Arvo_Diri
Joined Mar 2014
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.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings7
Arvo_Diri's rating
Reviews6
Arvo_Diri's rating
First my opinion of the movie without the lesbian theme.
Great cinematography. The reconstitution of the 50's was perfect. Splendid work.
The adaptation of the novel however was terrible. As another reviewer very aptly said, the novel lines that are in the mind of the director are rendered through long pauses and stares. You are supposed too guess the lines when that happens.
The directing makes it worse. Both lead actresses seem to play in different movies, answer to different people, react to different situations. You don't understand how the passion evolves from the movie only. The stages and pace of the relationship are not explained.
Now the lesbian theme.
I am surprised that it was unconditionally applauded by most LGBT reviewers. In fact it could be understood as as much homophobic as liberal. It revives the myth of the lesbian as a predator. Carol is a mature lady who seduces an inexperienced girl. Carol is a wealthy lady who seduces a poor employee. Also the acting by Cate Blanchett is explicitly predator- ish, and the acting by Rooney Mara explicitly victim-ish.
The exposition of the judicial trouble facing lesbians at the time is ambiguous as well. The husband and the lawyer are presented as very moderate. In fact you could almost root for them, in the context of the time.
Carol is not placed in an insane asylum, she will keep her wealth and have the good life. She does not really lose her daughter either, the daughter is not placed in an orphanage. And Carol will be able to see her all the time when the daughter is of age. Plus Carol is not shown as very determined to keep her daughter eventually.
The whole results in a dull and morally too cautious movie. No sides are taken, no passion is really dealt with. Very ambiguous.
Great cinematography. The reconstitution of the 50's was perfect. Splendid work.
The adaptation of the novel however was terrible. As another reviewer very aptly said, the novel lines that are in the mind of the director are rendered through long pauses and stares. You are supposed too guess the lines when that happens.
The directing makes it worse. Both lead actresses seem to play in different movies, answer to different people, react to different situations. You don't understand how the passion evolves from the movie only. The stages and pace of the relationship are not explained.
Now the lesbian theme.
I am surprised that it was unconditionally applauded by most LGBT reviewers. In fact it could be understood as as much homophobic as liberal. It revives the myth of the lesbian as a predator. Carol is a mature lady who seduces an inexperienced girl. Carol is a wealthy lady who seduces a poor employee. Also the acting by Cate Blanchett is explicitly predator- ish, and the acting by Rooney Mara explicitly victim-ish.
The exposition of the judicial trouble facing lesbians at the time is ambiguous as well. The husband and the lawyer are presented as very moderate. In fact you could almost root for them, in the context of the time.
Carol is not placed in an insane asylum, she will keep her wealth and have the good life. She does not really lose her daughter either, the daughter is not placed in an orphanage. And Carol will be able to see her all the time when the daughter is of age. Plus Carol is not shown as very determined to keep her daughter eventually.
The whole results in a dull and morally too cautious movie. No sides are taken, no passion is really dealt with. Very ambiguous.
I watched this because I was advised to by... feminist women, who found it great.
OK, first the sex scenes. They are rare and short, but more particularly they give the impression of having been edited by a puritan committee, which is totally awkward, because contradicting the intention to show kink. They stink, not of BDSM violence, but of such a hypocritical mixture of peeping and decency.
Then, the emotional build-up maybe? Because that would differentiate a mainstream movie from cheap porn, right? Well, the male lead shows the emotions of a real estate agent walking a client through posh apartments, while all the time doubting that the client can pay. And as far as the fascinating virility goes, it turns out he has Mummy issues. The female lead displays the emotions of a girl visiting a new sports club. And eventually she decides she's not interested anyway. Good thing the director made her bite her lips a few times, so we can notice she felt some kind of fear. But her eyes looked totally uninterested throughout. The guy too.
In the meanwhile, you have to sit through a lot of seemingly irrelevant scenes. In that respect they have achieved the feat of making those scenes feel both extremely long and extremely rushed. You constantly wonder if you might have missed something, that would explain where is the dramatic tension. Or even why the characters are there.
So, basically, a very unpleasant movie. The real phenomenon is why it attracted such crowds. Surely the trailer made it appear hot, that accounts for the male audience presumably, so congrats to the producers for the tease of the decade. But what about those who declared it fascinating even after having watched it? Apparently, exclusively women.
Here people like me are left in the role of a chemist during an experiment, seeing that something happens, and concluding that there must be a chemical element that has not been detected yet. The only element that I can assume is that the guy is immensely rich.
To conclude, I would say that this is a success, not at all a failure. It achieved exactly what it was meant to achieve: lots of bucks.
It will give lots of women an opportunity to complain about domestic abuse. Then lots of men will reply that a relationship where the woman says yes all the time, then finally says no and walks out free, is not domestic abuse. And altogether it will make a lot of tickets sold.
OK, first the sex scenes. They are rare and short, but more particularly they give the impression of having been edited by a puritan committee, which is totally awkward, because contradicting the intention to show kink. They stink, not of BDSM violence, but of such a hypocritical mixture of peeping and decency.
Then, the emotional build-up maybe? Because that would differentiate a mainstream movie from cheap porn, right? Well, the male lead shows the emotions of a real estate agent walking a client through posh apartments, while all the time doubting that the client can pay. And as far as the fascinating virility goes, it turns out he has Mummy issues. The female lead displays the emotions of a girl visiting a new sports club. And eventually she decides she's not interested anyway. Good thing the director made her bite her lips a few times, so we can notice she felt some kind of fear. But her eyes looked totally uninterested throughout. The guy too.
In the meanwhile, you have to sit through a lot of seemingly irrelevant scenes. In that respect they have achieved the feat of making those scenes feel both extremely long and extremely rushed. You constantly wonder if you might have missed something, that would explain where is the dramatic tension. Or even why the characters are there.
So, basically, a very unpleasant movie. The real phenomenon is why it attracted such crowds. Surely the trailer made it appear hot, that accounts for the male audience presumably, so congrats to the producers for the tease of the decade. But what about those who declared it fascinating even after having watched it? Apparently, exclusively women.
Here people like me are left in the role of a chemist during an experiment, seeing that something happens, and concluding that there must be a chemical element that has not been detected yet. The only element that I can assume is that the guy is immensely rich.
To conclude, I would say that this is a success, not at all a failure. It achieved exactly what it was meant to achieve: lots of bucks.
It will give lots of women an opportunity to complain about domestic abuse. Then lots of men will reply that a relationship where the woman says yes all the time, then finally says no and walks out free, is not domestic abuse. And altogether it will make a lot of tickets sold.