectfully broach the subject of personal impact of a film on the interviewees lives.
This is a film for filmmakers primarily. One that is very well needed. It does not offer answers, but asks very important questions that all documentary people - directors or commissioners - need to ask themselves.
Told through the eyes of participants in a wide variety of high profile films, Camilla Hall and Jessica Tiexiera respectfully broach the subject of personal impact of a film on the interviewees lives.
This is a film for filmmakers primarily. One that is very well needed. It does not offer answers, but asks very important questions that all documentary people - directors or commissioners - need to ask themselves.
Incredible. The director has obviously never spent much time in England.
I have never seen such a flagrant waste of money spent by producers worried that a script might be so dull that they had to build all the sets three times larger than necessary (has anyone ever seen offices this large in London??? Especially in the 70s!?!), and have as many top name actors as possible to fill roles that have been dreadfully underwritten.
Don't get me wrong, this is a great story! But it was put on like a Broadway version of a Beckett play, lit like a play, and edited by a drama coach worried about losing all of those well rehearsed "moments".
Maybe there was a translation problem between Swedish and English on set, and everyone was so desperate to impress each other, and not offend, that they ended up with this...showreel.
This film is wannabe Fincher but unnecessarily beautiful camera angles and ironically, no regard for the cinematic audience.
Hitchcock would have laughed at it.
Suspense = 0 Surprise = 0
Overwrought meaningless stares = 10
Now if Pinter had adapted it, maybe the emptiness would have meant something. We shall never know.
I have never seen such a flagrant waste of money spent by producers worried that a script might be so dull that they had to build all the sets three times larger than necessary (has anyone ever seen offices this large in London??? Especially in the 70s!?!), and have as many top name actors as possible to fill roles that have been dreadfully underwritten.
Don't get me wrong, this is a great story! But it was put on like a Broadway version of a Beckett play, lit like a play, and edited by a drama coach worried about losing all of those well rehearsed "moments".
Maybe there was a translation problem between Swedish and English on set, and everyone was so desperate to impress each other, and not offend, that they ended up with this...showreel.
This film is wannabe Fincher but unnecessarily beautiful camera angles and ironically, no regard for the cinematic audience.
Hitchcock would have laughed at it.
Suspense = 0 Surprise = 0
Overwrought meaningless stares = 10
Now if Pinter had adapted it, maybe the emptiness would have meant something. We shall never know.
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken
