Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Well made, but very routine and predictable.

tt0365929

When a body is found in the Antartica, Marshall Carrie Stetko about end her tour sets out to investigate, and uncovers a mystery involving a crashed Russian plane from the 1950's......Whiteout is yet another movie based on a graphic novel. However, unlike most this isn't a superhero movie. Instead it's a thriller with a rather unusual setting.The cast, led by Kate Beckinsale as Marshall Stetko are all good. Beckinsale here shows she is a convincing leading actress. The direction from Dominic Sena is pretty good. He stages some pretty good action sequences and as said, gets good performances from the cast.However, despite all this good work, there is one major fault. The mystery is rather predictable. According to the credits, four screenwriters were involved in writing the script. I've not read the graphic novel this was based on, but to need four screenwriters does suggest the script needed a lot of work.The scenes set in the storms are very well shot, although there is a hint of CGI involved in some of these scenes. I'm not sure how much CGI was involved, but apart from a scene at the end, I have to say it never bothered me.As a thriller it's certainly not the worst I've ever seen. And having a rather unusual setting makes it different. It's just a shame that it'a all rather routine.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-17

ur0680065

title: Well made, but very routine and predictable. review: When a body is found in the Antartica, Marshall Carrie Stetko about end her tour sets out to investigate, and uncovers a mystery involving a crashed Russian plane from the 1950's......Whiteout is yet another movie based on a graphic novel. However, unlike most this isn't a superhero movie. Instead it's a thriller with a rather unusual setting.The cast, led by Kate Beckinsale as Marshall Stetko are all good. Beckinsale here shows she is a convincing leading actress. The direction from Dominic Sena is pretty good. He stages some pretty good action sequences and as said, gets good performances from the cast.However, despite all this good work, there is one major fault. The mystery is rather predictable. According to the credits, four screenwriters were involved in writing the script. I've not read the graphic novel this was based on, but to need four screenwriters does suggest the script needed a lot of work.The scenes set in the storms are very well shot, although there is a hint of CGI involved in some of these scenes. I'm not sure how much CGI was involved, but apart from a scene at the end, I have to say it never bothered me.As a thriller it's certainly not the worst I've ever seen. And having a rather unusual setting makes it different. It's just a shame that it'a all rather routine.

If only the twist were also concealed by the weather...

tt0365929

When Kate Beckinsale's character says she wants out of Antarctica, you could almost hear the actor speaking the same of "Whiteout." No wonder, as Dominic Sena's south pole-set whodunnit based on a graphic novel by writer Greg Rucka and illustrator Steve Lieber is of the dull sort, where tension is conveniently sapped by proceedings so insipid and a narrative arc so obvious one could easily compute for the trajectory.Beckinsale plays Carrie Stetko, a US marshal haunted by a partner who double-crossed her years earlier, and finally ready to get back to civilization after holing herself up in a scientific research facility in Antarctica. Yet just as she's about to leave for warmer weather, dead bodies pile up and she's forced to look into the case through the Antarctic winter, getting stranded for another half-year with a shady UN investigator (Gabriel Macht), her pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), and a doctor (Tom Skerritt).Intermittently kept alive by a couple of frantic action sequences amid the titular condition, whatever little success those moments achieve is ultimately diluted by Sena's standard direction, the pedestrian script, and a twist as clear as a spring sky. The remote setting and Beckinsale's tough-as-nails presence keep things mildly exotic, but the notably hackneyed affairs assure that this adaptation never deviates far from its moribund state.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-26

ur6447592

title: If only the twist were also concealed by the weather... review: When Kate Beckinsale's character says she wants out of Antarctica, you could almost hear the actor speaking the same of "Whiteout." No wonder, as Dominic Sena's south pole-set whodunnit based on a graphic novel by writer Greg Rucka and illustrator Steve Lieber is of the dull sort, where tension is conveniently sapped by proceedings so insipid and a narrative arc so obvious one could easily compute for the trajectory.Beckinsale plays Carrie Stetko, a US marshal haunted by a partner who double-crossed her years earlier, and finally ready to get back to civilization after holing herself up in a scientific research facility in Antarctica. Yet just as she's about to leave for warmer weather, dead bodies pile up and she's forced to look into the case through the Antarctic winter, getting stranded for another half-year with a shady UN investigator (Gabriel Macht), her pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), and a doctor (Tom Skerritt).Intermittently kept alive by a couple of frantic action sequences amid the titular condition, whatever little success those moments achieve is ultimately diluted by Sena's standard direction, the pedestrian script, and a twist as clear as a spring sky. The remote setting and Beckinsale's tough-as-nails presence keep things mildly exotic, but the notably hackneyed affairs assure that this adaptation never deviates far from its moribund state.

Not a bad film

tt0365929

The critics dumped all over this film, which is just proof that movie critics are joyless creatures that stopped enjoying movies on their merits a long time ago.the key to doing an effective mystery is to hide the clues in the plot, along with enough red herrings so that when the plot is wrapped up at the end, you didn't see it coming, but you have a feeling you SHOULD have seen it coming.I think this movie does this effectively.Beckingsale is pretty good here, certainly a lot better than she was in the awful "Underworld" films where CGI upstaged her on a regular basis. She plays a US Marshall who has a crisis of confidence after her partner betrays her, and takes a petty post in Antartica. I mean, no one has ever been murdered in Antartica, right? Well, of course, three murders happen to occur on her watch, which blows that theory out of the water.The plot teases us with just enough peril, just enough suspicion, and just enough character development to get us over the hump.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-64

ur5348015

title: Not a bad film review: The critics dumped all over this film, which is just proof that movie critics are joyless creatures that stopped enjoying movies on their merits a long time ago.the key to doing an effective mystery is to hide the clues in the plot, along with enough red herrings so that when the plot is wrapped up at the end, you didn't see it coming, but you have a feeling you SHOULD have seen it coming.I think this movie does this effectively.Beckingsale is pretty good here, certainly a lot better than she was in the awful "Underworld" films where CGI upstaged her on a regular basis. She plays a US Marshall who has a crisis of confidence after her partner betrays her, and takes a petty post in Antartica. I mean, no one has ever been murdered in Antartica, right? Well, of course, three murders happen to occur on her watch, which blows that theory out of the water.The plot teases us with just enough peril, just enough suspicion, and just enough character development to get us over the hump.

A routine film of mediocrity.

tt0365929

The basic premise of this gem is that a U.S. Marshal, on her last day station in Antarctica finds a dead body and has to investigate, discovering there is a killer out there. The story, events, plot twists, everything is routine and mediocre in this film. The one thing that tries to stand out is the location, Antarctica. Whiteout is a film that has all the ingredients and none of the charm. The film has no heart, it feels cold and distant, much like the deserted location our characters find themselves in. Our attractive female lead has to overcome her past in order to get the answers to the case she is currently working on. We are treated to poorly edited and shot flashback sequences that involve a person she trusted and a drug dealer, things go badly for her and now she has trust issues. We get all this information after we see her take a shower, which was most likely included after the casting of Beckinsale. The script is full of bad dialogue, filler to run the time a tad bit loner (getting trapped and then blowing p the escape hatch?) and of course plot holes. The acting is goofy and all around bad, with the exception of Tom Skerritt. Characters are easily identifiable as the killer, especially when the film tries so hard to place suspicion on one, you know it will be someone else. Whiteout has nothing special going for it, I can't recommend it to those looking for something good, decent or even cheesy. If you want to see a film in the same location with better effects, acting, writing and direction, stick with The Thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-117

ur1878251

title: A routine film of mediocrity. review: The basic premise of this gem is that a U.S. Marshal, on her last day station in Antarctica finds a dead body and has to investigate, discovering there is a killer out there. The story, events, plot twists, everything is routine and mediocre in this film. The one thing that tries to stand out is the location, Antarctica. Whiteout is a film that has all the ingredients and none of the charm. The film has no heart, it feels cold and distant, much like the deserted location our characters find themselves in. Our attractive female lead has to overcome her past in order to get the answers to the case she is currently working on. We are treated to poorly edited and shot flashback sequences that involve a person she trusted and a drug dealer, things go badly for her and now she has trust issues. We get all this information after we see her take a shower, which was most likely included after the casting of Beckinsale. The script is full of bad dialogue, filler to run the time a tad bit loner (getting trapped and then blowing p the escape hatch?) and of course plot holes. The acting is goofy and all around bad, with the exception of Tom Skerritt. Characters are easily identifiable as the killer, especially when the film tries so hard to place suspicion on one, you know it will be someone else. Whiteout has nothing special going for it, I can't recommend it to those looking for something good, decent or even cheesy. If you want to see a film in the same location with better effects, acting, writing and direction, stick with The Thing.

Run of the mill thriller that should have been more but does okay

tt0365929

Whiteout aims to entertain but for some reason you expect a lot from it. Maybe it's the concept that sounds really cool (no pun intended) or that we have seen some decent things from star Kate Beckinsale in the past and Whiteout doesn't disappoint exactly and yet falls short of what you hope from it. Still the movie turns in a solid entertaining story with some thrilling moments, some terrific stunts and the isolation of the Arctic all around them. Part of the problem is that somehow the twist to the entire story doesn't fit. It isn't that it doesn't make sense or that it isn't a surprise but it just doesn't feel right. Now that I've talked about what's wrong with the film there are plenty of reasons to see the movie. Any thriller that uses isolation as it's backdrop intrigues me and the arctic certainly has that going for it. The time limit of getting out before darkness falls keeps the tension high. The character's dedication to doing her job and the killer on the loose keeps blood flowing and there is plenty of action packed scenes. The movie is solidly entertaining and worth seeing on these merits alone.Kate Beckinsale has been a very diverse actress having done comedy, horror, thriller and more. She delivers and always shows an intense passion for her character. Despite seemingly always looking perfect she actually is very down to earth and easy to follow. Her character has plenty of death but honestly the back story given could have been done without as it didn't truly play into the story. Gabriel Macht plays the U.S. agent come to investigate the same murders. There is no romance between them and yet Macht's character seems mostly lost in transition of the story. Sure he attempts the hero role but Beckinsale is strong enough that she doesn't need a hero or a partner. He is mostly just fodder in the situation. A-List character actor Tom Skerritt plays Beckinsale's mentor Dr. Fury. His character is pivotal to the story in many ways and yet is not given a lot of back story or major turning points. All the writing seems to have gone into Beckinsale's character which is fine but you don't want to lose the other characters in the mix.I firmly believe Whiteout had the potential to be a first rate thriller. I knew even before I looked that the director and writers were likely inexperienced and that is mostly the case. Director Dominic Sena comes from a music video background and that can be a rocky path to come into film. Telling a story over two hours give or take is very different than telling a story in a three or four minute song. The writers comes from Television and while the talent is no doubt there it needs some honing. Still there are far worse thrillers out there and now that the film has passed through theaters it is well worth your time to check it out on video. It's as good as any TV movie out there it just isn't the mind blowing thriller I think it could have been. Still worth seeing. 7.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-49

ur1697212

title: Run of the mill thriller that should have been more but does okay review: Whiteout aims to entertain but for some reason you expect a lot from it. Maybe it's the concept that sounds really cool (no pun intended) or that we have seen some decent things from star Kate Beckinsale in the past and Whiteout doesn't disappoint exactly and yet falls short of what you hope from it. Still the movie turns in a solid entertaining story with some thrilling moments, some terrific stunts and the isolation of the Arctic all around them. Part of the problem is that somehow the twist to the entire story doesn't fit. It isn't that it doesn't make sense or that it isn't a surprise but it just doesn't feel right. Now that I've talked about what's wrong with the film there are plenty of reasons to see the movie. Any thriller that uses isolation as it's backdrop intrigues me and the arctic certainly has that going for it. The time limit of getting out before darkness falls keeps the tension high. The character's dedication to doing her job and the killer on the loose keeps blood flowing and there is plenty of action packed scenes. The movie is solidly entertaining and worth seeing on these merits alone.Kate Beckinsale has been a very diverse actress having done comedy, horror, thriller and more. She delivers and always shows an intense passion for her character. Despite seemingly always looking perfect she actually is very down to earth and easy to follow. Her character has plenty of death but honestly the back story given could have been done without as it didn't truly play into the story. Gabriel Macht plays the U.S. agent come to investigate the same murders. There is no romance between them and yet Macht's character seems mostly lost in transition of the story. Sure he attempts the hero role but Beckinsale is strong enough that she doesn't need a hero or a partner. He is mostly just fodder in the situation. A-List character actor Tom Skerritt plays Beckinsale's mentor Dr. Fury. His character is pivotal to the story in many ways and yet is not given a lot of back story or major turning points. All the writing seems to have gone into Beckinsale's character which is fine but you don't want to lose the other characters in the mix.I firmly believe Whiteout had the potential to be a first rate thriller. I knew even before I looked that the director and writers were likely inexperienced and that is mostly the case. Director Dominic Sena comes from a music video background and that can be a rocky path to come into film. Telling a story over two hours give or take is very different than telling a story in a three or four minute song. The writers comes from Television and while the talent is no doubt there it needs some honing. Still there are far worse thrillers out there and now that the film has passed through theaters it is well worth your time to check it out on video. It's as good as any TV movie out there it just isn't the mind blowing thriller I think it could have been. Still worth seeing. 7.5/10

A good movie to waste time watching

tt0365929

The first few minutes of watching Kate Beckinsale stripping was....well, expected and pleasant. But it is becoming routine for her in her movies.That entire sequence was made to keep us guys interested for the rest of this rather predictable movie. It served no other purpose at all. (Yeah, she's still got an incredible body) This movie has a very simple and uncomplicated plot. Even the "twist" is totally predictable. I knew who the villain was in the first 15-20 minutes of the film.The movie is paced quite evenly without much up and down except for a rather unusual "action" sequence somewhere in the middle of the film, involving ice-pick, a blizzard (white-out), and a lot of guiding ropes. The action could have been better if not for some blurry fast action moments. I had no idea what happened for a few seconds. they kicked, he fell, she fell....No surprise at all. Wait for the DVD. This is a good movie to watch on a small screen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-28

ur1725991

title: A good movie to waste time watching review: The first few minutes of watching Kate Beckinsale stripping was....well, expected and pleasant. But it is becoming routine for her in her movies.That entire sequence was made to keep us guys interested for the rest of this rather predictable movie. It served no other purpose at all. (Yeah, she's still got an incredible body) This movie has a very simple and uncomplicated plot. Even the "twist" is totally predictable. I knew who the villain was in the first 15-20 minutes of the film.The movie is paced quite evenly without much up and down except for a rather unusual "action" sequence somewhere in the middle of the film, involving ice-pick, a blizzard (white-out), and a lot of guiding ropes. The action could have been better if not for some blurry fast action moments. I had no idea what happened for a few seconds. they kicked, he fell, she fell....No surprise at all. Wait for the DVD. This is a good movie to watch on a small screen.

Good Thriller

tt0365929

Carrie (Beckinsale) is a US Marshal in Antarctica and is about to depart when the very first murder there puts a hold on that move.I had no idea there were US Marshals in Antarctica keeping law and order. In fact, in all the movies that had Antartcica as the setting, I cannot remember any of those movies having US Marshals. Just never gave it any thought. And, if a movie was to have a US Marshal in Antarctica, one would think the US Marshall would be a man, not a woman, especially not a small, petite one as Ms. Beckinsale. And, it's only for that reason, I would say Ms. Beckinsale was miscast. But, she does have a gun. Hmmmmm…………. There is excitement, tension and suspense that helps this along. There is a back story to the murder and it has to do with a Russian plane crashing and what the plane was carrying. The whiteout scenes are exactly that and it's hard to see who is who and you just have to hope the good guys win the fight when the whiteout clears. I kept looking at Doc played by Tom Skerritt and couldn't figure out who he was, but I knew I had seen him before. I had to wait until the credits rolled. Has it been that long since he made movies? Maybe it's just me. Too bad the movie was not shot in Antarctica as much of the scenery is quite breathtaking and beautiful. Can you say Canada?The acting is very good all around and you pay attention because you are not sure what is going to happen next. Pretty good thriller. Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, you briefly see a picture in a girlie magazine. Language: Yes, some

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-67

ur15857362

title: Good Thriller review: Carrie (Beckinsale) is a US Marshal in Antarctica and is about to depart when the very first murder there puts a hold on that move.I had no idea there were US Marshals in Antarctica keeping law and order. In fact, in all the movies that had Antartcica as the setting, I cannot remember any of those movies having US Marshals. Just never gave it any thought. And, if a movie was to have a US Marshal in Antarctica, one would think the US Marshall would be a man, not a woman, especially not a small, petite one as Ms. Beckinsale. And, it's only for that reason, I would say Ms. Beckinsale was miscast. But, she does have a gun. Hmmmmm…………. There is excitement, tension and suspense that helps this along. There is a back story to the murder and it has to do with a Russian plane crashing and what the plane was carrying. The whiteout scenes are exactly that and it's hard to see who is who and you just have to hope the good guys win the fight when the whiteout clears. I kept looking at Doc played by Tom Skerritt and couldn't figure out who he was, but I knew I had seen him before. I had to wait until the credits rolled. Has it been that long since he made movies? Maybe it's just me. Too bad the movie was not shot in Antarctica as much of the scenery is quite breathtaking and beautiful. Can you say Canada?The acting is very good all around and you pay attention because you are not sure what is going to happen next. Pretty good thriller. Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, you briefly see a picture in a girlie magazine. Language: Yes, some

Sorry, but I loved it

tt0365929

Okay, this isn't a Great movie. It's not even a great whodunit. But in a world where old Charlie Chan pot-boilers have a cult following, and boneheaded Spielberg spectaculars are considered works of genius, I'd say that Whiteout definitely has a place.What did I like about Whiteout? I loved the setting. ANY movie set in the confines of an Antarctic research station is okay with me. (There aren't nearly enough of them!) I loved the characters. Kate Beckinsale isn't in the front ranks of thespians, but she's a solid leading lady, and brings a good mix of likability, vulnerability and toughness to this part. The supporting characters are just fine as well. I loved the idea of setting an action-mystery in this odd locale, and I greatly enjoyed the way the mystery unraveled - predictable though it may have been. And I loved the various ways that the frozen environment is brought in as an element in the story.What did I hate? Not a thing. True, the cold is not treated realistically. Too many people walking around bareheaded and such. Yes, it's a dopey Hollywood convention. But in a little action flick like this one, I wasn't bothered - at all. Did I hate the acting? No. It was just right for this kind of film. Did I have problems with the writing? Okay... there were a few bits of logic that could have been tighter. But, again, no worse than in many movies that get a 10/10 from every blockhead on Earth. (I won't itemize... this review is going to get enough down-checks as it is.)Bottom line, Whiteout is a pile of fun. It's a 'genre' film, with few if any artistic pretensions. But it delivers the goods where it counts. I've watched it several times on DVD, and expect to enjoy it quite a few more. If you don't get it, go watch some Merchant-Ivory drawing room masterpiece, and we'll all be happy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-121

ur11701403

title: Sorry, but I loved it review: Okay, this isn't a Great movie. It's not even a great whodunit. But in a world where old Charlie Chan pot-boilers have a cult following, and boneheaded Spielberg spectaculars are considered works of genius, I'd say that Whiteout definitely has a place.What did I like about Whiteout? I loved the setting. ANY movie set in the confines of an Antarctic research station is okay with me. (There aren't nearly enough of them!) I loved the characters. Kate Beckinsale isn't in the front ranks of thespians, but she's a solid leading lady, and brings a good mix of likability, vulnerability and toughness to this part. The supporting characters are just fine as well. I loved the idea of setting an action-mystery in this odd locale, and I greatly enjoyed the way the mystery unraveled - predictable though it may have been. And I loved the various ways that the frozen environment is brought in as an element in the story.What did I hate? Not a thing. True, the cold is not treated realistically. Too many people walking around bareheaded and such. Yes, it's a dopey Hollywood convention. But in a little action flick like this one, I wasn't bothered - at all. Did I hate the acting? No. It was just right for this kind of film. Did I have problems with the writing? Okay... there were a few bits of logic that could have been tighter. But, again, no worse than in many movies that get a 10/10 from every blockhead on Earth. (I won't itemize... this review is going to get enough down-checks as it is.)Bottom line, Whiteout is a pile of fun. It's a 'genre' film, with few if any artistic pretensions. But it delivers the goods where it counts. I've watched it several times on DVD, and expect to enjoy it quite a few more. If you don't get it, go watch some Merchant-Ivory drawing room masterpiece, and we'll all be happy.

Deep freeze mystery.

tt0365929

Cold blooded murder. Kate Beckinsale stars as U.S.Marshall Carrie Stetko, who is dropped into a shocking mystery at a research station in Antartica. A killer, who has committed the first-ever murder in the harshest of continents, must be found and stopped before killing again. Not only does Stetko have to face winds of 100 MPH and temps below -100, it is a race against the clock...fast approaching is six months of winter darkness. All considered, the amazing flat winded ice scape is a key ingredient of this whiteout thriller. Also starring are: Columbus Short, Gabriel Macht, Alex O'Loughlin and a personal favorite of mine, Tom Skerritt.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-71

ur0449021

title: Deep freeze mystery. review: Cold blooded murder. Kate Beckinsale stars as U.S.Marshall Carrie Stetko, who is dropped into a shocking mystery at a research station in Antartica. A killer, who has committed the first-ever murder in the harshest of continents, must be found and stopped before killing again. Not only does Stetko have to face winds of 100 MPH and temps below -100, it is a race against the clock...fast approaching is six months of winter darkness. All considered, the amazing flat winded ice scape is a key ingredient of this whiteout thriller. Also starring are: Columbus Short, Gabriel Macht, Alex O'Loughlin and a personal favorite of mine, Tom Skerritt.

Whiteout An Okay Thriller With Many Flaws

tt0365929

Whiteout is an okay thriller with many flaws from director Dominic Sena that weigh it down. This movie isn't that bad but it's definitely not the greatest either. Kate Beckinsale is decent as the lead brining what she can to the role of tortured U.S Marshall Carrie Stetko who tracks a killer in Antarctica with a massive "whiteout" storm approaching their research base. The rest of the cast are okay including Gabriel Macht, Colombus Short, Alex O'Loughlin, and Tom Skeritt but none of them are memorable. The biggest problems with this film was the story, dialog, and the obvious twists I saw coming from a mile away. The story doesn't pay off, the dialog isn't written well, and the surprises were so obvious I guessed who the killer(s) was in the first fifteen minutes. There was no suspense and many of the characters lacked development only showing up for a couple extended appearances throughout the film. The fight scenes were decent but you couldn't really tell what was going on and they lacked originality. There were many yeah right moments which only hurt the movie in the long run. The ending was predictable and the music didn't really work sync well. The slow pace didn't help either but luckily Sena kept the running time down to 101 minutes so it doesn't go on forever. Overall Whiteout was okay but the flaws weighed it down. If they were improved somehow this movie wouldn't have been half that bad because even Kate Beckisnales star power can't help Whiteout feel like anymore more than a disappointment compared to other superior thrillers out there.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-61

ur19956219

title: Whiteout An Okay Thriller With Many Flaws review: Whiteout is an okay thriller with many flaws from director Dominic Sena that weigh it down. This movie isn't that bad but it's definitely not the greatest either. Kate Beckinsale is decent as the lead brining what she can to the role of tortured U.S Marshall Carrie Stetko who tracks a killer in Antarctica with a massive "whiteout" storm approaching their research base. The rest of the cast are okay including Gabriel Macht, Colombus Short, Alex O'Loughlin, and Tom Skeritt but none of them are memorable. The biggest problems with this film was the story, dialog, and the obvious twists I saw coming from a mile away. The story doesn't pay off, the dialog isn't written well, and the surprises were so obvious I guessed who the killer(s) was in the first fifteen minutes. There was no suspense and many of the characters lacked development only showing up for a couple extended appearances throughout the film. The fight scenes were decent but you couldn't really tell what was going on and they lacked originality. There were many yeah right moments which only hurt the movie in the long run. The ending was predictable and the music didn't really work sync well. The slow pace didn't help either but luckily Sena kept the running time down to 101 minutes so it doesn't go on forever. Overall Whiteout was okay but the flaws weighed it down. If they were improved somehow this movie wouldn't have been half that bad because even Kate Beckisnales star power can't help Whiteout feel like anymore more than a disappointment compared to other superior thrillers out there.

One of the worst 'action thrillers' in recent memory!

tt0365929

WHITEOUT (2009) * Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Tom Skerritt, Columbus Short, Alex O' Loughlin. Laughably ludicrous and inept action thriller set at Antarctica where a killer is on the loose and it's up to US Marshal Beckinsale (arguably the dumbest federal agent ever committed to celluloid) to find out who it is before things get way out of hand. Based on a graphic novel by Greg Rucka and Steve Lieber, 4 scribes' lame attempt to transition to the big screen is a true disservice to fanboys and filmgoers alike. One of the most boring suspense films in recent memory and Dominic Sena's leaden direction (particularly in the titular climax) should have him hand in his DGA card.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-40

ur0937743

title: One of the worst 'action thrillers' in recent memory! review: WHITEOUT (2009) * Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Tom Skerritt, Columbus Short, Alex O' Loughlin. Laughably ludicrous and inept action thriller set at Antarctica where a killer is on the loose and it's up to US Marshal Beckinsale (arguably the dumbest federal agent ever committed to celluloid) to find out who it is before things get way out of hand. Based on a graphic novel by Greg Rucka and Steve Lieber, 4 scribes' lame attempt to transition to the big screen is a true disservice to fanboys and filmgoers alike. One of the most boring suspense films in recent memory and Dominic Sena's leaden direction (particularly in the titular climax) should have him hand in his DGA card.

I was expected Aliens....LOL blame it on the X-files hehehehe!

tt0365929

It wasn't the worst film I've seen her (Kate Beckinsale) in after all she is also the star of (Van Helsing & The Underworld saga etc. etc.) give her a break, she is trying to grow as an actress and she isn't going to get anywhere with you all hammering down on her the way you are. The film was not that bad, it was shot like a book. I felt like I was reading a book as I was watching it and the deliberate obvious-suspects attitude/tone of the film and camera angles meant to throw you off were great. I suspected all the wrong people just like the director expected me to. LOL! Although I have to agree with one thing though, there were some scenes that were so unbelievable that they bordered on ridiculous. Take the jelly beans scene for example, SHOCKING TRULY SHOCKING and even worse when the FBI agent ate one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365929/reviews-78

ur6739749

title: I was expected Aliens....LOL blame it on the X-files hehehehe! review: It wasn't the worst film I've seen her (Kate Beckinsale) in after all she is also the star of (Van Helsing & The Underworld saga etc. etc.) give her a break, she is trying to grow as an actress and she isn't going to get anywhere with you all hammering down on her the way you are. The film was not that bad, it was shot like a book. I felt like I was reading a book as I was watching it and the deliberate obvious-suspects attitude/tone of the film and camera angles meant to throw you off were great. I suspected all the wrong people just like the director expected me to. LOL! Although I have to agree with one thing though, there were some scenes that were so unbelievable that they bordered on ridiculous. Take the jelly beans scene for example, SHOCKING TRULY SHOCKING and even worse when the FBI agent ate one.

Great film from a year of great movies.

tt0050212

Man, 1957! What a year of great films: 12 ANGRY MEN, PATHS OF GLORY, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL, and this film, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Sometimes, I think that 1957 gets forgotten as being one of the great years of films and that's a shame. BRIDGE won Best Picture in this year, one of the very few in film history that I think is at least deserving. That said, PATHS OF GLORY is amongst the top 10 films of all time as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think it was released immediately in the U.S. in 1957, so I can forgive the Academy that one!This film is about a band of British POWs at a Japanese internment camp in the Burmese jungle during mid-WWII. They are led by career military man Colonel Nicholson (Best Actor Oscar winner Sir Alec Guiness) and the camp's Commander Saito forces Nicholson and his men to build a railroad bridge which trains will be able to cross to transport enemy troops and dignitaries, and to get supplies to enemy forces. Nicholson, ever the 'loyal' British officer, agrees to build a quality bridge in exchange for Saito treating his men in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Some of his officers question Nicholson's collusion with Saito and wonder about his patriotism. Also questioning Nicholson's motives are an American POW Shears (William Holden, who actually has top billing in this film and gives a terrific performance in his own right). Shears escapes the camp, only to be drafted by Major Warden (2nd billed Jack Hawkins) to be part of a team of Allied soldiers to return to the camp to destroy the bridge. Shears is necessary to lead the expedition since he was at the camp and could lead them the quickest route to get there.The film speaks a lot about the duality of man: on the one hand as 'prisoners' of war, Nicholson wanted he and his men to be treated accordingly to the Geneva convention, but he knew that to get this treatment, he had to make compromises with Saito; on the other hand, they were prisoners of 'war' and Saito is the enemy and it is unspoken rule that you should never collude with the enemy, even if it means mistreatment and taking uncalled for punishment. Nicholson is very prideful, prim, and proper and let these properties shine through. In his mind, he was doing his duty as a 'British' soldier, but in the end realized that what he was really doing was betraying the core values of what it really meant to be a British 'soldier'.The film is also very watchable, even today. You get completely enthralled by the story and characters. It never seems dated. The climactic bridge-destroying scene at the end always blows me away (no pun intended). And the last line in the film is one I've never forgotten and sums up the point of the whole film. A true classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-203

ur13630333

title: Great film from a year of great movies. review: Man, 1957! What a year of great films: 12 ANGRY MEN, PATHS OF GLORY, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL, and this film, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Sometimes, I think that 1957 gets forgotten as being one of the great years of films and that's a shame. BRIDGE won Best Picture in this year, one of the very few in film history that I think is at least deserving. That said, PATHS OF GLORY is amongst the top 10 films of all time as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think it was released immediately in the U.S. in 1957, so I can forgive the Academy that one!This film is about a band of British POWs at a Japanese internment camp in the Burmese jungle during mid-WWII. They are led by career military man Colonel Nicholson (Best Actor Oscar winner Sir Alec Guiness) and the camp's Commander Saito forces Nicholson and his men to build a railroad bridge which trains will be able to cross to transport enemy troops and dignitaries, and to get supplies to enemy forces. Nicholson, ever the 'loyal' British officer, agrees to build a quality bridge in exchange for Saito treating his men in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Some of his officers question Nicholson's collusion with Saito and wonder about his patriotism. Also questioning Nicholson's motives are an American POW Shears (William Holden, who actually has top billing in this film and gives a terrific performance in his own right). Shears escapes the camp, only to be drafted by Major Warden (2nd billed Jack Hawkins) to be part of a team of Allied soldiers to return to the camp to destroy the bridge. Shears is necessary to lead the expedition since he was at the camp and could lead them the quickest route to get there.The film speaks a lot about the duality of man: on the one hand as 'prisoners' of war, Nicholson wanted he and his men to be treated accordingly to the Geneva convention, but he knew that to get this treatment, he had to make compromises with Saito; on the other hand, they were prisoners of 'war' and Saito is the enemy and it is unspoken rule that you should never collude with the enemy, even if it means mistreatment and taking uncalled for punishment. Nicholson is very prideful, prim, and proper and let these properties shine through. In his mind, he was doing his duty as a 'British' soldier, but in the end realized that what he was really doing was betraying the core values of what it really meant to be a British 'soldier'.The film is also very watchable, even today. You get completely enthralled by the story and characters. It never seems dated. The climactic bridge-destroying scene at the end always blows me away (no pun intended). And the last line in the film is one I've never forgotten and sums up the point of the whole film. A true classic.

As I Grow Old

tt0050212

A longtime friend with a shared interest in movies lately asked me to identify films that I appreciate more with age.You can guess that gave me pause. I could think of only two. Bridge was one. The other appears among my IMDb user comments. I will likely think of and report more with time...The climax and martial music notwithstanding, as a younger viewer I thought Bridge interminable and Colonel Nicholson a caricature if not a loon outright. Now I feel I know him and some of the other lead characters better.Both he and Colonel Saito are duty-bound and presumably near the end of their respective service. They are consummate professionals. Yet in my view the true focus of either is not the bridge but each other.Nicholson either instinctively represses the opportunity or purposely chooses to not want to understand Saito. Either could be for any number of reasons. The film provides no clues beyond an occasional and unsettling crescendo in the musical score. And David Lean knows better than to tell us.For his part Saito comes to acknowledge and very nearly accept Nicholson, yet remains almost physically incapable of fully understanding him, not out of some cultural gap but with full realization that to do so is to lose face, which in his place is unthinkable.In the above context the performances of Alec Guinness and Hayakawa Sessue are magnificent, and they converge in the sunset view from the bridge.Though neither meets Major Warden, they all mirror each other. Warden too is duty-bound. The big difference is that his focus truly is the bridge. He ultimately attains his goal, and almost instantly recognizes what he has lost with that. Though an excellent actor Jack Hawkins never impressed me with a range of expressions...except here.Shears is the joker in the deck. Self-preservation is his focus, and that's eminently understandable though not necessarily out of sympathy. But at the end of his day he is arguably the most duty-bound of all. The key to the portrayal is William Holden's apparent effortlessness.Truly a screenful of superlatives, Bridge is not so much a film in which I see something new with each viewing as simply recognize more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-220

ur13285450

title: As I Grow Old review: A longtime friend with a shared interest in movies lately asked me to identify films that I appreciate more with age.You can guess that gave me pause. I could think of only two. Bridge was one. The other appears among my IMDb user comments. I will likely think of and report more with time...The climax and martial music notwithstanding, as a younger viewer I thought Bridge interminable and Colonel Nicholson a caricature if not a loon outright. Now I feel I know him and some of the other lead characters better.Both he and Colonel Saito are duty-bound and presumably near the end of their respective service. They are consummate professionals. Yet in my view the true focus of either is not the bridge but each other.Nicholson either instinctively represses the opportunity or purposely chooses to not want to understand Saito. Either could be for any number of reasons. The film provides no clues beyond an occasional and unsettling crescendo in the musical score. And David Lean knows better than to tell us.For his part Saito comes to acknowledge and very nearly accept Nicholson, yet remains almost physically incapable of fully understanding him, not out of some cultural gap but with full realization that to do so is to lose face, which in his place is unthinkable.In the above context the performances of Alec Guinness and Hayakawa Sessue are magnificent, and they converge in the sunset view from the bridge.Though neither meets Major Warden, they all mirror each other. Warden too is duty-bound. The big difference is that his focus truly is the bridge. He ultimately attains his goal, and almost instantly recognizes what he has lost with that. Though an excellent actor Jack Hawkins never impressed me with a range of expressions...except here.Shears is the joker in the deck. Self-preservation is his focus, and that's eminently understandable though not necessarily out of sympathy. But at the end of his day he is arguably the most duty-bound of all. The key to the portrayal is William Holden's apparent effortlessness.Truly a screenful of superlatives, Bridge is not so much a film in which I see something new with each viewing as simply recognize more.

Among the best war films of all time

tt0050212

David Lean's "The Bridge on the River Kwai" won the Best Picture Oscar for 1957 and is today revered as one of the best British/American productions of that, or any, era.The story revolves around a battle of wills between a British colonel (Alec Guinness) and the commandant of a Japanese PoW camp (Sessue Hayakawa). The British PoWs are being forced to build a bridge over the river Kwai but, little do they know, a plan is already being formulated to blow it up. The story is compellingly told by screenwriters Michael Wilson & Carl Foreman but, unfortunately, they received no credit for their Oscar-winning script (based on Pierre Boulle's novel) due to the Hollywood blacklist.The film's best performance belongs to Alec Guinness, so it's no surprise that he took home an Oscar. Sessue Hayakawa was also nominated for his surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of the film's main villain. As the requisite American hero, William Holden is outclassed by his peers but he still puts in a reliable performance. Meanwhile, James Donald & Jack Hawkins are standouts in support.David Lean's Oscar-winning direction is impressively handled and the similarly honoured cinematography is routinely breathtaking. Malcolm Arnold's score also won an Oscar, though I admit that I found little remarkable about the music except, of course, for the immortal "Colonel Bogey March".In the end, the film does have some imperfections but they are relatively minor ones. The movie doesn't really pick up steam until about an hour in but from that point on it's practically flawless. Therefore, I wouldn't hesitate to rank "The Bridge on the River Kwai" alongside the likes of "Apocalypse Now" & "Patton" as some of the best war movies of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-248

ur17822437

title: Among the best war films of all time review: David Lean's "The Bridge on the River Kwai" won the Best Picture Oscar for 1957 and is today revered as one of the best British/American productions of that, or any, era.The story revolves around a battle of wills between a British colonel (Alec Guinness) and the commandant of a Japanese PoW camp (Sessue Hayakawa). The British PoWs are being forced to build a bridge over the river Kwai but, little do they know, a plan is already being formulated to blow it up. The story is compellingly told by screenwriters Michael Wilson & Carl Foreman but, unfortunately, they received no credit for their Oscar-winning script (based on Pierre Boulle's novel) due to the Hollywood blacklist.The film's best performance belongs to Alec Guinness, so it's no surprise that he took home an Oscar. Sessue Hayakawa was also nominated for his surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of the film's main villain. As the requisite American hero, William Holden is outclassed by his peers but he still puts in a reliable performance. Meanwhile, James Donald & Jack Hawkins are standouts in support.David Lean's Oscar-winning direction is impressively handled and the similarly honoured cinematography is routinely breathtaking. Malcolm Arnold's score also won an Oscar, though I admit that I found little remarkable about the music except, of course, for the immortal "Colonel Bogey March".In the end, the film does have some imperfections but they are relatively minor ones. The movie doesn't really pick up steam until about an hour in but from that point on it's practically flawless. Therefore, I wouldn't hesitate to rank "The Bridge on the River Kwai" alongside the likes of "Apocalypse Now" & "Patton" as some of the best war movies of all time.

A very good film well worth watching

tt0050212

This film is superbly well made and a credit to all the team that were involved in its creation. For me it hasn't got any obvious weaknesses and is well worth watching. I have only ever watched it about three times and the reason is although its subject matter is important and relevant I would never regard it as a film I would watch repeatedly over the years. Basically I see this film as more of a psychological drama than an action film and it seems to me to be a supreme study of multifarious emotions and states of mind under almost constant high levels of stress and danger. This description doesn't mean it will be automatically discarded and overlooked but perhaps seen in a different light, however there is something about this film which although a very good finished product has not resulted in many people voting or writing reviews. I can understand this to a certain extent because although it is a classic it is a very sad story and doesn't appear to leave the viewer with any positivity. Virtually nothing positive comes from War and this film is a perfect example of this. The film as a study of human behaviour under extreme circumstances it is a very fulfilling experience but I suspect it is not a film most people would grab for a night in with a beer. That is sad but such is the nature of the subject. Having said all of the above please watch this film not because it is historically accurate but because for me it is just over two and half hours of human interaction parts of which could have been extracted from any incident from any of the war torn parts during the duration of the second world war. It is a representation of the tragic possibilities of war and how logic and common sense are very rarely in evidence but horror, absurdities and suffering are there in abundance and a single viewing of this film would demonstrate this well

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-230

ur20091576

title: A very good film well worth watching review: This film is superbly well made and a credit to all the team that were involved in its creation. For me it hasn't got any obvious weaknesses and is well worth watching. I have only ever watched it about three times and the reason is although its subject matter is important and relevant I would never regard it as a film I would watch repeatedly over the years. Basically I see this film as more of a psychological drama than an action film and it seems to me to be a supreme study of multifarious emotions and states of mind under almost constant high levels of stress and danger. This description doesn't mean it will be automatically discarded and overlooked but perhaps seen in a different light, however there is something about this film which although a very good finished product has not resulted in many people voting or writing reviews. I can understand this to a certain extent because although it is a classic it is a very sad story and doesn't appear to leave the viewer with any positivity. Virtually nothing positive comes from War and this film is a perfect example of this. The film as a study of human behaviour under extreme circumstances it is a very fulfilling experience but I suspect it is not a film most people would grab for a night in with a beer. That is sad but such is the nature of the subject. Having said all of the above please watch this film not because it is historically accurate but because for me it is just over two and half hours of human interaction parts of which could have been extracted from any incident from any of the war torn parts during the duration of the second world war. It is a representation of the tragic possibilities of war and how logic and common sense are very rarely in evidence but horror, absurdities and suffering are there in abundance and a single viewing of this film would demonstrate this well

I've never really noticed the anti-war sentiment

tt0050212

Now having banged on about Hollywood likes to rewrite history in other reviews, this is also only loosely based on real events. This is Alec Guiness's finest performance and the film is really a psychological battle between himself and Col Saito. In reality I suspect Col. Nicholson would have been shot early on, but that wouldn't have made a very good movie would it. The direction is excellent and this is the sort of film that just couldn't be made any more without cgi. I have seen comments saying this film is anti-war, but I think the best anti-war films are probably Full Metal Jacket and the mini-series Band of Brothers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-102

ur2449095

title: I've never really noticed the anti-war sentiment review: Now having banged on about Hollywood likes to rewrite history in other reviews, this is also only loosely based on real events. This is Alec Guiness's finest performance and the film is really a psychological battle between himself and Col Saito. In reality I suspect Col. Nicholson would have been shot early on, but that wouldn't have made a very good movie would it. The direction is excellent and this is the sort of film that just couldn't be made any more without cgi. I have seen comments saying this film is anti-war, but I think the best anti-war films are probably Full Metal Jacket and the mini-series Band of Brothers.

It is hard to argue with David Lean.

tt0050212

David Lean masterfully crafts this Oscar-winning tale and it is hard to argue with this man's work. Lean's end action sequences are undeniably the best of their time and they still look just as good now. The acting is great especially Guinness in his Oscar-winning role. Everything from the bridge itself to the location filming looks and feels great. A spectacle of storytelling with blockbuster special effects and lots of smart symbolism for the film goers looking for deeper meaning. People might not like the off the wall ending, but there is no denying the talent of David Lean, Alec Guiness, William Holden, and everyone else that helped work on this magnificent production design that still looks amazing to this day.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-255

ur26550510

title: It is hard to argue with David Lean. review: David Lean masterfully crafts this Oscar-winning tale and it is hard to argue with this man's work. Lean's end action sequences are undeniably the best of their time and they still look just as good now. The acting is great especially Guinness in his Oscar-winning role. Everything from the bridge itself to the location filming looks and feels great. A spectacle of storytelling with blockbuster special effects and lots of smart symbolism for the film goers looking for deeper meaning. People might not like the off the wall ending, but there is no denying the talent of David Lean, Alec Guiness, William Holden, and everyone else that helped work on this magnificent production design that still looks amazing to this day.

A beautiful bridge

tt0050212

IMDb Top 250: 83 I found myself in the possession of three films after Christmas this year: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago. These are all David Lean films, and so I decided to start my David Lean unit with the first of those films, the 7- Oscar winning "Bridge on the River Kwai". And oh my, what a start it was.'Kwai' is a World War II film made 12 years after the war concluded. The film centers around the titular Bridge, and how British POWs build it under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, and how a small group of Allied commandos try to destroy it. It's a grand idea for a plot, about the conflict of ideas and lack of communication.The film is loosely broken into three acts. The first act follows Nicholson's standoff with the Japanese commanding officer in the POW camp about the rules of war, and the subsequent building of the bridge under two different leaderships. The second act is about a small group of Allies who venture into the jungle to destroy the bridge, and their encounters in the wild. The final act concludes the story of the two camps in a magnificent way.An interesting angle of the film is that despite being a war film, there is little violence, and no swearing. All of the action that does happen is necessary, something that has influenced even modern films like 'Drive'. Both plots could have inserted extra action but didn't, and this restraint makes good movies into great movies. The Bridge on the River Kwai is about the people of war as much as their actions.A product of this decision is that the first act could be considered slow. There is lots of standing, lots of talking, and lots of stubbornness. But by the end a viewer realizes how necessary it is. In 'The Good, the Bad & the Ugly', there is an extended sequence where the bad guy forces Clint Eastwood to walk through the desert, and for a while, very little happens. This scene could've been over quicker, but that would have defeated the point that Clint breaks down. That is an idea from 'Kwai'. A month goes by as the leaders verbally, and silently, duke it out with their ideals. The slow first act is necessary to emotionally invest in the scenario, and the film just gets better from there.My summary of the film is 'a beautiful bridge'. The first half of this statement is beautiful, and it perfectly describes the visual aspect of the film. The cinematography is sublime. Sweeping jungle vistas, fauna, rushing rivers and more make simply seeing 'Kwai' a treat. I was lucky enough to get it on Blu Ray, and for an old film it looks fantastic. The bats in a certain river scene are absolutely breathtaking. You can simulate a lot in Hollywood, but this is an outstanding example of shooting on location in the jungles of what is now Sri Lanka.But there's more than just looking at the film, the substance is even greater, starting with the actors. They are excellent. Alec Guinness, in his award winning performance, is the British general who we are so conflicted about. His decisions are both completely correct and absolutely wrong. He is an idealist, valuing discipline and honour above his duty as an Allied leader. His decisions beg to ask the question, "What would you do?" Nicholson is a layered character performed perfectly.Colonel Saito is the commander of the Japanese at the camp, and is the primary... antagonist. His stance is portrayed ruthlessly and effectively. He and Nicholson butt heads, but are two sides of the same coin. They have an excellent dynamic, and their relationship is worth studying for its complexity.Away from the clash of leaders is Shears, an American played by William Holden. In this film where ego reigns supreme, Shears is the realistic, reasonable, and wiseass one. He's the character who says, "What's the matter with all of you guys?" He's is well played and has the best line in the film: "You..." The casting is just excellent overall.The second part of my summary is 'bridge'. Despite the obvious reason, 'Kwai' is a bridge between the old era of film and the new. Scenes with lots of talking, like the discussion about escape, are old fashioned, very 50's. But others, like the trek through the jungle and the ending, are far ahead of their time. The stealthy hunt for the Japanese soldier and the whole visual aspect of that scene is certainly influential on another war epic, Apocalypse Now. In general, The Bridge on the River Kwai is ahead of its time.As I've said, the film gets better and better, culminating in the extraordinary ending. It is one of the best scenes in film and leaves much to discuss. A common statement from the Warden, the explosives-happy commando is to expect the unexpected. The event that makes the last scene unexpected is so obviously a factor but so easily overlooked, you'll gasp. Words to describe the climatic scene include explosive, awesome, shaking, and epic. And then you'll think. What did Warden mean? What did Shears mean? What did Nicholson mean? Did he do what he did on purpose? You can have a great discussion about those actions. And then to end it all, the realistic doctor saying "Madness! Madness!" And then zooming out, to admire the jungle... an amazing shot.'Kwai' is a thinking film. You can wonder how you would do in that situation. The film also touches on the waste of war, honour and pride, and also the role of the young in battle. It's stupendous, a landmark film. 9.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-259

ur26443691

title: A beautiful bridge review: IMDb Top 250: 83 I found myself in the possession of three films after Christmas this year: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago. These are all David Lean films, and so I decided to start my David Lean unit with the first of those films, the 7- Oscar winning "Bridge on the River Kwai". And oh my, what a start it was.'Kwai' is a World War II film made 12 years after the war concluded. The film centers around the titular Bridge, and how British POWs build it under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, and how a small group of Allied commandos try to destroy it. It's a grand idea for a plot, about the conflict of ideas and lack of communication.The film is loosely broken into three acts. The first act follows Nicholson's standoff with the Japanese commanding officer in the POW camp about the rules of war, and the subsequent building of the bridge under two different leaderships. The second act is about a small group of Allies who venture into the jungle to destroy the bridge, and their encounters in the wild. The final act concludes the story of the two camps in a magnificent way.An interesting angle of the film is that despite being a war film, there is little violence, and no swearing. All of the action that does happen is necessary, something that has influenced even modern films like 'Drive'. Both plots could have inserted extra action but didn't, and this restraint makes good movies into great movies. The Bridge on the River Kwai is about the people of war as much as their actions.A product of this decision is that the first act could be considered slow. There is lots of standing, lots of talking, and lots of stubbornness. But by the end a viewer realizes how necessary it is. In 'The Good, the Bad & the Ugly', there is an extended sequence where the bad guy forces Clint Eastwood to walk through the desert, and for a while, very little happens. This scene could've been over quicker, but that would have defeated the point that Clint breaks down. That is an idea from 'Kwai'. A month goes by as the leaders verbally, and silently, duke it out with their ideals. The slow first act is necessary to emotionally invest in the scenario, and the film just gets better from there.My summary of the film is 'a beautiful bridge'. The first half of this statement is beautiful, and it perfectly describes the visual aspect of the film. The cinematography is sublime. Sweeping jungle vistas, fauna, rushing rivers and more make simply seeing 'Kwai' a treat. I was lucky enough to get it on Blu Ray, and for an old film it looks fantastic. The bats in a certain river scene are absolutely breathtaking. You can simulate a lot in Hollywood, but this is an outstanding example of shooting on location in the jungles of what is now Sri Lanka.But there's more than just looking at the film, the substance is even greater, starting with the actors. They are excellent. Alec Guinness, in his award winning performance, is the British general who we are so conflicted about. His decisions are both completely correct and absolutely wrong. He is an idealist, valuing discipline and honour above his duty as an Allied leader. His decisions beg to ask the question, "What would you do?" Nicholson is a layered character performed perfectly.Colonel Saito is the commander of the Japanese at the camp, and is the primary... antagonist. His stance is portrayed ruthlessly and effectively. He and Nicholson butt heads, but are two sides of the same coin. They have an excellent dynamic, and their relationship is worth studying for its complexity.Away from the clash of leaders is Shears, an American played by William Holden. In this film where ego reigns supreme, Shears is the realistic, reasonable, and wiseass one. He's the character who says, "What's the matter with all of you guys?" He's is well played and has the best line in the film: "You..." The casting is just excellent overall.The second part of my summary is 'bridge'. Despite the obvious reason, 'Kwai' is a bridge between the old era of film and the new. Scenes with lots of talking, like the discussion about escape, are old fashioned, very 50's. But others, like the trek through the jungle and the ending, are far ahead of their time. The stealthy hunt for the Japanese soldier and the whole visual aspect of that scene is certainly influential on another war epic, Apocalypse Now. In general, The Bridge on the River Kwai is ahead of its time.As I've said, the film gets better and better, culminating in the extraordinary ending. It is one of the best scenes in film and leaves much to discuss. A common statement from the Warden, the explosives-happy commando is to expect the unexpected. The event that makes the last scene unexpected is so obviously a factor but so easily overlooked, you'll gasp. Words to describe the climatic scene include explosive, awesome, shaking, and epic. And then you'll think. What did Warden mean? What did Shears mean? What did Nicholson mean? Did he do what he did on purpose? You can have a great discussion about those actions. And then to end it all, the realistic doctor saying "Madness! Madness!" And then zooming out, to admire the jungle... an amazing shot.'Kwai' is a thinking film. You can wonder how you would do in that situation. The film also touches on the waste of war, honour and pride, and also the role of the young in battle. It's stupendous, a landmark film. 9.4/10

"Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!"

tt0050212

Nobody could craft an epic film better than David Lean, as I learned earlier this year when I watched the magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' for the first time. Though he had achieved earlier success with such films as 'Brief Encounter (1945)' and 'Great Expectations (1946),' 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' was the first of Lean's multi-million dollar wide-screen spectaculars, for which he is now most fondly remembered. Shot on location in the jungles of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), the film concerns the building of a railway bridge by Allied prisoners-of-war during World War Two. As it becomes less and less likely that the bridge will be constructed before the deadline, conflict escalates between the proud British leader, Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness) and hot-tempered Col. Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). The film proved very successful at the 1958 Oscars, taking home seven awards (including Best Picture) from eight nominations.Whilst William Holden's cynical, hard-edged American was likely considered the main star attraction, the film's most memorable character – and, indeed, one of the greatest in cinema history – is Alec Guiness' Col. Nicholson. The embodiment of British courage and dedication, Nicholson finds himself in a battle of wills with the ruthless Col. Saito, who, despite representing the enemy, nonetheless exhibits many of the same qualities: egotistical pride, obstinacy and unwillingness to compromise. For Col. Nicholson, the construction of the railway bridge becomes something of an obsession, its completion symbolic of "Western methods and efficiency that will put {the Japanese} to shame" and the culmination of his 28 years in the military. When he uncovers the plot to destroy the bridge, Nicholson betrays his fellow countrymen to the Japanese, his narcissistic pride in the landmark prompting him to neglect his sworn duty to Britain.I'd like to take some time to consider the film's climax, undoubtedly one of the most awe-inspiring cinema spectacles of all time. I had initially anticipated that, after the intricate task of planting the explosives overnight, the detonation of the bridge would be a rather straightforward task. However, David Lean weaves so much action and suspense into the finale that the closing credits left me reeling. As the distant rumble of a train announces its impending arrival, Col. Nicholson notices that the reduction in river-level has exposed the wires connecting the explosives to the detonator. Not yet comprehending the situation, he summons Col. Saito and they both descend to the riverside to investigate. Once his fears are confirmed, Nicholson – to his subsequent dismay – attempts to thwart his army's attempt to destroy the enemy bridge, and both Lt. Joyce (Geoffrey Horne) and Cmdr. Shears (William Holden) are fatally shot.Interestingly, there have been suggestions that Maj. Warden (Jack Hawkins) fired the lethal shots at his own comrades, abandoning the mission objective in an attempt to prevent their live capture by the merciless Japanese. Whilst this isn't explicitly shown in the film itself, it reportedly corresponds with Pierre Boulle's original novel (in which, notably, the bridge is not destroyed) and would certainly explain why, afterwards, Warden tries to rationalise his actions: "I had to do it. I had to do it. They might have been captured alive. It was the only thing to do." Alternatively, Warden didn't shoot them, but is attempting to justify his use of the mortars, which basically obliterated any slim remaining chances on their survival. Meanwhile, Nicholson, struck by shrapnel from a mortar attack, crumbles hopelessly onto the detonator (either intentionally or inadvertently) just as the train begins to cross the river. The actual collapse of the $250,000 bridge, a shot which owes a lot to Buster Keaton and 'The General (1927)', is an amazing spectacle, and Maj. Clipton (James Donald) sums up the entire climax - and war in general - with his horrified exclamation of "Madness! Madness!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-192

ur10334028

title: "Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!" review: Nobody could craft an epic film better than David Lean, as I learned earlier this year when I watched the magnificent 'Lawrence of Arabia' for the first time. Though he had achieved earlier success with such films as 'Brief Encounter (1945)' and 'Great Expectations (1946),' 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' was the first of Lean's multi-million dollar wide-screen spectaculars, for which he is now most fondly remembered. Shot on location in the jungles of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), the film concerns the building of a railway bridge by Allied prisoners-of-war during World War Two. As it becomes less and less likely that the bridge will be constructed before the deadline, conflict escalates between the proud British leader, Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness) and hot-tempered Col. Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). The film proved very successful at the 1958 Oscars, taking home seven awards (including Best Picture) from eight nominations.Whilst William Holden's cynical, hard-edged American was likely considered the main star attraction, the film's most memorable character – and, indeed, one of the greatest in cinema history – is Alec Guiness' Col. Nicholson. The embodiment of British courage and dedication, Nicholson finds himself in a battle of wills with the ruthless Col. Saito, who, despite representing the enemy, nonetheless exhibits many of the same qualities: egotistical pride, obstinacy and unwillingness to compromise. For Col. Nicholson, the construction of the railway bridge becomes something of an obsession, its completion symbolic of "Western methods and efficiency that will put {the Japanese} to shame" and the culmination of his 28 years in the military. When he uncovers the plot to destroy the bridge, Nicholson betrays his fellow countrymen to the Japanese, his narcissistic pride in the landmark prompting him to neglect his sworn duty to Britain.I'd like to take some time to consider the film's climax, undoubtedly one of the most awe-inspiring cinema spectacles of all time. I had initially anticipated that, after the intricate task of planting the explosives overnight, the detonation of the bridge would be a rather straightforward task. However, David Lean weaves so much action and suspense into the finale that the closing credits left me reeling. As the distant rumble of a train announces its impending arrival, Col. Nicholson notices that the reduction in river-level has exposed the wires connecting the explosives to the detonator. Not yet comprehending the situation, he summons Col. Saito and they both descend to the riverside to investigate. Once his fears are confirmed, Nicholson – to his subsequent dismay – attempts to thwart his army's attempt to destroy the enemy bridge, and both Lt. Joyce (Geoffrey Horne) and Cmdr. Shears (William Holden) are fatally shot.Interestingly, there have been suggestions that Maj. Warden (Jack Hawkins) fired the lethal shots at his own comrades, abandoning the mission objective in an attempt to prevent their live capture by the merciless Japanese. Whilst this isn't explicitly shown in the film itself, it reportedly corresponds with Pierre Boulle's original novel (in which, notably, the bridge is not destroyed) and would certainly explain why, afterwards, Warden tries to rationalise his actions: "I had to do it. I had to do it. They might have been captured alive. It was the only thing to do." Alternatively, Warden didn't shoot them, but is attempting to justify his use of the mortars, which basically obliterated any slim remaining chances on their survival. Meanwhile, Nicholson, struck by shrapnel from a mortar attack, crumbles hopelessly onto the detonator (either intentionally or inadvertently) just as the train begins to cross the river. The actual collapse of the $250,000 bridge, a shot which owes a lot to Buster Keaton and 'The General (1927)', is an amazing spectacle, and Maj. Clipton (James Donald) sums up the entire climax - and war in general - with his horrified exclamation of "Madness! Madness!"

One of the greatest prison films ever made!

tt0050212

This film is nothing short of one of the greatest pieces of cinematic genius I have ever seen. It shows two sides of many things. Take for example Colonel Nicholson. Colonel Nicholson is a savior to his fellow British soldiers, yet he can also be viewed as a traitor. Commander Shears who was a former prisoner at the camp, and later leads the attack on the bridge, was impersonating an officer. A court martial offense. But he also led the United States and the United Kingdom to victory by blowing up the bridge. Colonel Saito, who was the commandant of the prison camp, was a sadist and was a monster. But he was willing to make necessary compromises with Colonel Nicholson on the construction of the bridge. Anyway let's look at the plot. A new group of Royal Army soldiers have been captured by the Imperial Japanese Army and have been placed in a Japanese prison camp. In other words hell. Anyway the commandant Colonel Saito, and the commanding officer of the prisoners Colonel Nicholson, don't agree with each other. Saito wants all prisoners, including officers to work on a bridge that will connect from the island the camp is on to another island I think. But as this is against the Geneva Convention, Colonel Nicholson won't allow it. Saito retaliates by putting the British officers in confinement. And putting Colonel Nicholson in the oven. Meanwhile US sailor Commander Shears, who was already a prisoner at the camp escapes. When he makes it back to an allied base they give him a mission to blow up the bridge that the prisoners are working on. Colonel Nicholson eventually agrees to Saito's commands and officers work on the bridge as well. It end in a spectacular battle against the allied special forces, and the allied prisoners who seem to have forgotten their allegiance. I highly recommend this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-279

ur47006221

title: One of the greatest prison films ever made! review: This film is nothing short of one of the greatest pieces of cinematic genius I have ever seen. It shows two sides of many things. Take for example Colonel Nicholson. Colonel Nicholson is a savior to his fellow British soldiers, yet he can also be viewed as a traitor. Commander Shears who was a former prisoner at the camp, and later leads the attack on the bridge, was impersonating an officer. A court martial offense. But he also led the United States and the United Kingdom to victory by blowing up the bridge. Colonel Saito, who was the commandant of the prison camp, was a sadist and was a monster. But he was willing to make necessary compromises with Colonel Nicholson on the construction of the bridge. Anyway let's look at the plot. A new group of Royal Army soldiers have been captured by the Imperial Japanese Army and have been placed in a Japanese prison camp. In other words hell. Anyway the commandant Colonel Saito, and the commanding officer of the prisoners Colonel Nicholson, don't agree with each other. Saito wants all prisoners, including officers to work on a bridge that will connect from the island the camp is on to another island I think. But as this is against the Geneva Convention, Colonel Nicholson won't allow it. Saito retaliates by putting the British officers in confinement. And putting Colonel Nicholson in the oven. Meanwhile US sailor Commander Shears, who was already a prisoner at the camp escapes. When he makes it back to an allied base they give him a mission to blow up the bridge that the prisoners are working on. Colonel Nicholson eventually agrees to Saito's commands and officers work on the bridge as well. It end in a spectacular battle against the allied special forces, and the allied prisoners who seem to have forgotten their allegiance. I highly recommend this movie.

Nothing short of a masterpiece!

tt0050212

This film will stay in the history of the film making as probably one of the best war films ever made! I can not think of how to prise this film more. Where to start? Plot is so interesting, English war prisoners in the jungle trying to survive and at the same time building a bridge which would connect Bangkok and Rangoon and seriously threaten British influence in India.Dialogue is so excellent that sometimes it overachieves dialog of a war movie. That conflict between Japanese and British officer is quite an outstanding piece of plot, and support for a British officer is achievement for the film making and a show what stamina officers imprisoned had to endure.Acting is excellent especially by Alec Guiness.All in all this film remains one of the best films ever made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-278

ur6879155

title: Nothing short of a masterpiece! review: This film will stay in the history of the film making as probably one of the best war films ever made! I can not think of how to prise this film more. Where to start? Plot is so interesting, English war prisoners in the jungle trying to survive and at the same time building a bridge which would connect Bangkok and Rangoon and seriously threaten British influence in India.Dialogue is so excellent that sometimes it overachieves dialog of a war movie. That conflict between Japanese and British officer is quite an outstanding piece of plot, and support for a British officer is achievement for the film making and a show what stamina officers imprisoned had to endure.Acting is excellent especially by Alec Guiness.All in all this film remains one of the best films ever made.

amazing

tt0050212

i am a teenager; I'm 15. I'm also a lover of most action/adventure movies. i am however, not accustomed to liking movies that i consider "ancient." the only reason i really watched this movie, was because it was during summer break and my dad would only allow me to get what he considered a "classic" that week. boy was i amazed when i discovered what a classic really was. this movie appeals to just about any fan base; young or old, male or female, because of its engrossing plot line and fantastic acting. the action will keep you on the edge of your seat, while the plot will keep you glued there for fear of missing something. basically, this movie is just amazing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-200

ur18477090

title: amazing review: i am a teenager; I'm 15. I'm also a lover of most action/adventure movies. i am however, not accustomed to liking movies that i consider "ancient." the only reason i really watched this movie, was because it was during summer break and my dad would only allow me to get what he considered a "classic" that week. boy was i amazed when i discovered what a classic really was. this movie appeals to just about any fan base; young or old, male or female, because of its engrossing plot line and fantastic acting. the action will keep you on the edge of your seat, while the plot will keep you glued there for fear of missing something. basically, this movie is just amazing

Not as Good As To End All Wars (2001)

tt0050212

The movie is not realistic and contrived, without going to details, war is hell. In this movie it is not that bad. There are two movies that depict the River Kwai during World War II. One is this movie which was mostly written that is fictitious and I can tell, since bombs of the bridge was not that way. The other is a lot of hell, which is based on real experience, such "To End All Wars" (2001) which is much more realistic portrayed, such as the amount of efforts required to build the bridge, the destruction of bridge, the clash of cultures, the resulting friendship after the war, and much much more. The destruction of bridge in the real war are often done with planes dropping bombs, the Japanese protect the bombing of bombs by tying up the Prisoner of Wars to the Bridge as well as them standing on them. They never had it so easy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-183

ur2349585

title: Not as Good As To End All Wars (2001) review: The movie is not realistic and contrived, without going to details, war is hell. In this movie it is not that bad. There are two movies that depict the River Kwai during World War II. One is this movie which was mostly written that is fictitious and I can tell, since bombs of the bridge was not that way. The other is a lot of hell, which is based on real experience, such "To End All Wars" (2001) which is much more realistic portrayed, such as the amount of efforts required to build the bridge, the destruction of bridge, the clash of cultures, the resulting friendship after the war, and much much more. The destruction of bridge in the real war are often done with planes dropping bombs, the Japanese protect the bombing of bombs by tying up the Prisoner of Wars to the Bridge as well as them standing on them. They never had it so easy.

Madness

tt0050212

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a World War II film. One of those big movie war epics. But epic though it may be this film is not about the massive global conflict. This is a small story, a story really of two men and their war of wills. The fact that these two men are each in their own way quite mad makes for a fascinating story. It's a story with great moments of triumph and bitter moments of despair. It's a story of great bravery in the face of unspeakable brutality. But really, at its heart, it's a story of madness.The story unfolds in a Japanese prison camp in the jungles of Thailand. A large unit of British prisoners proudly and defiantly whistle a famous march as they are brought into the camp. They have no idea what they're in for. Perhaps some of them noticed the graves being dug as they were marched in. That should serve as a hint. This camp is an impossibly terrible place, led by a brutal, seemingly sadistic man in the camp commandant Colonel Saito. The strong-willed Saito will meet his match in the British commanding officer Colonel Nicholson, a man who lives by rules and stands on principle. But Nicholson will immediately find that in this camp there are no rules and there certainly don't seem to be much in the way of principles either. Saito has a job for his new British prisoners. They are to build a bridge over the River Kwai. And the British officers will be forced to perform manual labor alongside their men. Nicholson cannot abide the officers being put to work, it's against the rules. Where does standing up for the rules get Nicholson? Locked inside a small iron box that's where.And so the war of wills begins. Saito has a bridge to be built and he has a deadline. He will complete this bridge by any means necessary because if he fails he will have no choice but to kill himself. Madness. Meanwhile Nicholson stands on principle which only leads to torture and a seemingly inevitable death for himself and his officers. Madness. From a certain perspective it can be said that Nicholson shows great bravery. But to what end? In playing this brave, principled, somewhat deranged man Alec Guinness turns in an astonishing performance. There is little doubt Guinness is the best thing the film has to offer. And he has a worthy foil in Sessue Hayakawa who plays Saito. Two great actors portraying two stubborn men who are too set in their ways to change. And their stubbornness can only have dire consequences.The story of the camp and the building of the bridge is fascinating, dramatic and highly charged. Unfortunately there is a parallel storyline which does not work nearly as well. William Holden plays Shears, an American who escapes from the camp early on in the film. As he recovers he clearly enjoys his newfound freedom as he waits to be shipped back home. He's living the good life, including partaking in a romantic dalliance which seems to serve no purpose other than to shoehorn a female character into the film someplace. But Shears, much to his consternation, finds that he's not going home. He's going back to the prison camp along with a team of British commandos who are going to blow up the bridge.Holden's performance is perfectly fine, as are those of the other actors in this section of the film, but the story of the attempt to blow up the bridge doesn't engage the way the story of the bridge's building does. Time spent away from Nicholson and Saito, Guinness and Hayakawa, is for this movie time not well spent. By this point in the movie we're utterly fascinated with Nicholson and the rather bizarre pride he takes in his men's efforts to build the bridge. His bridge. It's not Saito's bridge anymore which causes the Japanese commander no small sense of shame. The story of Nicholson and Saito, Nicholson mostly, is incredibly compelling. And Guinness is so perfect in his portrayal of this brave but mad man that you really miss his presence when the film veers away from its main storyline to follow the trek of the commando team through the jungle. But at least you know something quite spectacular is bound to occur when the two threads of the plot come together. Madness indeed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-250

ur0915482

title: Madness review: The Bridge on the River Kwai is a World War II film. One of those big movie war epics. But epic though it may be this film is not about the massive global conflict. This is a small story, a story really of two men and their war of wills. The fact that these two men are each in their own way quite mad makes for a fascinating story. It's a story with great moments of triumph and bitter moments of despair. It's a story of great bravery in the face of unspeakable brutality. But really, at its heart, it's a story of madness.The story unfolds in a Japanese prison camp in the jungles of Thailand. A large unit of British prisoners proudly and defiantly whistle a famous march as they are brought into the camp. They have no idea what they're in for. Perhaps some of them noticed the graves being dug as they were marched in. That should serve as a hint. This camp is an impossibly terrible place, led by a brutal, seemingly sadistic man in the camp commandant Colonel Saito. The strong-willed Saito will meet his match in the British commanding officer Colonel Nicholson, a man who lives by rules and stands on principle. But Nicholson will immediately find that in this camp there are no rules and there certainly don't seem to be much in the way of principles either. Saito has a job for his new British prisoners. They are to build a bridge over the River Kwai. And the British officers will be forced to perform manual labor alongside their men. Nicholson cannot abide the officers being put to work, it's against the rules. Where does standing up for the rules get Nicholson? Locked inside a small iron box that's where.And so the war of wills begins. Saito has a bridge to be built and he has a deadline. He will complete this bridge by any means necessary because if he fails he will have no choice but to kill himself. Madness. Meanwhile Nicholson stands on principle which only leads to torture and a seemingly inevitable death for himself and his officers. Madness. From a certain perspective it can be said that Nicholson shows great bravery. But to what end? In playing this brave, principled, somewhat deranged man Alec Guinness turns in an astonishing performance. There is little doubt Guinness is the best thing the film has to offer. And he has a worthy foil in Sessue Hayakawa who plays Saito. Two great actors portraying two stubborn men who are too set in their ways to change. And their stubbornness can only have dire consequences.The story of the camp and the building of the bridge is fascinating, dramatic and highly charged. Unfortunately there is a parallel storyline which does not work nearly as well. William Holden plays Shears, an American who escapes from the camp early on in the film. As he recovers he clearly enjoys his newfound freedom as he waits to be shipped back home. He's living the good life, including partaking in a romantic dalliance which seems to serve no purpose other than to shoehorn a female character into the film someplace. But Shears, much to his consternation, finds that he's not going home. He's going back to the prison camp along with a team of British commandos who are going to blow up the bridge.Holden's performance is perfectly fine, as are those of the other actors in this section of the film, but the story of the attempt to blow up the bridge doesn't engage the way the story of the bridge's building does. Time spent away from Nicholson and Saito, Guinness and Hayakawa, is for this movie time not well spent. By this point in the movie we're utterly fascinated with Nicholson and the rather bizarre pride he takes in his men's efforts to build the bridge. His bridge. It's not Saito's bridge anymore which causes the Japanese commander no small sense of shame. The story of Nicholson and Saito, Nicholson mostly, is incredibly compelling. And Guinness is so perfect in his portrayal of this brave but mad man that you really miss his presence when the film veers away from its main storyline to follow the trek of the commando team through the jungle. But at least you know something quite spectacular is bound to occur when the two threads of the plot come together. Madness indeed.

An epic tale of courage and heroism.

tt0050212

David Lean began the strongest stretch of his career with this fantastic anti-war film based on a novel about a group of British POW soldiers commissioned to build a bridge for the Japanese army. Trouble arises, however, when the leader of the British, Colonel Nicholson played remarkably by Alec Guiness, refuses to work the way of the Japanese. Meanwhile, a team of British commandos is put together to go and blow up the bridge that is to be erected.Simply put, this is a masterful film that is terrifically well-made and builds great tension despite seeing it multiple times. The acting is very good all around, especially from Guiness and William Holden as the heroic yet cynical Shears. The cinematography is gorgeous as the scene is set in the jungle of Southeast Asia, and Lean directs at such a solid pace that the story never lags despite the film being two and a half hours long. Lean was a master at building a scene for a climax, and he does it very well here as we watch both sides of this story unfold and wonder what could possibly happen. All elements point to an award-winning, classic war film that will last for decades. And that is exactly what The Bridge on the River Kwai has become and will be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-212

ur9972457

title: An epic tale of courage and heroism. review: David Lean began the strongest stretch of his career with this fantastic anti-war film based on a novel about a group of British POW soldiers commissioned to build a bridge for the Japanese army. Trouble arises, however, when the leader of the British, Colonel Nicholson played remarkably by Alec Guiness, refuses to work the way of the Japanese. Meanwhile, a team of British commandos is put together to go and blow up the bridge that is to be erected.Simply put, this is a masterful film that is terrifically well-made and builds great tension despite seeing it multiple times. The acting is very good all around, especially from Guiness and William Holden as the heroic yet cynical Shears. The cinematography is gorgeous as the scene is set in the jungle of Southeast Asia, and Lean directs at such a solid pace that the story never lags despite the film being two and a half hours long. Lean was a master at building a scene for a climax, and he does it very well here as we watch both sides of this story unfold and wonder what could possibly happen. All elements point to an award-winning, classic war film that will last for decades. And that is exactly what The Bridge on the River Kwai has become and will be.

Very slow paced and too long but with great substance

tt0050212

I was very disappointed after 156 very long minutes of my life. I expected more adventure, suspense and thrills. Unbelievable how it could have won seven Oscars. The movie is very slow paced, at times boring and finally too long. The dialogs therefore were full of substance. Don't expect boom-boom, action or the classical war movie. It works more on a psychological level. I cannot understand the high votes here or all the positive reviews. The sceneries and cinematography were beautiful but I missed all the mentioned elements to get my attention. It was interesting to see Alec Guinness in a soldiers role. It's definitely not a must see. It's just an average film in my opinion that deserves not much more than 5/10.I highly recommend the much more better ones: BAND OF BROTHERS, VON RYAN'S EXPRESS, DER FÄLSCHER or DER LETZTE ZUG. See also my critics here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-262

ur1634796

title: Very slow paced and too long but with great substance review: I was very disappointed after 156 very long minutes of my life. I expected more adventure, suspense and thrills. Unbelievable how it could have won seven Oscars. The movie is very slow paced, at times boring and finally too long. The dialogs therefore were full of substance. Don't expect boom-boom, action or the classical war movie. It works more on a psychological level. I cannot understand the high votes here or all the positive reviews. The sceneries and cinematography were beautiful but I missed all the mentioned elements to get my attention. It was interesting to see Alec Guinness in a soldiers role. It's definitely not a must see. It's just an average film in my opinion that deserves not much more than 5/10.I highly recommend the much more better ones: BAND OF BROTHERS, VON RYAN'S EXPRESS, DER FÄLSCHER or DER LETZTE ZUG. See also my critics here.

Ranks as one of the greatest films of all time and arguably director David Lean's best film.

tt0050212

British prisoners of war in Burma are employed by the Japanese to build a bridge; meanwhile British agents seek to destroy it. The film has been selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.The Bridge On The River Kwai is an ironic adventure epic with many fine moments but too many centres of interest and an unforgivably confusing climax. It is distinguished by Alec Guinness's portrait of the English Colonel who is heroic in his initial stand against the enemy but finally can not bear to see his bridge blown up: and the physical detail of the production is beyond criticism.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-241

ur22131361

title: Ranks as one of the greatest films of all time and arguably director David Lean's best film. review: British prisoners of war in Burma are employed by the Japanese to build a bridge; meanwhile British agents seek to destroy it. The film has been selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.The Bridge On The River Kwai is an ironic adventure epic with many fine moments but too many centres of interest and an unforgivably confusing climax. It is distinguished by Alec Guinness's portrait of the English Colonel who is heroic in his initial stand against the enemy but finally can not bear to see his bridge blown up: and the physical detail of the production is beyond criticism.

classic POW drama

tt0050212

As with most war films utilizing a POW camp as the primary setting made prior to say, the 1970's, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' leaves most viewers to speculate that conditions were in all likelihood many times more brutal than portrayed on the screen. Surely the Japanese had more devious methods of torture than simply having officers stand all day in the hot sun, or placing their commander in solitary confinement, as miserable as either of those situations may have been. And it is doubtful the Japanese commandant would have been talked out of shooting several prisoners simply because it is pointed out to him there might be an inquiry into the matter. Those matters aside, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' is very compelling and believable, the story of a large group of British soldiers led by Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), and one American, Commander Shears (William Holden), being held in a desolate Japanese prison camp in southern Burma during WW2. At the center of the story is a battle of wills between Nicholson and the Japanese camp commander Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). Nicholson's defiance is genuine, but it is done in that peculiarly quirky British fashion which seems, especially in the film's latter sections, exaggerated to an almost unfathomable degree. When Nicholson finally agrees to build the bridge across the Kwai River that Saito wants built, he not only tackles the project with enthusiasm, he determines to build a better bridge than the Japanese themselves would have built. He doesn't regard what he's doing as traitorous; rather, he sees it as a way to keep his men busy and the bridge itself as a monument to their hard work while in captivity. One very interesting sidebar in the film is the contrast between Nicholson and Shears, and by implication, the British and American approach to war and life in captivity. Nicholson lives by certain codes and traditions and would rather die than violate them, even if they come to seem inexplicable in their practical results. Shears, on the other hand, is crafty and resourceful and doesn't give a damn about rules or regulations. He routinely bribes the guards to get out of performing physical labor. To him, the ends justify the means every time. He regards Nicholson and the other British officers as fools, and they regard him as a crazy American, gone slightly off his rocker from being a prisoner so long. Guinness gives one of his finest performances and deservedly won an Oscar (as did the movie itself, and the director, David Lean). The miserable conditions of the camp, and particularly the 'box' where Nicholson spends his solitary confinement, are very realistically presented; the unrelenting jungle heat is palpable. The characterizations are such that we are in sympathy with Colonel Nicholson, though we suspect he isn't completely rational, just as we come to dislike the character of Shears, even as we realize he is doing the right thing in blowing up the bridge. 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' is rightly regarded as a classic; I would say it is one of the ten best war movies ever made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-208

ur16517420

title: classic POW drama review: As with most war films utilizing a POW camp as the primary setting made prior to say, the 1970's, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' leaves most viewers to speculate that conditions were in all likelihood many times more brutal than portrayed on the screen. Surely the Japanese had more devious methods of torture than simply having officers stand all day in the hot sun, or placing their commander in solitary confinement, as miserable as either of those situations may have been. And it is doubtful the Japanese commandant would have been talked out of shooting several prisoners simply because it is pointed out to him there might be an inquiry into the matter. Those matters aside, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' is very compelling and believable, the story of a large group of British soldiers led by Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), and one American, Commander Shears (William Holden), being held in a desolate Japanese prison camp in southern Burma during WW2. At the center of the story is a battle of wills between Nicholson and the Japanese camp commander Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). Nicholson's defiance is genuine, but it is done in that peculiarly quirky British fashion which seems, especially in the film's latter sections, exaggerated to an almost unfathomable degree. When Nicholson finally agrees to build the bridge across the Kwai River that Saito wants built, he not only tackles the project with enthusiasm, he determines to build a better bridge than the Japanese themselves would have built. He doesn't regard what he's doing as traitorous; rather, he sees it as a way to keep his men busy and the bridge itself as a monument to their hard work while in captivity. One very interesting sidebar in the film is the contrast between Nicholson and Shears, and by implication, the British and American approach to war and life in captivity. Nicholson lives by certain codes and traditions and would rather die than violate them, even if they come to seem inexplicable in their practical results. Shears, on the other hand, is crafty and resourceful and doesn't give a damn about rules or regulations. He routinely bribes the guards to get out of performing physical labor. To him, the ends justify the means every time. He regards Nicholson and the other British officers as fools, and they regard him as a crazy American, gone slightly off his rocker from being a prisoner so long. Guinness gives one of his finest performances and deservedly won an Oscar (as did the movie itself, and the director, David Lean). The miserable conditions of the camp, and particularly the 'box' where Nicholson spends his solitary confinement, are very realistically presented; the unrelenting jungle heat is palpable. The characterizations are such that we are in sympathy with Colonel Nicholson, though we suspect he isn't completely rational, just as we come to dislike the character of Shears, even as we realize he is doing the right thing in blowing up the bridge. 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' is rightly regarded as a classic; I would say it is one of the ten best war movies ever made.

Still Stirring Wartime Adventure and Compelling Psychological Drama Exhibit David Lean at His Peak

tt0050212

After years of more intimate British films and just discovering the joys of location shooting with 1955's "Summertime", master director David Lean made his first actual widescreen epic with 1957's "The Bridge on the River Kwai", an acknowledged classic that deserves attention from a new generation of viewers and another visit from the rest of us who love perfectly executed films by an unparalleled craftsman. Recently, this movie has been overshadowed by his 1962 follow-up epic, the comparatively more elaborate "Lawrence of Arabia", but this richly textured WWII-set adventure is special enough on its own terms. While it has its share of action and suspense presented in exacting detail, the film is even more resonant as a psychological drama about the test of wills between mission-driven officers amid the perils of wartime survival.The plot takes place in 1943 when after surrendering in Singapore, Col. Nicholson marches his ragged British company into a Japanese prisoner work camp in the Burmese jungle (this is where the famous whistling of "Colonel Bogey March" is first heard). The erudite Col. Saito runs the camp and demands that the new prisoners build a massive railway bridge, a critical juncture between Rangoon and Malaysia. In a classic stand-off, Nicholson finally forces Saito to respect Geneva Convention and not allow his officers to do manual labor on the construction. Upon his ironic Pyrrhic victory, Nicholson slowly descends into the madness of seeing the completed bridge as a potential morale booster for his battle-weary men. Meanwhile, shortly after Nicholson's arrival, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Shears escapes from the camp only to be later blackmailed into joining a British commando mission led by do-or-die Maj. Warden and hesitant Lt. Joyce with the sole goal of blowing up the bridge. Through Peter Taylor's thoughtful film editing, the movie breathlessly alternates between the parallel story lines of the bridge construction and the jungle commando mission until the exciting climax.Lean's accomplishments are many with this memorable film - the authenticity of the Burmese jungle locations (filmed in Sri Lanka), the seamless integration of the two story lines, the masterful handing of the final scenes, and in particular, the gradual metamorphosis of Nicholson from a by-the-book British officer to Saito's willing collaborator. A frequent participant in Lean's films, Alec Guinness gives his career-best performance as Nicholson providing all sorts of unexpected shades to his complex characterization. As Shears, William Holden does what he did best in the 1950's, concurrently exude natural bravado and a conflicted soul and then added a layer of cynicism that dares to challenge the viewer to support him. The 68-year old Sessue Hayakawa came out of retirement to play Saito and delivers a subtle performance of unbending discipline and pained humiliation. Jack Hawkins and Geoffrey Horne lend sturdy support as Warden and Joyce respectively. With the same expert eye he lent to "Summertime", Jack Hildyard provides the superbly expressive and composed cinematography. Michael Wilson and Carl Foreman, both blacklisted at the time, wrote the brilliantly developed screenplay. This is essential viewing.The two-disc 2000 Limited Edition DVD set has a pristine print transfer with great sound making the entire experience feel surprisingly fresh upon viewing. There is a nearly hour-long documentary on Disc Two, "The Making of The Bridge on the River Kwai", produced for the DVD and full of intriguing insight into the production logistics. There are a couple of shorter featurettes produced around the time of the film's original release, the first is a black-and-white teaser for the film itself and the second a rather pedestrian lesson in Film 101 produced by USC grad students and introduced by Holden. Director John Milius provides a respectful tribute to the film in another short.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-155

ur3608743

title: Still Stirring Wartime Adventure and Compelling Psychological Drama Exhibit David Lean at His Peak review: After years of more intimate British films and just discovering the joys of location shooting with 1955's "Summertime", master director David Lean made his first actual widescreen epic with 1957's "The Bridge on the River Kwai", an acknowledged classic that deserves attention from a new generation of viewers and another visit from the rest of us who love perfectly executed films by an unparalleled craftsman. Recently, this movie has been overshadowed by his 1962 follow-up epic, the comparatively more elaborate "Lawrence of Arabia", but this richly textured WWII-set adventure is special enough on its own terms. While it has its share of action and suspense presented in exacting detail, the film is even more resonant as a psychological drama about the test of wills between mission-driven officers amid the perils of wartime survival.The plot takes place in 1943 when after surrendering in Singapore, Col. Nicholson marches his ragged British company into a Japanese prisoner work camp in the Burmese jungle (this is where the famous whistling of "Colonel Bogey March" is first heard). The erudite Col. Saito runs the camp and demands that the new prisoners build a massive railway bridge, a critical juncture between Rangoon and Malaysia. In a classic stand-off, Nicholson finally forces Saito to respect Geneva Convention and not allow his officers to do manual labor on the construction. Upon his ironic Pyrrhic victory, Nicholson slowly descends into the madness of seeing the completed bridge as a potential morale booster for his battle-weary men. Meanwhile, shortly after Nicholson's arrival, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Shears escapes from the camp only to be later blackmailed into joining a British commando mission led by do-or-die Maj. Warden and hesitant Lt. Joyce with the sole goal of blowing up the bridge. Through Peter Taylor's thoughtful film editing, the movie breathlessly alternates between the parallel story lines of the bridge construction and the jungle commando mission until the exciting climax.Lean's accomplishments are many with this memorable film - the authenticity of the Burmese jungle locations (filmed in Sri Lanka), the seamless integration of the two story lines, the masterful handing of the final scenes, and in particular, the gradual metamorphosis of Nicholson from a by-the-book British officer to Saito's willing collaborator. A frequent participant in Lean's films, Alec Guinness gives his career-best performance as Nicholson providing all sorts of unexpected shades to his complex characterization. As Shears, William Holden does what he did best in the 1950's, concurrently exude natural bravado and a conflicted soul and then added a layer of cynicism that dares to challenge the viewer to support him. The 68-year old Sessue Hayakawa came out of retirement to play Saito and delivers a subtle performance of unbending discipline and pained humiliation. Jack Hawkins and Geoffrey Horne lend sturdy support as Warden and Joyce respectively. With the same expert eye he lent to "Summertime", Jack Hildyard provides the superbly expressive and composed cinematography. Michael Wilson and Carl Foreman, both blacklisted at the time, wrote the brilliantly developed screenplay. This is essential viewing.The two-disc 2000 Limited Edition DVD set has a pristine print transfer with great sound making the entire experience feel surprisingly fresh upon viewing. There is a nearly hour-long documentary on Disc Two, "The Making of The Bridge on the River Kwai", produced for the DVD and full of intriguing insight into the production logistics. There are a couple of shorter featurettes produced around the time of the film's original release, the first is a black-and-white teaser for the film itself and the second a rather pedestrian lesson in Film 101 produced by USC grad students and introduced by Holden. Director John Milius provides a respectful tribute to the film in another short.

Collision of Cultures, Saving Face While Engineering a Bridge in the Jungle,under influence of what has come to be known as "the Stockholm Syndrome."

tt0050212

HAVING viewed THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Horizon Pictures/Columbia, 1957) for the first time on the Telly as a 18 year old adolescent, the experience was not nearly as moving or as impressive that it would be some years later. This is due to several diverse, but equally compelling, causes.FIRST of all, it was on Network TV, the American Broadcasting Company Television to be precise. The year was 1966, long before we would have referred to a Movie as 'Film'. Just about every one who had to be content with viewing the edited and commercially interrupted movie on the B & W Admiral, Zenith or Motorola that sat in the 'Fron Troom' (Chicago-ese word for Living Room; see also 'Front Room').BEING so emotionally battered and culturally & economically deprived; one has to wonder how we ever made it through those dark days. (Ya know Schultz, we shoulda rioted!) ALTHOUGH we paid little attention then to Directors, Producers and so forth, we did notice that it was from Columbia, the Stooges Home Studio. We made no connection between the KWAI Project and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Horizon Pictures/Columbia, 1962) which claimed most of the same production team, including director, Sir David Lean.ADDING to this disjointed view of their Cinematic Family Tree was the order in which the two were viewed; the latter film, LAWRENCE, was seen by our gang at the Highland Theatre, near 79th & Ashland Avenue, right here on Chicago's South Side, the "baddest part of town." This gave us a convoluted view of the two films time, not the period they were portraying, but rather of the real time of production and release.NOW THEN, after many years of experience and 'wisdom building', we can state with a great deal of certainty that we can see the relationship of the two, make note of certain similarities in directorial style and overall impact.ALTHOUGH the settings of the two are similar, in that both tell their stories of Warfare in Asia; one (BRIDGE) is a story of a World War II incident (based in fact) set in the Equatorial Rain Forests of Thailand; the other (LAWENCE) being a World War I Biopic taking place in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. The modern countries involved would be Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.IT is obvious that Sir David is fond of War themes that are meticulously rendered and tendered to the screen in a matter-of-fact manner. Lean gives no simplistic characterizations of these World Conflicts and takes no sophomoric stands against the actions taken by the Soldier in the field; those being represented by the Pawn on the Chess board.David LEAN has shown a propensity for working with certain actors in his products; a tendency shared with names such as: Hitchcock, Ford, Capra and many others. Shared and admired talents seem to be a good recipe for success. But there is one screen personality that gets no credits in the cast; yet appears to be one of those that David uses again and again with great success. That would be the great outdoors.WHILE concentrating the action of the story in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI is centered on the interaction, conflict, alliance and eventual mutual respect of Japanese Colonel Saito, Commandant of the Prisoner of War Forced Labor Camp (Mr. Sessile Hayakawa) with the Ranking Allied P.O.W., the British Colonel Nicholson (Sir Alec Guinness). The dynamics of the groups, both Captors and Captives, are determined by the conduct and integrity displayed by their respective Cox's. (That's "Commanding Officers" to you, Schultz) THE COLLISION of not only personalities, but also that of Cultures, provides the motivational engine that moves the story along at a seemingly short 161 minutes running time. We are witness to the Hard Liner Saito and the Proper & BY-the-Book Nicholson being locked in a stalemate of both will and style; with the edge going to Nicholson; Saito being at the disadvantage of needing the aid and cooperation of the Brits in doing his assigned task of completing the construction of the Bridge within a certain period. As Saito explains to Nicholson, he (the Japanese Officer) would be expected to take his own life if he weren't successful.THE SITUATIONS and their resulting outcomes are fine examples of two widely divergent psychological principalities; the first being that of "Saving Face", the other called "The Stockholm Syndrome." IN THE FIRST case, Colonel Saito has taken extreme measures in order to convince ranking Allied Officer, Colonel Nicholson to allow his officers to perform manual labor, in violation of the Articles of the Geneva Convention. After a lengthy stay in the metal "Sweat BOX", the British Officer is taken to the Commandant's hut and told that "….in honor of our (The Japanese) anniversary of victory in Asia, we will not require your officers to perform labor." This is a perfect example of "Saving Face" on Saito's part.SECONDLY, the very intense Colonel Nicholson gets so caught up in constructing a fine bridge, that he loses sight of the reality of which side he is on and finds himself working against the demolition of the wooden structure by Allied Forces; being Jack Hawkins, William Holden and four Thai Women Guides! (Woo, woo, woo, woo!) This is classic "Stockholm Syndrome".DIRECTOR LEAN is not above reusing a plot gimmick. Much in the same manner that Michael Curtiz reprised the gimmick of having contending groups singing opposing songs as in DODGE CITY (Warner Brothers,1939) with "Marching Through Georgia" vs. "Dixie", to CASABLANCA (Warners, 1942) pitting "Watch On The Rhine" (German) vs. "Les Marseilles" (French). Sir David uses not song, but rather in the use of spontaneous outbreaks of mass cheering and congratulations by the enlisted men in both THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.(Four Stars)POODLE SCHNITZ!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-216

ur0850869

title: Collision of Cultures, Saving Face While Engineering a Bridge in the Jungle,under influence of what has come to be known as "the Stockholm Syndrome." review: HAVING viewed THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Horizon Pictures/Columbia, 1957) for the first time on the Telly as a 18 year old adolescent, the experience was not nearly as moving or as impressive that it would be some years later. This is due to several diverse, but equally compelling, causes.FIRST of all, it was on Network TV, the American Broadcasting Company Television to be precise. The year was 1966, long before we would have referred to a Movie as 'Film'. Just about every one who had to be content with viewing the edited and commercially interrupted movie on the B & W Admiral, Zenith or Motorola that sat in the 'Fron Troom' (Chicago-ese word for Living Room; see also 'Front Room').BEING so emotionally battered and culturally & economically deprived; one has to wonder how we ever made it through those dark days. (Ya know Schultz, we shoulda rioted!) ALTHOUGH we paid little attention then to Directors, Producers and so forth, we did notice that it was from Columbia, the Stooges Home Studio. We made no connection between the KWAI Project and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Horizon Pictures/Columbia, 1962) which claimed most of the same production team, including director, Sir David Lean.ADDING to this disjointed view of their Cinematic Family Tree was the order in which the two were viewed; the latter film, LAWRENCE, was seen by our gang at the Highland Theatre, near 79th & Ashland Avenue, right here on Chicago's South Side, the "baddest part of town." This gave us a convoluted view of the two films time, not the period they were portraying, but rather of the real time of production and release.NOW THEN, after many years of experience and 'wisdom building', we can state with a great deal of certainty that we can see the relationship of the two, make note of certain similarities in directorial style and overall impact.ALTHOUGH the settings of the two are similar, in that both tell their stories of Warfare in Asia; one (BRIDGE) is a story of a World War II incident (based in fact) set in the Equatorial Rain Forests of Thailand; the other (LAWENCE) being a World War I Biopic taking place in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. The modern countries involved would be Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.IT is obvious that Sir David is fond of War themes that are meticulously rendered and tendered to the screen in a matter-of-fact manner. Lean gives no simplistic characterizations of these World Conflicts and takes no sophomoric stands against the actions taken by the Soldier in the field; those being represented by the Pawn on the Chess board.David LEAN has shown a propensity for working with certain actors in his products; a tendency shared with names such as: Hitchcock, Ford, Capra and many others. Shared and admired talents seem to be a good recipe for success. But there is one screen personality that gets no credits in the cast; yet appears to be one of those that David uses again and again with great success. That would be the great outdoors.WHILE concentrating the action of the story in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI is centered on the interaction, conflict, alliance and eventual mutual respect of Japanese Colonel Saito, Commandant of the Prisoner of War Forced Labor Camp (Mr. Sessile Hayakawa) with the Ranking Allied P.O.W., the British Colonel Nicholson (Sir Alec Guinness). The dynamics of the groups, both Captors and Captives, are determined by the conduct and integrity displayed by their respective Cox's. (That's "Commanding Officers" to you, Schultz) THE COLLISION of not only personalities, but also that of Cultures, provides the motivational engine that moves the story along at a seemingly short 161 minutes running time. We are witness to the Hard Liner Saito and the Proper & BY-the-Book Nicholson being locked in a stalemate of both will and style; with the edge going to Nicholson; Saito being at the disadvantage of needing the aid and cooperation of the Brits in doing his assigned task of completing the construction of the Bridge within a certain period. As Saito explains to Nicholson, he (the Japanese Officer) would be expected to take his own life if he weren't successful.THE SITUATIONS and their resulting outcomes are fine examples of two widely divergent psychological principalities; the first being that of "Saving Face", the other called "The Stockholm Syndrome." IN THE FIRST case, Colonel Saito has taken extreme measures in order to convince ranking Allied Officer, Colonel Nicholson to allow his officers to perform manual labor, in violation of the Articles of the Geneva Convention. After a lengthy stay in the metal "Sweat BOX", the British Officer is taken to the Commandant's hut and told that "….in honor of our (The Japanese) anniversary of victory in Asia, we will not require your officers to perform labor." This is a perfect example of "Saving Face" on Saito's part.SECONDLY, the very intense Colonel Nicholson gets so caught up in constructing a fine bridge, that he loses sight of the reality of which side he is on and finds himself working against the demolition of the wooden structure by Allied Forces; being Jack Hawkins, William Holden and four Thai Women Guides! (Woo, woo, woo, woo!) This is classic "Stockholm Syndrome".DIRECTOR LEAN is not above reusing a plot gimmick. Much in the same manner that Michael Curtiz reprised the gimmick of having contending groups singing opposing songs as in DODGE CITY (Warner Brothers,1939) with "Marching Through Georgia" vs. "Dixie", to CASABLANCA (Warners, 1942) pitting "Watch On The Rhine" (German) vs. "Les Marseilles" (French). Sir David uses not song, but rather in the use of spontaneous outbreaks of mass cheering and congratulations by the enlisted men in both THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.(Four Stars)POODLE SCHNITZ!!

Madness, Madness.

tt0050212

Truly one of the best acted movies of all time. Do yourself a favor and see this film. Although this movie was made before I was born, I became completely enchanted with it the first time I saw it. It made me a fan of William Holden, which opened me up to many other great Holden movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-31

ur0638297

title: Madness, Madness. review: Truly one of the best acted movies of all time. Do yourself a favor and see this film. Although this movie was made before I was born, I became completely enchanted with it the first time I saw it. It made me a fan of William Holden, which opened me up to many other great Holden movies.

A Fantastic War Epic

tt0050212

The film deals with the situation of British prisoners of war during World War II who are ordered to build a bridge to accommodate the Burma-Siam railway. Their instinct is to sabotage the bridge but, under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, they are persuaded that the bridge should be constructed as a symbol of British morale, spirit and dignity in adverse circumstances. At first, the prisoners admire Nicholson when he bravely endures torture rather than compromise his principles for the benefit of the Japanese commandant Saito. He is an honorable but arrogant man, who is slowly revealed to be a deluded obsessive. He convinces himself that the bridge is a monument to British character, but actually is a monument to himself, and his insistence on its construction becomes a subtle form of collaboration with the enemy. Unknown to him, the Allies have sent a mission into the jungle, led by Warden and an American, Shears, to blow up the bridge.If anyone who knows me, I'm reluctant to see classic films. I just don't like old films but I was quite interested to see this film. The script is fantastic! I'm surprised that the movie was gripping and filled with suspense and humor.What I like about the movie is that you wouldn't know who is the villain. The so called "hero" will act as a villain in some point in the film and the so called "villain" will act as if he's a hero. I liked the realism of the movie. It's more of what the payoff of the movie is.Everything builds up until the end and I would like to say it's great with the climax. The whole scenery in the movie is great, as well as the cinematography. The score is brilliantly made and is very memorable until this day.The performances are Oscar-worthy. Sometimes one actor leaves the spot light for another actor to give his great performance. I liked the acting by William Holden and certainly Alec Guinness. Sessue Hayakawa's acting was also good, giving a strong realistic performance.This movie was great from the beginning to the end, although I find some scenes unnecessary because it's a long, long movie. With great and solid performances and a fantastic script and score, this is one masterpiece no one should miss!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-187

ur8334868

title: A Fantastic War Epic review: The film deals with the situation of British prisoners of war during World War II who are ordered to build a bridge to accommodate the Burma-Siam railway. Their instinct is to sabotage the bridge but, under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, they are persuaded that the bridge should be constructed as a symbol of British morale, spirit and dignity in adverse circumstances. At first, the prisoners admire Nicholson when he bravely endures torture rather than compromise his principles for the benefit of the Japanese commandant Saito. He is an honorable but arrogant man, who is slowly revealed to be a deluded obsessive. He convinces himself that the bridge is a monument to British character, but actually is a monument to himself, and his insistence on its construction becomes a subtle form of collaboration with the enemy. Unknown to him, the Allies have sent a mission into the jungle, led by Warden and an American, Shears, to blow up the bridge.If anyone who knows me, I'm reluctant to see classic films. I just don't like old films but I was quite interested to see this film. The script is fantastic! I'm surprised that the movie was gripping and filled with suspense and humor.What I like about the movie is that you wouldn't know who is the villain. The so called "hero" will act as a villain in some point in the film and the so called "villain" will act as if he's a hero. I liked the realism of the movie. It's more of what the payoff of the movie is.Everything builds up until the end and I would like to say it's great with the climax. The whole scenery in the movie is great, as well as the cinematography. The score is brilliantly made and is very memorable until this day.The performances are Oscar-worthy. Sometimes one actor leaves the spot light for another actor to give his great performance. I liked the acting by William Holden and certainly Alec Guinness. Sessue Hayakawa's acting was also good, giving a strong realistic performance.This movie was great from the beginning to the end, although I find some scenes unnecessary because it's a long, long movie. With great and solid performances and a fantastic script and score, this is one masterpiece no one should miss!

A Flawless Piece of Cinema History!

tt0050212

The Bridge on River Kwai is another example of great filmmaking from the Golden Age of Cinema. I shouldn't be surprised with the pedigree of the cast and that the director is the renowned David Lean. The film may approach three hours, but it a work of legacy and one of the greatest war films ever made. This film features underlying drama and some spectacular battle scenes towards the end. Also the ruthless treatment of the POW camp towards the British colonel was hard to watch, but it was fitting towards how the Axis powers actually treated the Allies. David Lean's film is about a British colonel named Nicholson who he and his men were captured by the Japanese. After enduring endless amounts of torture, Nicholson is able to convince the commander of the camp, Saito to allow him to help design the bridge they are tasked to building. However, the Allies hatch a plot, whom Nicholson is completely oblivious of, to destroy the bridge. If you want fine acting, you have come to the right place. Alec Guinness truly absorbs himself into the role of Nicholson and we see his acting ability fly high as Nicholson endures Japanese brutality to convince them to do what he wants. Sessue Hayakawa as Saito was indeed very good in his role as we see personal greed overcome his character. William Holden was excellent and does not hold back as the sarcastic American soldier, Shears. We also get a strong performance from Jack Hawkins as Major Warden, the man who knows his explosives. Overall, The Bridge on River Kwai is probably one of the top ten films ever made. Any young person should view this film, as this epic holds up very well. It may be historical fiction, but it does have its place in history. This is the kind of film David Lean knows how to make, just like his other films like Lawrence of Arabia. Those who watch this film for the first time will be rewarded with such rich cinema Everything about the film: the acting, directing, cinematography, score, and plot just screams perfection. One of the greatest war films ever made. My Grade: A+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-292

ur17646017

title: A Flawless Piece of Cinema History! review: The Bridge on River Kwai is another example of great filmmaking from the Golden Age of Cinema. I shouldn't be surprised with the pedigree of the cast and that the director is the renowned David Lean. The film may approach three hours, but it a work of legacy and one of the greatest war films ever made. This film features underlying drama and some spectacular battle scenes towards the end. Also the ruthless treatment of the POW camp towards the British colonel was hard to watch, but it was fitting towards how the Axis powers actually treated the Allies. David Lean's film is about a British colonel named Nicholson who he and his men were captured by the Japanese. After enduring endless amounts of torture, Nicholson is able to convince the commander of the camp, Saito to allow him to help design the bridge they are tasked to building. However, the Allies hatch a plot, whom Nicholson is completely oblivious of, to destroy the bridge. If you want fine acting, you have come to the right place. Alec Guinness truly absorbs himself into the role of Nicholson and we see his acting ability fly high as Nicholson endures Japanese brutality to convince them to do what he wants. Sessue Hayakawa as Saito was indeed very good in his role as we see personal greed overcome his character. William Holden was excellent and does not hold back as the sarcastic American soldier, Shears. We also get a strong performance from Jack Hawkins as Major Warden, the man who knows his explosives. Overall, The Bridge on River Kwai is probably one of the top ten films ever made. Any young person should view this film, as this epic holds up very well. It may be historical fiction, but it does have its place in history. This is the kind of film David Lean knows how to make, just like his other films like Lawrence of Arabia. Those who watch this film for the first time will be rewarded with such rich cinema Everything about the film: the acting, directing, cinematography, score, and plot just screams perfection. One of the greatest war films ever made. My Grade: A+

Deeper and better than may at first appear

tt0050212

This is an awesome film.I am not sure I will find many words to express this, but this film is really special and plays out in a manner I did not expect it to.Contrary to almost every other World War II movie, there is an uncanny realism and variation to everything, especially the people.This is probably because it is not a movie about the war or being in a prison camp, despite that being the background for it.This movie is about the characters and what drives them. And to show that properly you get some superb acting.I was a bit disappointed by the excessive use of the forever fake-looking day-for-night technique (though it was more day-for-dusk). It must have been a bane of movies back then like CGI is today. Other than that the movie looked pretty good.Nice film, holds up well and so highly recommended.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-284

ur5727872

title: Deeper and better than may at first appear review: This is an awesome film.I am not sure I will find many words to express this, but this film is really special and plays out in a manner I did not expect it to.Contrary to almost every other World War II movie, there is an uncanny realism and variation to everything, especially the people.This is probably because it is not a movie about the war or being in a prison camp, despite that being the background for it.This movie is about the characters and what drives them. And to show that properly you get some superb acting.I was a bit disappointed by the excessive use of the forever fake-looking day-for-night technique (though it was more day-for-dusk). It must have been a bane of movies back then like CGI is today. Other than that the movie looked pretty good.Nice film, holds up well and so highly recommended.

David Lean's first great epic.

tt0050212

Seems that the only reason why some people don't seem to like this movie is because it isn't being historically accurate. This movie however never claimed to tell a true story or that it's being based on actual events. It's merely a fictional story and movie based on historical events and also real life characters but done in its own way and of course told in an Hollywood fashion. But even though this movie might not be an historically accurate one, it's still one that works out highly realistic.I must say that this is probably one of the movies that does the best job at showing what life as a POW must have been like. Many movies tried to capture this but a very few actually succeeded as well with it as this movie did. The movie manages to create a great atmosphere of despair, fear but also courage and honor. The movie is dealing with a lot of inner conflicts that live within most of these people who had to endure a prison camp and hard labor. Most of these conflicts get personified by only an handful of characters, which in my opinion is one of the movie its strong points. It could had easily dwelled on and inserted many more different characters, mostly purely for dramatic reasons but instead it decides to focus mostly on only just a few key players, from all different sides as well. It keeps the movie more personal and all of its emotions and reactions more effective and understandable.But what also makes the movie so great and intriguing is the fact that it isn't just being a melodramatic movie. Actually the movie has a more positive vibe to it than you might expect from a movie like this. Despite the premise, it's still mostly a movie about hope and trying to make a difference and do the right thing in given circumstances. It's a movie that despite everything also works out as entertainment. It's not always an heavy movie but also one that gets fun and pleasant to watch. In a way you could say that this is one of those first adventurous and entertaining WW II movies some got successfully made off, in mostly the '60's.It's a movie that actually combines a lot of elements. It consists out of many genres and it also has some different story takes in it. But it does this all very seamlessly, so it doesn't ever distract or takes you out of the movie. The movie feels as one great whole, that despite its long running time, always flows very well. It's due to David Lean fine directing and storytelling skills. He was a director who knew how to directed epic movies and big stories. This also was the first movie that earned him an Oscar as a director.This movie actually won 7 Oscar's in total, which not a whole lot of movies can say. It tells you something about the epic quality and impact of this movie.It's a movie that for a large part also relies on its characters and actors playing them. It's perhaps Alec Guinness his most acclaimed movie role out of his career and it also won him his only Oscar. He definitely also plays the best or at least most interest character out of the entire movie, as an officer gentleman who does things literally by the book and all for the greater good and well being of his men and officers. Despite this William Holden always got billed as main actor, simply because he was a much bigger name at the time, that also appealed to a wider, mostly American, audience.It's also a great looking movie, that got shot at location, which obviously add to the realistic look and feel of the movie. The directing and cinematography all take an epic approach, also due to the fact that this was cinemascope movie, that simply required a wider and more epic look. David Lean is mostly known for his epic movies but this was actually his first really epic one and he really didn't directed that many movies throughout his career.Simply a great and unique, timeless epic.9/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-240

ur1416505

title: David Lean's first great epic. review: Seems that the only reason why some people don't seem to like this movie is because it isn't being historically accurate. This movie however never claimed to tell a true story or that it's being based on actual events. It's merely a fictional story and movie based on historical events and also real life characters but done in its own way and of course told in an Hollywood fashion. But even though this movie might not be an historically accurate one, it's still one that works out highly realistic.I must say that this is probably one of the movies that does the best job at showing what life as a POW must have been like. Many movies tried to capture this but a very few actually succeeded as well with it as this movie did. The movie manages to create a great atmosphere of despair, fear but also courage and honor. The movie is dealing with a lot of inner conflicts that live within most of these people who had to endure a prison camp and hard labor. Most of these conflicts get personified by only an handful of characters, which in my opinion is one of the movie its strong points. It could had easily dwelled on and inserted many more different characters, mostly purely for dramatic reasons but instead it decides to focus mostly on only just a few key players, from all different sides as well. It keeps the movie more personal and all of its emotions and reactions more effective and understandable.But what also makes the movie so great and intriguing is the fact that it isn't just being a melodramatic movie. Actually the movie has a more positive vibe to it than you might expect from a movie like this. Despite the premise, it's still mostly a movie about hope and trying to make a difference and do the right thing in given circumstances. It's a movie that despite everything also works out as entertainment. It's not always an heavy movie but also one that gets fun and pleasant to watch. In a way you could say that this is one of those first adventurous and entertaining WW II movies some got successfully made off, in mostly the '60's.It's a movie that actually combines a lot of elements. It consists out of many genres and it also has some different story takes in it. But it does this all very seamlessly, so it doesn't ever distract or takes you out of the movie. The movie feels as one great whole, that despite its long running time, always flows very well. It's due to David Lean fine directing and storytelling skills. He was a director who knew how to directed epic movies and big stories. This also was the first movie that earned him an Oscar as a director.This movie actually won 7 Oscar's in total, which not a whole lot of movies can say. It tells you something about the epic quality and impact of this movie.It's a movie that for a large part also relies on its characters and actors playing them. It's perhaps Alec Guinness his most acclaimed movie role out of his career and it also won him his only Oscar. He definitely also plays the best or at least most interest character out of the entire movie, as an officer gentleman who does things literally by the book and all for the greater good and well being of his men and officers. Despite this William Holden always got billed as main actor, simply because he was a much bigger name at the time, that also appealed to a wider, mostly American, audience.It's also a great looking movie, that got shot at location, which obviously add to the realistic look and feel of the movie. The directing and cinematography all take an epic approach, also due to the fact that this was cinemascope movie, that simply required a wider and more epic look. David Lean is mostly known for his epic movies but this was actually his first really epic one and he really didn't directed that many movies throughout his career.Simply a great and unique, timeless epic.9/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The best performances of both William Holden and Alec Guinness

tt0050212

David Lean's masterpiece form the year 1957 The Bridge on the River Kwai is an epic WWII treasure to cinema. With both William Holden and Alec Guinness giving their finest performances yet, Based on a true story , this movie was a total great that can be watched over and over again. the movie compares to history movie classics like Schindler's List, Malcolm X, Spartacus, and Gladiator. Director David Lean really worked his heart out in order to make into an Oscar winning success which is why he won his first Oscar for directing this movie in the very first place. I would recommend this movie for all people that are into any period pieces like this one that will stay with you for a very long time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-281

ur33697153

title: The best performances of both William Holden and Alec Guinness review: David Lean's masterpiece form the year 1957 The Bridge on the River Kwai is an epic WWII treasure to cinema. With both William Holden and Alec Guinness giving their finest performances yet, Based on a true story , this movie was a total great that can be watched over and over again. the movie compares to history movie classics like Schindler's List, Malcolm X, Spartacus, and Gladiator. Director David Lean really worked his heart out in order to make into an Oscar winning success which is why he won his first Oscar for directing this movie in the very first place. I would recommend this movie for all people that are into any period pieces like this one that will stay with you for a very long time.

" All that effort and loss of life, madness, simply madness "

tt0050212

When this film appeared, in 1957, it naturally garnered many an award and much personal acclaim for director David Lean. The story itself, originally written by none other than noted French writer Pierre Boulle, who wrote the book, Planet of the Apes, was pleased with the finished project. The story is very loosely based on the actual construction endeavor, called building the Kwai bridge, is herein incorporated to include the British prisoner of war camp, run by the Japanese during World War Two. A culturally traditional, hard-nose commandant, one Col. Saito (internationally acclaimed Japanese actor Sessue Hayakawa) has been given the task of constructing a railroad bridge over the river Kwai and is further ordered to have it completed by a given date. Failure is not an option. To his camp arrives an equally stubborn and somewhat arrogant British officer, one Col. Nicholson, (Alec Guinness) with several hundred POW soldiers. Already in the camp is a small detachment of American and allied soldiers who have been assailed and threatened to build the bridge. Among them is, Commander Shears (William Holden) an American POW who manages to escape the hell hole and makes it safely to a British base. Though Saito and Nicholson begin a battle of wits as to who is in command of the camp and its men, Shears is confronted by another British officer, Maj. Warden (Jack Hawkings) who asks him to return to the site of the bridge, to help him blow it up! James Donald plays Maj. Clipton, a British medical officer who watches as the various conflicting officers strive to give logic to insane goals. Every audience who views this movie, has to decided for themselves who among the officers, makes any sense to a mad-cap project. The film should be a testament to the insanity of every war. ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-213

ur3902771

title: " All that effort and loss of life, madness, simply madness " review: When this film appeared, in 1957, it naturally garnered many an award and much personal acclaim for director David Lean. The story itself, originally written by none other than noted French writer Pierre Boulle, who wrote the book, Planet of the Apes, was pleased with the finished project. The story is very loosely based on the actual construction endeavor, called building the Kwai bridge, is herein incorporated to include the British prisoner of war camp, run by the Japanese during World War Two. A culturally traditional, hard-nose commandant, one Col. Saito (internationally acclaimed Japanese actor Sessue Hayakawa) has been given the task of constructing a railroad bridge over the river Kwai and is further ordered to have it completed by a given date. Failure is not an option. To his camp arrives an equally stubborn and somewhat arrogant British officer, one Col. Nicholson, (Alec Guinness) with several hundred POW soldiers. Already in the camp is a small detachment of American and allied soldiers who have been assailed and threatened to build the bridge. Among them is, Commander Shears (William Holden) an American POW who manages to escape the hell hole and makes it safely to a British base. Though Saito and Nicholson begin a battle of wits as to who is in command of the camp and its men, Shears is confronted by another British officer, Maj. Warden (Jack Hawkings) who asks him to return to the site of the bridge, to help him blow it up! James Donald plays Maj. Clipton, a British medical officer who watches as the various conflicting officers strive to give logic to insane goals. Every audience who views this movie, has to decided for themselves who among the officers, makes any sense to a mad-cap project. The film should be a testament to the insanity of every war. ****

Has the world gone mad?

tt0050212

8.5 / 10 IMDb points? 66.th best IMDb movie? Many reviewers' favourite movie of all times bar none? Has the world gone quite mad? To me it's a highly forgettable movie. I'm not really addressing those lost souls who actually enjoyed this, to quote Bill Hicks, p. o. s. film, but to warn those impressionable souls who still haven't seen it: beware! Beware this p. o. s. film!As for the plot, this movie falls roughly into two halves; in the first we follow a contingent of British soldiers in Japanese captivity in Burma during World War II (the one with the funny mustaches). When the dastardly Saito orders the officers to work alongside their regulars -- a breach of the Geneva Convention -- he is faced off by the impeccable colonel Nicholson. Eventually Saito gives in and the British soldiers build him a magnificent railway bridge.In the second half of the movie we follow an American soldier, Shears, who has managed to escape from Saito's jungle camp. Against his will he is sent back on a secret mission to blow up that very bridge.At the climax, two men are pitched against each other: Nicholson, to whom the bridge is a symbol of his perseverance and supremacy, and the American, who has gone through hell and back to destroy it and do damage to the Japs.My major problem with the movie is that colonel Nicholson is obviously a complete idiot. His nemesis Saito may be an evil sadist, but at least he has a weak and human side as well. He is a pudgy little fellow who's been to art school, but now has to make do as a CO. My heart went out to him, whereas I fail to see how anyone can sympathise with the blimpish Nicholson.It's only after the bridge has been completed that a single officer mildly questions the wisdom of building the most magnificent bridge of all times for the Japanese, who are, after all, not exactly their allies. And I never saw what was so unethical about officers working alongside their troops in the first place.Apart from that, it's a pretty conventional, John-Wayne-style war movie. The enemy is inscrutable and evil, Asian women are almond-eyed, servile foxes, the soldiers are undyingly loyal and war is hell but fun (in a rough, it's-a-man's-world sort of way). The production is excellent but overall it's a very dated movie. I'm surprised how anyone would consider this a classic rather than just an old movie. Its only benefit is that it allowed director David Lean to make Lawrence Of Arabia.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050212/reviews-214

ur1061889

title: Has the world gone mad? review: 8.5 / 10 IMDb points? 66.th best IMDb movie? Many reviewers' favourite movie of all times bar none? Has the world gone quite mad? To me it's a highly forgettable movie. I'm not really addressing those lost souls who actually enjoyed this, to quote Bill Hicks, p. o. s. film, but to warn those impressionable souls who still haven't seen it: beware! Beware this p. o. s. film!As for the plot, this movie falls roughly into two halves; in the first we follow a contingent of British soldiers in Japanese captivity in Burma during World War II (the one with the funny mustaches). When the dastardly Saito orders the officers to work alongside their regulars -- a breach of the Geneva Convention -- he is faced off by the impeccable colonel Nicholson. Eventually Saito gives in and the British soldiers build him a magnificent railway bridge.In the second half of the movie we follow an American soldier, Shears, who has managed to escape from Saito's jungle camp. Against his will he is sent back on a secret mission to blow up that very bridge.At the climax, two men are pitched against each other: Nicholson, to whom the bridge is a symbol of his perseverance and supremacy, and the American, who has gone through hell and back to destroy it and do damage to the Japs.My major problem with the movie is that colonel Nicholson is obviously a complete idiot. His nemesis Saito may be an evil sadist, but at least he has a weak and human side as well. He is a pudgy little fellow who's been to art school, but now has to make do as a CO. My heart went out to him, whereas I fail to see how anyone can sympathise with the blimpish Nicholson.It's only after the bridge has been completed that a single officer mildly questions the wisdom of building the most magnificent bridge of all times for the Japanese, who are, after all, not exactly their allies. And I never saw what was so unethical about officers working alongside their troops in the first place.Apart from that, it's a pretty conventional, John-Wayne-style war movie. The enemy is inscrutable and evil, Asian women are almond-eyed, servile foxes, the soldiers are undyingly loyal and war is hell but fun (in a rough, it's-a-man's-world sort of way). The production is excellent but overall it's a very dated movie. I'm surprised how anyone would consider this a classic rather than just an old movie. Its only benefit is that it allowed director David Lean to make Lawrence Of Arabia.

Growing Up and Growing Apart

tt0381681

An achingly beautiful sequel to "Before Sunrise," Richard Linklater's film about a man and woman who meet in Paris and spend a week falling in love.In this film, the two are reuniting after ten years, and it's full of the honest emotions that would attend such a reunion. Both are scared that their memories of what they connected to so much in the other won't be accurate, and that a moment that has been fixed in both their lives like a shining diamond will be tarnished."Before Sunset" pulses with the melancholy inherent in growing up and maturing. You don't necessarily regret how your life has changed, but that doesn't mean you don't look back with fondness at moments that seemed beautiful in their simplicity.Grade: A+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-435

ur4532636

title: Growing Up and Growing Apart review: An achingly beautiful sequel to "Before Sunrise," Richard Linklater's film about a man and woman who meet in Paris and spend a week falling in love.In this film, the two are reuniting after ten years, and it's full of the honest emotions that would attend such a reunion. Both are scared that their memories of what they connected to so much in the other won't be accurate, and that a moment that has been fixed in both their lives like a shining diamond will be tarnished."Before Sunset" pulses with the melancholy inherent in growing up and maturing. You don't necessarily regret how your life has changed, but that doesn't mean you don't look back with fondness at moments that seemed beautiful in their simplicity.Grade: A+

My words below will never do justice to this film

tt0381681

Before Sunset is movie so genuine and true to the heart, where two people fall deeply in love without even expressing the words "I love you" or even sharing a mere kiss on screen.I have never seen two people interact like those two in "real life" or in any other movie. The connection they shared was equally possible as it was unrealistic, but it was in simplest terms a miracle.Even though I haven't witnessed such a miracle, I believe in it, as rare as it is.But, in this life, there are no happy endings, and it's only the path we take to our miserable end which has potential for "happiness." Without any reference to statistics and with no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone who might be "in love", 99% of the world does not experience this kind of love. Unfortunately for many, the love in this movie is "true love", which in effect means if you are not experiencing this kind of love, you are not experiencing true love.The characters do, suggestively, end in a miserable end. But the moments they share is when they experience the greatest happiness known to man.Do yourself and the world a favour and watch and fall in love with this movie. Because I can guarantee that even if I don't find true love with a woman, I can be sure I felt it by witnessing the pure magic in the gem.The only movie ever to bring me to tears! It had a profound affect on me when I watched it and still does. The original is almost as good, but this one had something extra in it to bring me to tears.If you don't understand even one part of what I'm talking about after you watched this miracle, then unfortunately you have zero chance of experiencing true love.This may me my favourite movie of all time!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-440

ur16666241

title: My words below will never do justice to this film review: Before Sunset is movie so genuine and true to the heart, where two people fall deeply in love without even expressing the words "I love you" or even sharing a mere kiss on screen.I have never seen two people interact like those two in "real life" or in any other movie. The connection they shared was equally possible as it was unrealistic, but it was in simplest terms a miracle.Even though I haven't witnessed such a miracle, I believe in it, as rare as it is.But, in this life, there are no happy endings, and it's only the path we take to our miserable end which has potential for "happiness." Without any reference to statistics and with no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone who might be "in love", 99% of the world does not experience this kind of love. Unfortunately for many, the love in this movie is "true love", which in effect means if you are not experiencing this kind of love, you are not experiencing true love.The characters do, suggestively, end in a miserable end. But the moments they share is when they experience the greatest happiness known to man.Do yourself and the world a favour and watch and fall in love with this movie. Because I can guarantee that even if I don't find true love with a woman, I can be sure I felt it by witnessing the pure magic in the gem.The only movie ever to bring me to tears! It had a profound affect on me when I watched it and still does. The original is almost as good, but this one had something extra in it to bring me to tears.If you don't understand even one part of what I'm talking about after you watched this miracle, then unfortunately you have zero chance of experiencing true love.This may me my favourite movie of all time!

Before Sunset makes you feel like you have known these characters all your life.

tt0381681

Nine years after Jesse and Celine first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour. Early thirty- something American Jesse Wallace is in a Paris bookstore, the last stop on a tour to promote his best-selling book, This Time. Although he is vague to reporters about the source material for the book, it is about his chance encounter nine years earlier on June 15-16, 1994 with a Parisienne named Celine, and the memorable and romantic day and evening they spent together in Vienna. At the end of their encounter at the Vienna train station, which is also how the book ends, they, not providing contact information to the other, vowed to meet each other again in exactly six months at that very spot. As the media scrum at the bookstore nears its conclusion, Jesse spots Celine in the crowd, she who only found out about the book when she earlier saw his photograph promoting this public appearance. Much like their previous encounter, Jesse and Celine, who is now an environmental activist, decide to spend time together until he is supposed to catch his flight back to New York. Roger Ebert wrote, "Before Sunrise was a remarkable celebration of the fascination of good dialogue. But Before Sunset is better, perhaps because the characters are older and wiser, perhaps because they have more to lose (or win), and perhaps because Hawke and Delpy wrote the dialogue themselves." In this follow up to Before Sunrise, we are once again treated to this terrific dialogue that inhabits the Before trilogy. I have to say I found Before Sunset to be an extremely interesting, fascinating and intriguing movie but why is this? Essentially it is just two people reuniting and talking. There is no action or violence in this movie; Jesse and Celine are just walking around and experiencing the views and scenery during the duration of the movie. So what makes this movie so great? Well I will tell you why, Before Sunset makes you feel like you have known these characters all your life and that is the essential component to great storytelling.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-513

ur26897720

title: Before Sunset makes you feel like you have known these characters all your life. review: Nine years after Jesse and Celine first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour. Early thirty- something American Jesse Wallace is in a Paris bookstore, the last stop on a tour to promote his best-selling book, This Time. Although he is vague to reporters about the source material for the book, it is about his chance encounter nine years earlier on June 15-16, 1994 with a Parisienne named Celine, and the memorable and romantic day and evening they spent together in Vienna. At the end of their encounter at the Vienna train station, which is also how the book ends, they, not providing contact information to the other, vowed to meet each other again in exactly six months at that very spot. As the media scrum at the bookstore nears its conclusion, Jesse spots Celine in the crowd, she who only found out about the book when she earlier saw his photograph promoting this public appearance. Much like their previous encounter, Jesse and Celine, who is now an environmental activist, decide to spend time together until he is supposed to catch his flight back to New York. Roger Ebert wrote, "Before Sunrise was a remarkable celebration of the fascination of good dialogue. But Before Sunset is better, perhaps because the characters are older and wiser, perhaps because they have more to lose (or win), and perhaps because Hawke and Delpy wrote the dialogue themselves." In this follow up to Before Sunrise, we are once again treated to this terrific dialogue that inhabits the Before trilogy. I have to say I found Before Sunset to be an extremely interesting, fascinating and intriguing movie but why is this? Essentially it is just two people reuniting and talking. There is no action or violence in this movie; Jesse and Celine are just walking around and experiencing the views and scenery during the duration of the movie. So what makes this movie so great? Well I will tell you why, Before Sunset makes you feel like you have known these characters all your life and that is the essential component to great storytelling.

Stunning - another snapshot of life in your 30s

tt0381681

Loved the first film and this second film was just as good. Surprisingly short, yet shot in 'real time', the acting is strong and the script is a magnificent piece of work.Some may feel that this was more mature than the first film, but in ways, that's how it should be. The film is completely about two characters and the world around them is passingly incidental. However, years have gone by and they are now in their 30s, dealing with concepts of marriages and relationships that are running into difficulties and pondering questions of faithfulness to practicality vs daring pursuit of happiness... and perhaps fate.Could not take my eyes off the film and the ending hits the mark perfectly. I particularly loved how the performances were top notch and natural, nothing went 'over the top' and the dialogue captures the spirit of the first film without trying hard to reproduce or 'go own better'. Highly recommended and this "Before..." series is magic and moving, as is the scenery and direction. Surprised that it's an American production. Can't wait to see the final installment and Boyhood.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-524

ur5347756

title: Stunning - another snapshot of life in your 30s review: Loved the first film and this second film was just as good. Surprisingly short, yet shot in 'real time', the acting is strong and the script is a magnificent piece of work.Some may feel that this was more mature than the first film, but in ways, that's how it should be. The film is completely about two characters and the world around them is passingly incidental. However, years have gone by and they are now in their 30s, dealing with concepts of marriages and relationships that are running into difficulties and pondering questions of faithfulness to practicality vs daring pursuit of happiness... and perhaps fate.Could not take my eyes off the film and the ending hits the mark perfectly. I particularly loved how the performances were top notch and natural, nothing went 'over the top' and the dialogue captures the spirit of the first film without trying hard to reproduce or 'go own better'. Highly recommended and this "Before..." series is magic and moving, as is the scenery and direction. Surprised that it's an American production. Can't wait to see the final installment and Boyhood.

It all happens again...

tt0381681

It's true that when we are watching a romantic movie we're always expecting something. I don't know how to call it. Maybe the name has been said sometimes. I mean endings like the ones in "Nothing Hill", "How to loose a guy in ten days". Cheesy maybe? I really can't tell. But there's a thing that people who make these films like to do (and it works). They manipulate a little bit things just to end them that way. It is lovely to see those endings. But what if they couldn't be, right? What if we could have the chance to watch something real? "Before Sunset" gives us that chance.We know the story and what has happened to the characters. Even if we haven't seen it, we suppose it, because it is really obvious. They show it with their actions, with of course, are normal actions. What would someone do in the situation this two persons are involved? Not anything different to what they're doing. Sitting down on a "café", talking a little bit, maybe a lot. Nine years have since the last time they saw each other, and they were in love. The thing is that they could have not felt "love" again. They planned to see each other in Vienna after they said goodbye. Celine couldn't go: "It was my grandmother's funeral", she says. And asks Jesse if he was there. He says he wasn't, but five minutes later he takes it back. He was in Vienna, and put posters around the city, to find Celine, because she could have arrived later. These types of things are happening to them in their encounter. They don't say things because they don't want to offend, or be offended. But they know those things. They tell the truth, they lie. They don't know how to act because they have probably thought this would happen again and they are probably in love. Jesse has written a book that tells the night they spent together nine years before. Celine has read it and tells him: "You idealized that night. We didn't make love". Jesse can't believe it. He's sure they did: "It was in the park, at night". Celine says they didn't do it because they didn't use a condom. Jesse remembers the condom, and tells her. They feel embarrassed, but the truth right there is, that Celine remembers the night perfectly, and she was wrote a song. A waltz. She plays the song for Jesse in an occasion and he is convinced that she wrote it for him: "Do you play that song for every guy that comes here and say his name?", he asks. She says: "Of course, did you think that I had written that song for you?". The truth, again, is that she has really written it for him. Many of these situations occur as the day passes by, and they're walking and walking, and talking. Talking real words written on a real script about real people. They tell each other what they have been doing, their jobs, romances...Jesse is married, but he can't be sure of being in love. He sees the love he has for his wife as respect, admiration, and his kid. He has a son, and loves him, so? It doesn't really matter for him if he's in love with his wife or not. He even tells Celine in an occasion, the dreams he has every night, about her: "In one there's a train. You're in there and you keep passing by. In the other one, we're lying in bed, you're pregnant, I want to touch you, you don't let me, but then I touch you and I wake up sweating". Celine asks him later: "Did you really dream that or you just said it to have sex with me?". Jesse answers: "No no, I just said to get into your pants". But darn! He has really dreamed it! The truth is that they can't do much about these situations, there's little time, and Jesse's leaving.Ethan Hawke makes his character perfectly. It all comes naturally from him, he doesn't need to make an effort. Even the laughs, which can seem forced (or I wanted to see it that way), come off naturally also. He enjoys working with Delpy, they have chemistry. And Julie Delpy is one of those fighters. She wrote this script, and she really want it to do this film, she just acts with passion. It shows.Then there's the passionate Richard Linlklater. I haven't seen all of his works, but the movies I have seen, well, are directed with that passion. The kind of passion that shows the director really wants to do what he's doing. This movie is so personal for him, that he makes it personal. His camera, in some occasions, seems to be following the characters from behind, when they are walking, joining them; as if it was walking too. Then the camera moves, not much, showing the characters from all the angles, and letting us see their emotions. They're two characters only. It's fantastic, and intimate.In one occasion, Celine and Jesse are talking (because they're always talking, amazing) about what would they do if the day they're living was the last one of their lives. They should really think about it. Because it could be their last day. Or not.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-205

ur4751428

title: It all happens again... review: It's true that when we are watching a romantic movie we're always expecting something. I don't know how to call it. Maybe the name has been said sometimes. I mean endings like the ones in "Nothing Hill", "How to loose a guy in ten days". Cheesy maybe? I really can't tell. But there's a thing that people who make these films like to do (and it works). They manipulate a little bit things just to end them that way. It is lovely to see those endings. But what if they couldn't be, right? What if we could have the chance to watch something real? "Before Sunset" gives us that chance.We know the story and what has happened to the characters. Even if we haven't seen it, we suppose it, because it is really obvious. They show it with their actions, with of course, are normal actions. What would someone do in the situation this two persons are involved? Not anything different to what they're doing. Sitting down on a "café", talking a little bit, maybe a lot. Nine years have since the last time they saw each other, and they were in love. The thing is that they could have not felt "love" again. They planned to see each other in Vienna after they said goodbye. Celine couldn't go: "It was my grandmother's funeral", she says. And asks Jesse if he was there. He says he wasn't, but five minutes later he takes it back. He was in Vienna, and put posters around the city, to find Celine, because she could have arrived later. These types of things are happening to them in their encounter. They don't say things because they don't want to offend, or be offended. But they know those things. They tell the truth, they lie. They don't know how to act because they have probably thought this would happen again and they are probably in love. Jesse has written a book that tells the night they spent together nine years before. Celine has read it and tells him: "You idealized that night. We didn't make love". Jesse can't believe it. He's sure they did: "It was in the park, at night". Celine says they didn't do it because they didn't use a condom. Jesse remembers the condom, and tells her. They feel embarrassed, but the truth right there is, that Celine remembers the night perfectly, and she was wrote a song. A waltz. She plays the song for Jesse in an occasion and he is convinced that she wrote it for him: "Do you play that song for every guy that comes here and say his name?", he asks. She says: "Of course, did you think that I had written that song for you?". The truth, again, is that she has really written it for him. Many of these situations occur as the day passes by, and they're walking and walking, and talking. Talking real words written on a real script about real people. They tell each other what they have been doing, their jobs, romances...Jesse is married, but he can't be sure of being in love. He sees the love he has for his wife as respect, admiration, and his kid. He has a son, and loves him, so? It doesn't really matter for him if he's in love with his wife or not. He even tells Celine in an occasion, the dreams he has every night, about her: "In one there's a train. You're in there and you keep passing by. In the other one, we're lying in bed, you're pregnant, I want to touch you, you don't let me, but then I touch you and I wake up sweating". Celine asks him later: "Did you really dream that or you just said it to have sex with me?". Jesse answers: "No no, I just said to get into your pants". But darn! He has really dreamed it! The truth is that they can't do much about these situations, there's little time, and Jesse's leaving.Ethan Hawke makes his character perfectly. It all comes naturally from him, he doesn't need to make an effort. Even the laughs, which can seem forced (or I wanted to see it that way), come off naturally also. He enjoys working with Delpy, they have chemistry. And Julie Delpy is one of those fighters. She wrote this script, and she really want it to do this film, she just acts with passion. It shows.Then there's the passionate Richard Linlklater. I haven't seen all of his works, but the movies I have seen, well, are directed with that passion. The kind of passion that shows the director really wants to do what he's doing. This movie is so personal for him, that he makes it personal. His camera, in some occasions, seems to be following the characters from behind, when they are walking, joining them; as if it was walking too. Then the camera moves, not much, showing the characters from all the angles, and letting us see their emotions. They're two characters only. It's fantastic, and intimate.In one occasion, Celine and Jesse are talking (because they're always talking, amazing) about what would they do if the day they're living was the last one of their lives. They should really think about it. Because it could be their last day. Or not.

Unabashed Romance; Real; I Loved This Movie

tt0381681

"Before Sunset" is one of the most unabashedly romantic films I have ever seen.Even in our age of full disclosure and no privacy there remain moments that this viewer, anyway, has never seen captured on film before."Before Sunset" captures some of those moments.Two adult characters converse. Watching them, you wonder -- and you know that these two characters are wondering the same thing -- where will this conversation go? Is it just an exchange of banal, prepackaged rants and scripts? But, the two characters keep talking, keep talking past rough moments, and awkward discomfort, and strange anecdotes.After a while of this, they come to say shockingly open and intimate things to each other.Before you realize that you've been swept off your feet, the conversation has become as intimate as the best sexual act could be.These two characters are using mere words to reveal hopes, and pains, and vulnerabilities, that we usually sweep from our consciousness, because the world has no room for them ... except during magical moments such as those dramatized in this film.There was one aspect of "Before Sunset" that didn't work for me. Ethan Hawke, especially, gives a poignantly visual performance. He says things with his eyes and face that he does not convey in words.Otherwise, though, this film is not visual enough to be fully satisfying as a film. Its charms and power are almost all verbal, all in the script. That being the case, "Before Sunset" would perhaps have been better as a radio play.The director cheats his audience; he doesn't care about using his camera to allow his audience to view Hawke, Delpy, their powerful and magic interaction, or Paris in a new and high impact way.But that's a minor complaint. "Before Sunset" swept this viewer off her feet. Days after viewing it, I'm still under its spell. It's appropriate that we understand spells as being cast, primarily, with words, with language. What language does here is truly magic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-286

ur2366009

title: Unabashed Romance; Real; I Loved This Movie review: "Before Sunset" is one of the most unabashedly romantic films I have ever seen.Even in our age of full disclosure and no privacy there remain moments that this viewer, anyway, has never seen captured on film before."Before Sunset" captures some of those moments.Two adult characters converse. Watching them, you wonder -- and you know that these two characters are wondering the same thing -- where will this conversation go? Is it just an exchange of banal, prepackaged rants and scripts? But, the two characters keep talking, keep talking past rough moments, and awkward discomfort, and strange anecdotes.After a while of this, they come to say shockingly open and intimate things to each other.Before you realize that you've been swept off your feet, the conversation has become as intimate as the best sexual act could be.These two characters are using mere words to reveal hopes, and pains, and vulnerabilities, that we usually sweep from our consciousness, because the world has no room for them ... except during magical moments such as those dramatized in this film.There was one aspect of "Before Sunset" that didn't work for me. Ethan Hawke, especially, gives a poignantly visual performance. He says things with his eyes and face that he does not convey in words.Otherwise, though, this film is not visual enough to be fully satisfying as a film. Its charms and power are almost all verbal, all in the script. That being the case, "Before Sunset" would perhaps have been better as a radio play.The director cheats his audience; he doesn't care about using his camera to allow his audience to view Hawke, Delpy, their powerful and magic interaction, or Paris in a new and high impact way.But that's a minor complaint. "Before Sunset" swept this viewer off her feet. Days after viewing it, I'm still under its spell. It's appropriate that we understand spells as being cast, primarily, with words, with language. What language does here is truly magic.

Paris we love!

tt0381681

What was the beginning of a good idea about romance on a train entering Vienna, became an excellent idea about continuation in Paris, and later film Before Sunrise made an excellent trilogy. What an idea! To follow two people over a period of more then 20 years! And make a trilogy about the whole thing! It is not only a story about two people, but also a history of Europe during these 20 years.This film is full of beautiful intellectual dialogs and beautiful shots of Paris. I really enjoyed all of this.This is an opportunity to congratulate all involved in this project. Beautiful idea turned into a great project(s)!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-515

ur6879155

title: Paris we love! review: What was the beginning of a good idea about romance on a train entering Vienna, became an excellent idea about continuation in Paris, and later film Before Sunrise made an excellent trilogy. What an idea! To follow two people over a period of more then 20 years! And make a trilogy about the whole thing! It is not only a story about two people, but also a history of Europe during these 20 years.This film is full of beautiful intellectual dialogs and beautiful shots of Paris. I really enjoyed all of this.This is an opportunity to congratulate all involved in this project. Beautiful idea turned into a great project(s)!

Better than the first one...

tt0381681

"Before Sunset" is the second movie of the "Before" trilogy and I think that is better than the first. This movie has to do again with the same couple Jesse and Celine who are meeting again after nine years and this time in France. Jesse is promoting his book there and Celine is there to see him after nine years.I liked more this movie because I was prepared of what I am going to watch and I think that this movie shows us the difference of the personalities of people and how this changed along these nine years.Finally I want to tell you that this movie is a little bit different from the first one because as we can observe that the cast has not changed but we can see that these nine years which has passed are really obvious with a good and beautiful way.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-495

ur33907744

title: Better than the first one... review: "Before Sunset" is the second movie of the "Before" trilogy and I think that is better than the first. This movie has to do again with the same couple Jesse and Celine who are meeting again after nine years and this time in France. Jesse is promoting his book there and Celine is there to see him after nine years.I liked more this movie because I was prepared of what I am going to watch and I think that this movie shows us the difference of the personalities of people and how this changed along these nine years.Finally I want to tell you that this movie is a little bit different from the first one because as we can observe that the cast has not changed but we can see that these nine years which has passed are really obvious with a good and beautiful way.

Now if Before Sunrise was great, this is much better too.

tt0381681

Now if Before Sunrise was great, this is much better too.Jesse and Celine have met last 9 years ago, Jesse comes up with a book and while describing it in a bookstall in Paris, he meets Celine again. Now, where will this brief encounter lead to, where ever it would end p, the path is for sure gonna be beautiful and that's how it is. With a beautiful romantic work already done, the director ups the ante this time and how? By making it more time bound and more mature. Jesse and Celine have grown up now, what they thought as everything beautiful is not so as it turns out. They feel imprisoned in their own lives, they have learnt to embrace the shortcomings of what we call is an imperfect world, they speak more fluidly and are more comfortable with each other s they already had a meeting earlier. Richard Linklater seems to be a master in telling what he would like to tell and in his own inimitable style. He has got aides in Ethan Hawke as Jesse and Julie Delpy as Celine who have added so much to dialog in what is primarily a conversational movie. Can you believe that the whole movie is shot the way the characters speak out, that is as they speak for an hour long, the movie is precisely that much duration only. Now, so many interesting things come up in this conversation.Going with 5/5 this time too and I love this so much to have a repeat watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-512

ur17029428

title: Now if Before Sunrise was great, this is much better too. review: Now if Before Sunrise was great, this is much better too.Jesse and Celine have met last 9 years ago, Jesse comes up with a book and while describing it in a bookstall in Paris, he meets Celine again. Now, where will this brief encounter lead to, where ever it would end p, the path is for sure gonna be beautiful and that's how it is. With a beautiful romantic work already done, the director ups the ante this time and how? By making it more time bound and more mature. Jesse and Celine have grown up now, what they thought as everything beautiful is not so as it turns out. They feel imprisoned in their own lives, they have learnt to embrace the shortcomings of what we call is an imperfect world, they speak more fluidly and are more comfortable with each other s they already had a meeting earlier. Richard Linklater seems to be a master in telling what he would like to tell and in his own inimitable style. He has got aides in Ethan Hawke as Jesse and Julie Delpy as Celine who have added so much to dialog in what is primarily a conversational movie. Can you believe that the whole movie is shot the way the characters speak out, that is as they speak for an hour long, the movie is precisely that much duration only. Now, so many interesting things come up in this conversation.Going with 5/5 this time too and I love this so much to have a repeat watch.

An Equal Sequel

tt0381681

Quite an engaging gab fest - loved the long dialogue scenes, loved the to and fro, and loved some of the acting. But I think I preferred the first meeting. Sure they were young and naive then, but that gave them an excuse for spouting optimism and romance. Here they're a bit older and wiser and the conversation feels less natural and more forced. The randomly deep insights, while impressive, clash a bit with the other insecurities and awkward jokes. Their current relationship is possibly too stuck in romanticising the original, therefore giving them false expectations of what they have now, but this doubt can probably go down as a plus for the film. A definite minus was some of the occasionally excessive false smiling, which I have to mark up against Ethan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-458

ur2404633

title: An Equal Sequel review: Quite an engaging gab fest - loved the long dialogue scenes, loved the to and fro, and loved some of the acting. But I think I preferred the first meeting. Sure they were young and naive then, but that gave them an excuse for spouting optimism and romance. Here they're a bit older and wiser and the conversation feels less natural and more forced. The randomly deep insights, while impressive, clash a bit with the other insecurities and awkward jokes. Their current relationship is possibly too stuck in romanticising the original, therefore giving them false expectations of what they have now, but this doubt can probably go down as a plus for the film. A definite minus was some of the occasionally excessive false smiling, which I have to mark up against Ethan.

A love story with a difference...

tt0381681

Damn it! I felt they cut short this film. Whenever we hear the word SEQUEL, it feels like a recipe for disaster...there are very few instances in this world where sequel was as good or better than the first movie.This movie is one of those few instances. Two words that describe this movie are- JUST GREAT. It was a pleasure to watch both the movies simultaneously one after the other.The Ending was truly fantastic, keeps the viewer guessing & gasping for more. I loved it & wanted to see more of the chemistry between Jesse and Celine. One more fact that is unbelievable is that there is no kissing scene.A romantic film without a single kiss & mostly based on the conversation between the actors makes you question how is it possible??...Well for the answer you have to see this movie. The scene in the van, where they finally unburden themselves. One of the most emotionally raw and honest interplays I've seen. The only possible flaw was they didn't show more places in Paris.9.3/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-422

ur18234639

title: A love story with a difference... review: Damn it! I felt they cut short this film. Whenever we hear the word SEQUEL, it feels like a recipe for disaster...there are very few instances in this world where sequel was as good or better than the first movie.This movie is one of those few instances. Two words that describe this movie are- JUST GREAT. It was a pleasure to watch both the movies simultaneously one after the other.The Ending was truly fantastic, keeps the viewer guessing & gasping for more. I loved it & wanted to see more of the chemistry between Jesse and Celine. One more fact that is unbelievable is that there is no kissing scene.A romantic film without a single kiss & mostly based on the conversation between the actors makes you question how is it possible??...Well for the answer you have to see this movie. The scene in the van, where they finally unburden themselves. One of the most emotionally raw and honest interplays I've seen. The only possible flaw was they didn't show more places in Paris.9.3/10

A Beautiful Cinematic Sunset View!

tt0381681

It dawned at me many years ago that the 1995 Richard Linklater film "Before Sunrise" was one of the supreme bang-up romantic narratives in cinematic history; even though the main characters are not showed banging. "Before Sunrise" tells the story of Jessie & Celine's one-day romance in Vienna. Jessie is the American and Celine is the Frenchie. They were young, vulnerable, and adventurous. The film's open-ended finale left us pondering if they would reunite in 6 months. Before you know it, 9 years have passed. So you know what that means, Sequel Heaven! Jessie & Celine are now Sunset People! Doing it right! Night after night! OK, Summer's over! Donna Summer, that is. "Before Sunset" is one of the best sequels ever! I know some of you think that my brain is fried by getting too much sun with this overstatement. However, you have to experience this breathtaking sunset to believe it. In "Sunset", Jessie & Celine unexpectedly reunite in Paris nine years later. They're older, wiser, and more experienced in the game of love. Will they recapture the magic in this "Sunset Place"? If you are an avid fan of "Sunrise", then you will adore the "Sunset" even more. The film's poetic masterful screenplay is quite deserving of its Academy Award nomination; which by the way was scribed by Linklater, Jessie, and Celine. Yes! Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Their acting was also not too shabby. Ethan Hawke as Jessie and Julie Delpy as Celine were commanding thespian performances that were definitely on the sunny-side up category. Without a doubt, the best acting duet of the year! Reunited and it felt so good to see Hawke and Delpy on screen together again. I announce in my delpysition that Delpy's work might very well be the best female acting of 2004. So much so, that I desperately wish I had "Jessie's Girl". Writer-Director Linklater's work never ceases to surprise me. He is one of the genius directors of our generation. "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on You", go see this beautiful sunset today! ***** Excellent

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-203

ur0489763

title: A Beautiful Cinematic Sunset View! review: It dawned at me many years ago that the 1995 Richard Linklater film "Before Sunrise" was one of the supreme bang-up romantic narratives in cinematic history; even though the main characters are not showed banging. "Before Sunrise" tells the story of Jessie & Celine's one-day romance in Vienna. Jessie is the American and Celine is the Frenchie. They were young, vulnerable, and adventurous. The film's open-ended finale left us pondering if they would reunite in 6 months. Before you know it, 9 years have passed. So you know what that means, Sequel Heaven! Jessie & Celine are now Sunset People! Doing it right! Night after night! OK, Summer's over! Donna Summer, that is. "Before Sunset" is one of the best sequels ever! I know some of you think that my brain is fried by getting too much sun with this overstatement. However, you have to experience this breathtaking sunset to believe it. In "Sunset", Jessie & Celine unexpectedly reunite in Paris nine years later. They're older, wiser, and more experienced in the game of love. Will they recapture the magic in this "Sunset Place"? If you are an avid fan of "Sunrise", then you will adore the "Sunset" even more. The film's poetic masterful screenplay is quite deserving of its Academy Award nomination; which by the way was scribed by Linklater, Jessie, and Celine. Yes! Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Their acting was also not too shabby. Ethan Hawke as Jessie and Julie Delpy as Celine were commanding thespian performances that were definitely on the sunny-side up category. Without a doubt, the best acting duet of the year! Reunited and it felt so good to see Hawke and Delpy on screen together again. I announce in my delpysition that Delpy's work might very well be the best female acting of 2004. So much so, that I desperately wish I had "Jessie's Girl". Writer-Director Linklater's work never ceases to surprise me. He is one of the genius directors of our generation. "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on You", go see this beautiful sunset today! ***** Excellent

Surpasses the cinematic excellence of its predecessor. A rare delight.

tt0381681

This is quite an extraordinary movie. A single, long shot, running in real time, about life, love, regrets and hopes. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy take their characters and play with them in bittersweet ways - it's the only "romantic" movie where there's not a single kiss on screen, not a single touch, if I recall correctly; and still, it's so poignant, so melancholic, so sad, so brutal, so real... I can't think of any movie that can come close to the way this one portrays relationships.Jessie and Celine are absolutely real - they are not characters, not actors, they are simply breathing, living persons. They have matured so much since the last time we saw together, and practically every question we as an audience had for them is answered. The way they both gently lead us towards an ending we are somewhat expecting, and then raising even more questions at the end than the first movie is simply brilliant.I sincerely hope Before Midnight is as good as this movie. I'm sure Linklater, Delpy and Hawke will make it happen. This is easily one of the best movies I've ever watched.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-463

ur0508954

title: Surpasses the cinematic excellence of its predecessor. A rare delight. review: This is quite an extraordinary movie. A single, long shot, running in real time, about life, love, regrets and hopes. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy take their characters and play with them in bittersweet ways - it's the only "romantic" movie where there's not a single kiss on screen, not a single touch, if I recall correctly; and still, it's so poignant, so melancholic, so sad, so brutal, so real... I can't think of any movie that can come close to the way this one portrays relationships.Jessie and Celine are absolutely real - they are not characters, not actors, they are simply breathing, living persons. They have matured so much since the last time we saw together, and practically every question we as an audience had for them is answered. The way they both gently lead us towards an ending we are somewhat expecting, and then raising even more questions at the end than the first movie is simply brilliant.I sincerely hope Before Midnight is as good as this movie. I'm sure Linklater, Delpy and Hawke will make it happen. This is easily one of the best movies I've ever watched.

Before Sunset

tt0381681

Before Sunset is a sequel to the cute romantic movie Before Sunrise from 1995. Nine years later, the couple from the first movie meet again and start to talk about their new lives and romantic relationship. I would say that the first movie was better than Before Sunset, because the sequel looks like a "directors cut" from the first movie. To put it simply; if the director would put this movie to the first movie, we could get 3 hours long and perfect romantic drama. This movie is overall great but not so exciting as the first one; the chemistry between Hawke and Delpy is still convincing and the shots of Paris are beautiful. But I think the first movie was much more exciting and beautiful, the sequel is not so great. It's a good movie, but I still think this movie was not so necessary. If the director could put this 80 minute long movie to the first movie, it would be great. Cute romantic drama about love, who is growing up.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-408

ur16991786

title: Before Sunset review: Before Sunset is a sequel to the cute romantic movie Before Sunrise from 1995. Nine years later, the couple from the first movie meet again and start to talk about their new lives and romantic relationship. I would say that the first movie was better than Before Sunset, because the sequel looks like a "directors cut" from the first movie. To put it simply; if the director would put this movie to the first movie, we could get 3 hours long and perfect romantic drama. This movie is overall great but not so exciting as the first one; the chemistry between Hawke and Delpy is still convincing and the shots of Paris are beautiful. But I think the first movie was much more exciting and beautiful, the sequel is not so great. It's a good movie, but I still think this movie was not so necessary. If the director could put this 80 minute long movie to the first movie, it would be great. Cute romantic drama about love, who is growing up.

After Senescence

tt0381681

O, how sweet. A date movie. How the hell did I end up here?One look at Ethan Hawke and I knew exactly the cutesy hell I was in store for the next 80 minutes. The movie consists almost entirely of a conversation between Hawke and Julie Delphy, playing a couple who bump into each other after having shared a night of passion 9 years previous and thought about each other ever since.O, she's the Right Type: a PC progressive who works to improve the lot of the impoverished third world; French and thus automatically anti-American and snobbish about it; a near beauty, in other words, not so beautiful as to make us feel inferior, nor so plain as to leave us uninterested; and she talks, talks, talks. In this last, she's at least true to her sex.O, he's the Right Type:a novelist on promotional tour through Europe; a sensitive man, more than willing to gallantly step aside and let the woman have the spotlight; and boyishly handsome, eternally young and free of any that nasty, threatening, politically-incorrect masculinity (i.e., the antithesis of Mickey Rourke).Typical of this film's borderline soap-opera is her asking, "What would we be doing now if this was our last day on earth?" Add a backdrop of sun-dappled picture-postcard Paris and a wistful preoccupation with the past and lost love, and there you have it, the formula for art-house romance.Director Richard Linklater ("The School of Rock")shares writing credits with Hawke and Delphy. The hand-in-glove fit of the acting comes from the actors playing themselves and writing their own lines, which leads, of course, to acting for the sake of acting, a playhouse professionalism. I kept thinking of a line from the last movie I'd seen, "The Five Obstructions," in which a film maker says good film has to be garbage. At the time, that made me think of Goddard, who's movies definitely fit that requirement, catching fly-away time, grabbing hold of a shadow, freezing it in silver nitrate. That tossed-off spontaneity, that shabby immediate obsolescence of his, is exactly what's missing here. It's just too ... too ... Oprah.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-17

ur0542841

title: After Senescence review: O, how sweet. A date movie. How the hell did I end up here?One look at Ethan Hawke and I knew exactly the cutesy hell I was in store for the next 80 minutes. The movie consists almost entirely of a conversation between Hawke and Julie Delphy, playing a couple who bump into each other after having shared a night of passion 9 years previous and thought about each other ever since.O, she's the Right Type: a PC progressive who works to improve the lot of the impoverished third world; French and thus automatically anti-American and snobbish about it; a near beauty, in other words, not so beautiful as to make us feel inferior, nor so plain as to leave us uninterested; and she talks, talks, talks. In this last, she's at least true to her sex.O, he's the Right Type:a novelist on promotional tour through Europe; a sensitive man, more than willing to gallantly step aside and let the woman have the spotlight; and boyishly handsome, eternally young and free of any that nasty, threatening, politically-incorrect masculinity (i.e., the antithesis of Mickey Rourke).Typical of this film's borderline soap-opera is her asking, "What would we be doing now if this was our last day on earth?" Add a backdrop of sun-dappled picture-postcard Paris and a wistful preoccupation with the past and lost love, and there you have it, the formula for art-house romance.Director Richard Linklater ("The School of Rock")shares writing credits with Hawke and Delphy. The hand-in-glove fit of the acting comes from the actors playing themselves and writing their own lines, which leads, of course, to acting for the sake of acting, a playhouse professionalism. I kept thinking of a line from the last movie I'd seen, "The Five Obstructions," in which a film maker says good film has to be garbage. At the time, that made me think of Goddard, who's movies definitely fit that requirement, catching fly-away time, grabbing hold of a shadow, freezing it in silver nitrate. That tossed-off spontaneity, that shabby immediate obsolescence of his, is exactly what's missing here. It's just too ... too ... Oprah.

A talky romantic effortless sequel

tt0381681

"Life's hard. It's supposed to be. If we didn't suffer, we'd never learn anything."Before Sunrise felt like such a perfect romantic movie that many people had doubts about reuniting these characters nine years later and making a sequel, but fear not because Richard Linklater gives us another perfect story and both Delpy and Hawke are magnificent together. I imagine that everyone that had seen the film back in 1995 made their own conclusions of whether or not these two lovers met six months later like they planned, but now Linklater decides to tell us what happened exactly. I didn't have to think too much about it because I saw Sunrise yesterday, watched Sunset today, and now will get to watch Midnight. I thought this was a perfect sequel to Sunrise and pretty much follows a similar plot line, but with more mature conversations now that the characters have aged. I imagine that those people that had to wait nine years between each sequel probably had a much richer experience than those of us who simply got to see these films in one week, especially those viewers who were about 23 years old in 1995 and matured at sort of the same rate these characters did. In Before Sunset the characters are in their 30's which is the age I'm at now so I related much more to what they were saying this time around. The first film was nostalgic, reminding me how I thought when I was their age, but this time I could identify with them in the present. Looking back and remembering those connections you made with someone and realizing that those connections are hard to come across now that you are older. I guess in a way you value things more now that perhaps in the past you wouldn't. Linklater succeeds once again at bringing a really romantic tale to the big screen.In Before Sunrise Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) met as strangers in a train and spent a night together wandering the streets of Vienna. Before Sunset takes place nine years later as Jesse is at the end of his European book tour in Paris. He has written an autobiographical book about his encounter with Celine although he never admits that the events are true. When he finishes talking about his book he is surprised to see Celine there waiting for him. She lives in Paris and had heard he was going to be speaking at that book store so she decided to go see him. Jesse has to be back at the airport in an hour, but the two get together once again for a cup of coffee and a walk through the streets of Paris while they talk about their life, work, and relationships. They also let us know what happened that day they were supposed to reunite in Vienna. If there's something negative I could say about Before Sunset it's that it is way too short and you wish the characters could have spent at least half an hour longer together. This time the film and the events that take place are in real time so you have several long shots (the longest one is 11 minutes long) and few editing going on. The film isn't as brilliant to look at, but it is a great conversation to eavesdrop. The chemistry is strong again and this time there is more conversation and less passion, but it works really well. Before Sunset never felt like a forced sequel; it was more of a continuation of that movie and hopefully I will feel the same way about Before Midnight. Linklater was nominated for an Oscar for best adapted screenplay and deservingly so with the contribution of Hawke and Delpy who also co-wrote this film. Before Sunset is a beautiful and romantic film that is well worth your time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-488

ur13566917

title: A talky romantic effortless sequel review: "Life's hard. It's supposed to be. If we didn't suffer, we'd never learn anything."Before Sunrise felt like such a perfect romantic movie that many people had doubts about reuniting these characters nine years later and making a sequel, but fear not because Richard Linklater gives us another perfect story and both Delpy and Hawke are magnificent together. I imagine that everyone that had seen the film back in 1995 made their own conclusions of whether or not these two lovers met six months later like they planned, but now Linklater decides to tell us what happened exactly. I didn't have to think too much about it because I saw Sunrise yesterday, watched Sunset today, and now will get to watch Midnight. I thought this was a perfect sequel to Sunrise and pretty much follows a similar plot line, but with more mature conversations now that the characters have aged. I imagine that those people that had to wait nine years between each sequel probably had a much richer experience than those of us who simply got to see these films in one week, especially those viewers who were about 23 years old in 1995 and matured at sort of the same rate these characters did. In Before Sunset the characters are in their 30's which is the age I'm at now so I related much more to what they were saying this time around. The first film was nostalgic, reminding me how I thought when I was their age, but this time I could identify with them in the present. Looking back and remembering those connections you made with someone and realizing that those connections are hard to come across now that you are older. I guess in a way you value things more now that perhaps in the past you wouldn't. Linklater succeeds once again at bringing a really romantic tale to the big screen.In Before Sunrise Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) met as strangers in a train and spent a night together wandering the streets of Vienna. Before Sunset takes place nine years later as Jesse is at the end of his European book tour in Paris. He has written an autobiographical book about his encounter with Celine although he never admits that the events are true. When he finishes talking about his book he is surprised to see Celine there waiting for him. She lives in Paris and had heard he was going to be speaking at that book store so she decided to go see him. Jesse has to be back at the airport in an hour, but the two get together once again for a cup of coffee and a walk through the streets of Paris while they talk about their life, work, and relationships. They also let us know what happened that day they were supposed to reunite in Vienna. If there's something negative I could say about Before Sunset it's that it is way too short and you wish the characters could have spent at least half an hour longer together. This time the film and the events that take place are in real time so you have several long shots (the longest one is 11 minutes long) and few editing going on. The film isn't as brilliant to look at, but it is a great conversation to eavesdrop. The chemistry is strong again and this time there is more conversation and less passion, but it works really well. Before Sunset never felt like a forced sequel; it was more of a continuation of that movie and hopefully I will feel the same way about Before Midnight. Linklater was nominated for an Oscar for best adapted screenplay and deservingly so with the contribution of Hawke and Delpy who also co-wrote this film. Before Sunset is a beautiful and romantic film that is well worth your time.

Linklater Sharpens His Pencil

tt0381681

Nine years after Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour.Years before the critical acclaim of "Boyhood" or the cult status of "Dazed and Confused", Richard Linklater caught our attention with "Slacker", essentially a film of nothing more than a series of folks discussing a series of bizarre theories (and Madonna's pap smear).Then, Linklater took that concept and matured it. By replacing cranks with philosophizing adults, he was able to create "Before Sunrise". A brilliant film that relies almost entirely on a single conversation. He then gave us this film, again utilizing that dense, brilliant script... but giving us the twist of the same two people meeting nine years later, without any contact in between. So clever, executed so well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-519

ur1234929

title: Linklater Sharpens His Pencil review: Nine years after Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour.Years before the critical acclaim of "Boyhood" or the cult status of "Dazed and Confused", Richard Linklater caught our attention with "Slacker", essentially a film of nothing more than a series of folks discussing a series of bizarre theories (and Madonna's pap smear).Then, Linklater took that concept and matured it. By replacing cranks with philosophizing adults, he was able to create "Before Sunrise". A brilliant film that relies almost entirely on a single conversation. He then gave us this film, again utilizing that dense, brilliant script... but giving us the twist of the same two people meeting nine years later, without any contact in between. So clever, executed so well.

very good, but not as good as the prequel and the sequel

tt0381681

Before Sunset was good but a slight letdown after Before Sunrise. As a standalone feature there would have been no issues. It picks up where the previous movie has ended, although a decade later, but leads us towards an obvious development and finale.Nevertheless, this is an excellent movie, although not the one i'd watch over and over again. As in the prequel, this is more or less one uninterrupted dialog. Since the protagonists have aged, their discussions are more mature. If you've seen all three installments, including Before Midnight, the thing you'd probably appreciate the most is the way their discussions develop.It seems that the authors meticulously planned the script. At certain points you'd feel almost as in a psychoanalytical session.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-506

ur15462771

title: very good, but not as good as the prequel and the sequel review: Before Sunset was good but a slight letdown after Before Sunrise. As a standalone feature there would have been no issues. It picks up where the previous movie has ended, although a decade later, but leads us towards an obvious development and finale.Nevertheless, this is an excellent movie, although not the one i'd watch over and over again. As in the prequel, this is more or less one uninterrupted dialog. Since the protagonists have aged, their discussions are more mature. If you've seen all three installments, including Before Midnight, the thing you'd probably appreciate the most is the way their discussions develop.It seems that the authors meticulously planned the script. At certain points you'd feel almost as in a psychoanalytical session.

Spirited emptiness

tt0381681

The second half of a movie that started 10 years ago, the second half of a relationship with these people. Few things have changed since; so again we have a film worked in someone's typewriter; two actors of some talent brought in to improvise a chemistry and flesh a connection; a passive camera attached to these people, more or less the same medium shot tracking them down Paris.We get to see that both have changed since we first met them. She has grown despondent in her spirited idealism, his cynicism has been mellowed by more experience inside of him. Both have been deeply shaken by an encounter with the emptiness of life. Otherwise it plays very much like that earlier film, except with anxieties that have matured along with them.But this one has the additional benefit of layering in that first film, a second perspective that was missing there. The man has written a book from the events that we experienced as that film. It could have been very potent stuff, like 2046 is to In the Mood for Love. There is some effort to comment on fictions shaped from memory, but it is light-weight stuff at best.The other thing that could have been potent is how the gap between these two films is handled, the part that went unfilmed and is actual life away from the camera. How they handle it in turn, between them. It is again a disappointment; we know within the first 15 minutes all that is to know, who showed up and who didn't. It's even more slight if you consider that we got a film like Certified Copy since.What is left is that scene where Celine goes boating. She gets to see the Seine from a perspective hitherto unexplored, a touristy view. They bare their souls with a little less cuteness this time, but maybe these two were not worth getting to know in the first place, or this filmmaker to tell us about them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-453

ur17699578

title: Spirited emptiness review: The second half of a movie that started 10 years ago, the second half of a relationship with these people. Few things have changed since; so again we have a film worked in someone's typewriter; two actors of some talent brought in to improvise a chemistry and flesh a connection; a passive camera attached to these people, more or less the same medium shot tracking them down Paris.We get to see that both have changed since we first met them. She has grown despondent in her spirited idealism, his cynicism has been mellowed by more experience inside of him. Both have been deeply shaken by an encounter with the emptiness of life. Otherwise it plays very much like that earlier film, except with anxieties that have matured along with them.But this one has the additional benefit of layering in that first film, a second perspective that was missing there. The man has written a book from the events that we experienced as that film. It could have been very potent stuff, like 2046 is to In the Mood for Love. There is some effort to comment on fictions shaped from memory, but it is light-weight stuff at best.The other thing that could have been potent is how the gap between these two films is handled, the part that went unfilmed and is actual life away from the camera. How they handle it in turn, between them. It is again a disappointment; we know within the first 15 minutes all that is to know, who showed up and who didn't. It's even more slight if you consider that we got a film like Certified Copy since.What is left is that scene where Celine goes boating. She gets to see the Seine from a perspective hitherto unexplored, a touristy view. They bare their souls with a little less cuteness this time, but maybe these two were not worth getting to know in the first place, or this filmmaker to tell us about them.

Sunset with Happiness

tt0381681

What an experiment. Nine literal years following the event(s) of Before Sunrise, inside and out of the fictional continuation, came the very well done follow-up, Before Sunset.I adore original sequels. Especially since there are so few of them. Now, I might lose some credibility for this one, but Before Sunset and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 share something in common with me. Both had probably thee most original concepts for a second chapter.Now, granted, Blair Witch 2 wasn't an overall great film, and nowhere near it's predecessor, but the idea of a sequel based on the idea the first was a movie was truly original. (Sadly, it went nowhere near it could've gone with that initial premise.) Here, with Before Sunrise, we get to literally see where these characters AND actors changed in nine years.Basically, this movie does take place almost a decade after the events of the first movie explaining a ton of what happened following that fateful day for our two lovebirds: Jesse and Celine. They meet again after some time has passed and it's like no time had passed. Again, the camera follows these two soul mates through, now, Paris, and they talk and walk and learn about each other's new lives and loves.As if no time had passed (and it helps seeing these movies back to back,) these two feel just as comfortable with each other as they did when they first met. Only now…there's tension because they did grow up, apart and with someone else.While, I liked the movie as a whole and absolutely loved the concept of the 9-year gap of both fiction and nonfiction, it wasn't as fresh after awhile as the original. That doesn't take from the fun I did have with this; it was still very nice to follow these two around and how much they understand each other.(Spoiler coming…if you don't like those, just skip the next paragraph.)The absolute best part of this movie, when you get past the premise, was the 100% ambiguous finale. The first movie, did give direction where the future was headed, and, yet, you still could draw your own conclusion. This one abruptly ended, which, while I was a little puzzled at first, made me fall in love with the decision of the filmmakers.I did take a Sunday and watch the entire trilogy and I marveled on what it would've been like had I been a fan of this series and had to wait to see what happens next. I can't imagine what it was like for those who fell in love with these characters and had to wait yet another nine years to find out what the ending of this movie meant.I guess I cheated, but nonetheless, I enormously loved this climax.It's a bridge movie, but it's still definitely worth viewing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-491

ur17825945

title: Sunset with Happiness review: What an experiment. Nine literal years following the event(s) of Before Sunrise, inside and out of the fictional continuation, came the very well done follow-up, Before Sunset.I adore original sequels. Especially since there are so few of them. Now, I might lose some credibility for this one, but Before Sunset and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 share something in common with me. Both had probably thee most original concepts for a second chapter.Now, granted, Blair Witch 2 wasn't an overall great film, and nowhere near it's predecessor, but the idea of a sequel based on the idea the first was a movie was truly original. (Sadly, it went nowhere near it could've gone with that initial premise.) Here, with Before Sunrise, we get to literally see where these characters AND actors changed in nine years.Basically, this movie does take place almost a decade after the events of the first movie explaining a ton of what happened following that fateful day for our two lovebirds: Jesse and Celine. They meet again after some time has passed and it's like no time had passed. Again, the camera follows these two soul mates through, now, Paris, and they talk and walk and learn about each other's new lives and loves.As if no time had passed (and it helps seeing these movies back to back,) these two feel just as comfortable with each other as they did when they first met. Only now…there's tension because they did grow up, apart and with someone else.While, I liked the movie as a whole and absolutely loved the concept of the 9-year gap of both fiction and nonfiction, it wasn't as fresh after awhile as the original. That doesn't take from the fun I did have with this; it was still very nice to follow these two around and how much they understand each other.(Spoiler coming…if you don't like those, just skip the next paragraph.)The absolute best part of this movie, when you get past the premise, was the 100% ambiguous finale. The first movie, did give direction where the future was headed, and, yet, you still could draw your own conclusion. This one abruptly ended, which, while I was a little puzzled at first, made me fall in love with the decision of the filmmakers.I did take a Sunday and watch the entire trilogy and I marveled on what it would've been like had I been a fan of this series and had to wait to see what happens next. I can't imagine what it was like for those who fell in love with these characters and had to wait yet another nine years to find out what the ending of this movie meant.I guess I cheated, but nonetheless, I enormously loved this climax.It's a bridge movie, but it's still definitely worth viewing.

The Riveting Conversation Goes On and Grows Up

tt0381681

I just finished watching "Before Sunrise" and I am glad I do not have to wait nine years to find out what happened to the love story of Celine and Jesse in "Before Sunset".Jesse is now a successful author after he wrote a novel about his very special encounter with Celine we all watched in "Before Sunrise." He was doing a book tour in Europe and the last stop happened to be Paris. It just so happened that the book signing was a bookshop which was also Celine's favorite. Of course they meet, and then went around Paris the rest of the afternoon until Jesse's plane will be leaving at sunset. As with the first film, we see them talking about how their lives went since that fateful day in Vienna years back. Julie Delpy (as Celine) did not age too much, but Ethan Hawke (as Jesse) looked significantly older. But the years did not diminish their chemistry with each other. The script by Richard Linklater this time was shorter, more sober, with deeper issues and mature emotion now, compared to the first one which was generally lighter, whimsical, with palpable youthful vibrancy. The transition over the years was perfectly reflected in the words they spoke. Again, we are drawn into their conversation, until that open and puzzling final scene.OK that is it. I will definitely go watch "Before Midnight" when it opens in local theaters next week.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-485

ur4294858

title: The Riveting Conversation Goes On and Grows Up review: I just finished watching "Before Sunrise" and I am glad I do not have to wait nine years to find out what happened to the love story of Celine and Jesse in "Before Sunset".Jesse is now a successful author after he wrote a novel about his very special encounter with Celine we all watched in "Before Sunrise." He was doing a book tour in Europe and the last stop happened to be Paris. It just so happened that the book signing was a bookshop which was also Celine's favorite. Of course they meet, and then went around Paris the rest of the afternoon until Jesse's plane will be leaving at sunset. As with the first film, we see them talking about how their lives went since that fateful day in Vienna years back. Julie Delpy (as Celine) did not age too much, but Ethan Hawke (as Jesse) looked significantly older. But the years did not diminish their chemistry with each other. The script by Richard Linklater this time was shorter, more sober, with deeper issues and mature emotion now, compared to the first one which was generally lighter, whimsical, with palpable youthful vibrancy. The transition over the years was perfectly reflected in the words they spoke. Again, we are drawn into their conversation, until that open and puzzling final scene.OK that is it. I will definitely go watch "Before Midnight" when it opens in local theaters next week.

A short and sweet treat which can be longer.

tt0381681

After they left 9 years ago in Vienna, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are back in Paris, for a mere 80 mins in Before Sunset. Together with the director Richard Linklater, the trio continues in the short and sweet meetup, beginning from the bookstore in Paris. Comparing with their wildness in Before Sunrise, Jesse (Ethan) and Celine (Julie) shows maturity and responsibility has taken place after the 9 years separation, by listening to the topics they discussed: sex, love, romance, politics, and meanings of life. With a non-stop sequence of the 80min drama, Before Sunset shows us the 5 places both Jesse and Celine went to to talk about the meaning of life: cafe, park, small cruise on the river, Jesse's private car and finally, Celine's apartment. Before Sunset makes us think what we have done in our life, and the responsibility we shoulder as time goes by. It has indeed make a good drama on love and life, together with the beautiful scenery on streets of Paris and a short glimpse of French's lifestyle. However, it is a pity that the movie lasted only 80mins, as the story takes place on Jesse's short and little sparetime that he has before going to the airport, returning back to the US. Overall, Before Sunset has brought us good script, good cast and beautiful scenery, but the duration can definitely be lengthen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-122

ur4005001

title: A short and sweet treat which can be longer. review: After they left 9 years ago in Vienna, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are back in Paris, for a mere 80 mins in Before Sunset. Together with the director Richard Linklater, the trio continues in the short and sweet meetup, beginning from the bookstore in Paris. Comparing with their wildness in Before Sunrise, Jesse (Ethan) and Celine (Julie) shows maturity and responsibility has taken place after the 9 years separation, by listening to the topics they discussed: sex, love, romance, politics, and meanings of life. With a non-stop sequence of the 80min drama, Before Sunset shows us the 5 places both Jesse and Celine went to to talk about the meaning of life: cafe, park, small cruise on the river, Jesse's private car and finally, Celine's apartment. Before Sunset makes us think what we have done in our life, and the responsibility we shoulder as time goes by. It has indeed make a good drama on love and life, together with the beautiful scenery on streets of Paris and a short glimpse of French's lifestyle. However, it is a pity that the movie lasted only 80mins, as the story takes place on Jesse's short and little sparetime that he has before going to the airport, returning back to the US. Overall, Before Sunset has brought us good script, good cast and beautiful scenery, but the duration can definitely be lengthen.

Soulmates Intersect and Wallow in Thoughtful What-Ifs

tt0381681

I never thought 1995's "Before Sunrise" was any great shakes perhaps because the concept felt like a romantic conceit albeit an intelligently scripted one especially for a film about a couple of kids in their early twenties. Time has probably mellowed me, as I find director Richard Linklater's 2004 sequel an entertaining talkfest that pierces with certain life truths. Nine years after their life-altering brief encounter in Vienna, Jesse and Celine meet again in Paris. Now a successful first-time novelist on a book tour, he sees her show up at his final book signing at the famous Shakespeare & Co. bookstore, and after some hesitation, they pick up where they left off. Celine is now an environmental activist, and their conversation continues for nearly an hour and a half in real time, before Jesse is scheduled to catch a plane home to his wife and son. Linklater follows the lovers -- who had promised to reunite in Vienna in six months and never did -- from café to park to boat to an intense car ride to Celine's apartment. In a manner that seems even closer to Louis Malle's "My Dinner With Andre" than the first one, they spend the time talking about the passage of time, shifting ideals both political and romantic, harbored ambitions, unfulfilled desire, religion, sex and monogamy and inconsistent memories.Looking particularly aged compared to the flashbacks from the first movie, Ethan Hawke effortlessly captures the frustrated ennui of an unfulfilled artist, his romantic ideals reborn by this unexpected encounter. But it's Julie Delpy who more dexterously shows the subtle impact of her diminished expectations against her luminous former self, peaking with her visceral emotional breakdown in the car. She also shows herself to be a fine singer as she performs a plaintive waltz for Jesse at the end. The film is quite brief, just eighty minutes long, but it feels like the right length given the story's limited focus. Truth be told, there is still an air of self-indulgent pretension to some of their bantering, though I have come to accept the fact that this is a truthful aspect of their respective characters and the basis of their chemistry together. The fact that there is an easy, unforced air about their dialogue has a lot to do with Hawke's and Delpy's contributions to the script (they receive co-screen writing credit) and with the real rapport between the two actors. The DVD is relatively short on extras, for instance, there is surprisingly no audio commentary track, but there is a brief making-of featurette that helps provide the context of the story relative to the previous movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-316

ur3608743

title: Soulmates Intersect and Wallow in Thoughtful What-Ifs review: I never thought 1995's "Before Sunrise" was any great shakes perhaps because the concept felt like a romantic conceit albeit an intelligently scripted one especially for a film about a couple of kids in their early twenties. Time has probably mellowed me, as I find director Richard Linklater's 2004 sequel an entertaining talkfest that pierces with certain life truths. Nine years after their life-altering brief encounter in Vienna, Jesse and Celine meet again in Paris. Now a successful first-time novelist on a book tour, he sees her show up at his final book signing at the famous Shakespeare & Co. bookstore, and after some hesitation, they pick up where they left off. Celine is now an environmental activist, and their conversation continues for nearly an hour and a half in real time, before Jesse is scheduled to catch a plane home to his wife and son. Linklater follows the lovers -- who had promised to reunite in Vienna in six months and never did -- from café to park to boat to an intense car ride to Celine's apartment. In a manner that seems even closer to Louis Malle's "My Dinner With Andre" than the first one, they spend the time talking about the passage of time, shifting ideals both political and romantic, harbored ambitions, unfulfilled desire, religion, sex and monogamy and inconsistent memories.Looking particularly aged compared to the flashbacks from the first movie, Ethan Hawke effortlessly captures the frustrated ennui of an unfulfilled artist, his romantic ideals reborn by this unexpected encounter. But it's Julie Delpy who more dexterously shows the subtle impact of her diminished expectations against her luminous former self, peaking with her visceral emotional breakdown in the car. She also shows herself to be a fine singer as she performs a plaintive waltz for Jesse at the end. The film is quite brief, just eighty minutes long, but it feels like the right length given the story's limited focus. Truth be told, there is still an air of self-indulgent pretension to some of their bantering, though I have come to accept the fact that this is a truthful aspect of their respective characters and the basis of their chemistry together. The fact that there is an easy, unforced air about their dialogue has a lot to do with Hawke's and Delpy's contributions to the script (they receive co-screen writing credit) and with the real rapport between the two actors. The DVD is relatively short on extras, for instance, there is surprisingly no audio commentary track, but there is a brief making-of featurette that helps provide the context of the story relative to the previous movie.

Reunited and it DOES feel so good

tt0381681

In 1995,director Richard Linklater introduced movie audiences to Jesse(Ethan Hawke)and Celine(Julie Delpy),two strangers from America and France(respectively)who meet on a train,stop in Vienna,drift through the lovely,historic streets and architecture as they converse,bond and,ultimately connect,only to part ways,unsure(as was the viewers)as to whether they would ever see each other again.Almost ten years later,Linklater,along with Delpy and Hawke,decided to continue the stories in real time,and this time an impromptu(and the script and story gives the viewer the right to doubt that)meeting during a book tour that Jesse is a part of to promote a novel he's written(regarding the fictionalized encounter he and Celine had)that stops in Paris,which just happens to be the home of Celine. They are elated to see each other at first,and then for the next(almost)two hours,proceed to take their conversation across the city. The mood changes in waves,as each examines their lives since their encounter and come to various philosophical realizations(or even un-realizations). Once again,as they both long for each other despite practically everything(i.e. he's married with a son,she's afraid of deep,ever-present relationships),and their closeness over this second bonding opens the door for perhaps another chance at romance that was kindled--and was extinguished just as quickly--and once again,you the viewer are left wondering: will they do it? Will it take this time? The possibilities.I was very pleased to see these character brought back. I was very impressed with the first movie,which I saw for free as part of a studio promo when I was in college,and felt after I saw it that this merited another look-see. A script penned by Hawke,Delpy,Linklater and Kim Krizan is written and rehearsed with such sharpness that,like the first firm,the feel of the conversation is relaxed and almost improvised in feel. Thes characters have grown up--in fact,in some ways,it feels like they've grown up possibly TOO much--but they still hold their memories and feelings with some of the same passion they had when they were twenty-somethings. Being of nearly the same age,I feel like this was the closest of just about any movie I saw out of the 90s that had ANY relation to my generation IMHO. This was not a widely released,nor wildly popular movie and that surprises me none.This is,like the last one,a purely conversational film and many people just simply have the patience for a film like that. I had been somewhat lazy about getting around to see this(on DVD,no less!)and maybe that came from subconsciously was afraid that a follow-up to the first movie might blow some of my theories or desires for the characters would not get realized or abused. I am happy to say after seeing this that none of that really happened. If anything,it actually carried along these characters in a natural arc that made them even MORE likable and real to me than previous.Personally,I'd love to see an Act III of Jesse and Celine,maybe this time in the states. And like before,there should be no rush,since these characters had plenty of time to develop for a largely satisfying Act II.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-383

ur2608802

title: Reunited and it DOES feel so good review: In 1995,director Richard Linklater introduced movie audiences to Jesse(Ethan Hawke)and Celine(Julie Delpy),two strangers from America and France(respectively)who meet on a train,stop in Vienna,drift through the lovely,historic streets and architecture as they converse,bond and,ultimately connect,only to part ways,unsure(as was the viewers)as to whether they would ever see each other again.Almost ten years later,Linklater,along with Delpy and Hawke,decided to continue the stories in real time,and this time an impromptu(and the script and story gives the viewer the right to doubt that)meeting during a book tour that Jesse is a part of to promote a novel he's written(regarding the fictionalized encounter he and Celine had)that stops in Paris,which just happens to be the home of Celine. They are elated to see each other at first,and then for the next(almost)two hours,proceed to take their conversation across the city. The mood changes in waves,as each examines their lives since their encounter and come to various philosophical realizations(or even un-realizations). Once again,as they both long for each other despite practically everything(i.e. he's married with a son,she's afraid of deep,ever-present relationships),and their closeness over this second bonding opens the door for perhaps another chance at romance that was kindled--and was extinguished just as quickly--and once again,you the viewer are left wondering: will they do it? Will it take this time? The possibilities.I was very pleased to see these character brought back. I was very impressed with the first movie,which I saw for free as part of a studio promo when I was in college,and felt after I saw it that this merited another look-see. A script penned by Hawke,Delpy,Linklater and Kim Krizan is written and rehearsed with such sharpness that,like the first firm,the feel of the conversation is relaxed and almost improvised in feel. Thes characters have grown up--in fact,in some ways,it feels like they've grown up possibly TOO much--but they still hold their memories and feelings with some of the same passion they had when they were twenty-somethings. Being of nearly the same age,I feel like this was the closest of just about any movie I saw out of the 90s that had ANY relation to my generation IMHO. This was not a widely released,nor wildly popular movie and that surprises me none.This is,like the last one,a purely conversational film and many people just simply have the patience for a film like that. I had been somewhat lazy about getting around to see this(on DVD,no less!)and maybe that came from subconsciously was afraid that a follow-up to the first movie might blow some of my theories or desires for the characters would not get realized or abused. I am happy to say after seeing this that none of that really happened. If anything,it actually carried along these characters in a natural arc that made them even MORE likable and real to me than previous.Personally,I'd love to see an Act III of Jesse and Celine,maybe this time in the states. And like before,there should be no rush,since these characters had plenty of time to develop for a largely satisfying Act II.

"I know what you meant for me that day. I just want another try, I just want another night"

tt0381681

This film is one of my favorites from last year, along with "Sideways" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Is it just a coincidence that three best films of the year all deal with ability to connect with other people, with meeting one's true love and losing it, with memories that will not go away, and with possibilities of second chances?"Before Sunset" is one of the best sequels ever made but it stays on its own. It is so perfect, so simple, so sublime, so clever, so romantic, and so moving that it makes me happy to know that the films like that exist and there is hope that as characters get older we may witness their next meeting and conversations.Who would think that watching two people talking may be that fascinating? That's what the power of great dialog does. As much as I loved dialogs in "Before Sunrise", in this film they are even better - the characters are older, wiser, more interesting, I'd say. Ten years is a long period in a human life - our characters are still young and attractive but they've gone through losses and changes, disappointments and some sad realizations about life. It is privilege of the young age to hope that "there'll be many people with whom you'll connect with. Later in life, you realize it only happens a few times." If we only knew how to cherish and keep these unique and unforgettable connections. If we only knew that they were unique...Julie Delpy along with Ethan Hawke, contributed to the screenplay; and there is no doubt that their contributions made the characters interacting on the screen absolutely honest and believable.Julie Delpy gives one of the best performances of the year as Celine. She is amazing in showing mystery, charm, disappointments, dreams, and the dark sides of this woman. Her singing and Nina Simone's impersonation in the last scenes of "Before Sunset" are among the most charming and seductive ever - oh yes, baby you will miss that plane. 9.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-212

ur1098460

title: "I know what you meant for me that day. I just want another try, I just want another night" review: This film is one of my favorites from last year, along with "Sideways" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Is it just a coincidence that three best films of the year all deal with ability to connect with other people, with meeting one's true love and losing it, with memories that will not go away, and with possibilities of second chances?"Before Sunset" is one of the best sequels ever made but it stays on its own. It is so perfect, so simple, so sublime, so clever, so romantic, and so moving that it makes me happy to know that the films like that exist and there is hope that as characters get older we may witness their next meeting and conversations.Who would think that watching two people talking may be that fascinating? That's what the power of great dialog does. As much as I loved dialogs in "Before Sunrise", in this film they are even better - the characters are older, wiser, more interesting, I'd say. Ten years is a long period in a human life - our characters are still young and attractive but they've gone through losses and changes, disappointments and some sad realizations about life. It is privilege of the young age to hope that "there'll be many people with whom you'll connect with. Later in life, you realize it only happens a few times." If we only knew how to cherish and keep these unique and unforgettable connections. If we only knew that they were unique...Julie Delpy along with Ethan Hawke, contributed to the screenplay; and there is no doubt that their contributions made the characters interacting on the screen absolutely honest and believable.Julie Delpy gives one of the best performances of the year as Celine. She is amazing in showing mystery, charm, disappointments, dreams, and the dark sides of this woman. Her singing and Nina Simone's impersonation in the last scenes of "Before Sunset" are among the most charming and seductive ever - oh yes, baby you will miss that plane. 9.5/10

Now Here's An Unexpected Movie Sequel!

tt0381681

Before Sunset picks up right where the first film, 1995's Before Sunrise left off. For those who have seen that film, one would not expect a sequel especially a decade later. But this sequel captures the magic the first film left us as well as the charm, romance, and the ideological dialog. All this film is two people walking the streets of Paris and talking to each other, but we feel connected to these characters for the eighty minutes this film is on screen. The screenplay is very sharp and not once can we tell if the dialog is forced. This film is an example of how an excellent conversation should be, especially between people who haven't seen each other in ages.Richard Linklater's sequel reintroduces us to the characters of Jesse and Celine. Jesse is now a bestseller author who has written a book based on the one night the two of them had nine years earlier. While promoting his book in a bookshop, Jesse runs into Celine. With Jesse returning to the states that evening, the two spend the afternoon together catching up and reminiscing on what could have been.Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy continue to show such natural chemistry between each other. If I didn't know any better, they could have been two ordinary people having such an engrossing conversation on love, politics, and more ideology of that nature. This film doesn't need a large cast and I feel that both Hawke and Delpy were perfect in their roles.Overall, Before Sunset is an excellent sequel to one of the best original romantic films I have ever seen. Both of these films succeed without being sappy or forced. I liked the natural feel of this film and it's a shame Hollywood doesn't produce more films like these. They are the perfect compliment to the special-effects era of movies. This is a sweet, romantic modern-era romance film and a fitting sequel to Before Sunrise. I rate this film 9/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-514

ur17646017

title: Now Here's An Unexpected Movie Sequel! review: Before Sunset picks up right where the first film, 1995's Before Sunrise left off. For those who have seen that film, one would not expect a sequel especially a decade later. But this sequel captures the magic the first film left us as well as the charm, romance, and the ideological dialog. All this film is two people walking the streets of Paris and talking to each other, but we feel connected to these characters for the eighty minutes this film is on screen. The screenplay is very sharp and not once can we tell if the dialog is forced. This film is an example of how an excellent conversation should be, especially between people who haven't seen each other in ages.Richard Linklater's sequel reintroduces us to the characters of Jesse and Celine. Jesse is now a bestseller author who has written a book based on the one night the two of them had nine years earlier. While promoting his book in a bookshop, Jesse runs into Celine. With Jesse returning to the states that evening, the two spend the afternoon together catching up and reminiscing on what could have been.Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy continue to show such natural chemistry between each other. If I didn't know any better, they could have been two ordinary people having such an engrossing conversation on love, politics, and more ideology of that nature. This film doesn't need a large cast and I feel that both Hawke and Delpy were perfect in their roles.Overall, Before Sunset is an excellent sequel to one of the best original romantic films I have ever seen. Both of these films succeed without being sappy or forced. I liked the natural feel of this film and it's a shame Hollywood doesn't produce more films like these. They are the perfect compliment to the special-effects era of movies. This is a sweet, romantic modern-era romance film and a fitting sequel to Before Sunrise. I rate this film 9/10.

Utterly majestic.

tt0381681

In 1995, director Richard Linklater released a little romantic comedy called Before Sunrise, which made only 5 million dollars, but became a cult favourite on VHS/DVD. Nearly a decade later, Linklater reunites with the film's stars (Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawk) to produce this sequel. The motive clearly wasn't financial, given the rather limited success of the original; this was a labour of love for all involved. I haven't seen the original film, but having seen the sequel, it has now become a major priority. I must see where this all began. The plot is minimalist. Jesse (Hawk) is now a successful writer, and is touring Paris when he encounters Celine (Delpy). Jesse and Celine wander around the city for an hour and a bit, with Jesse's imminent departure the film's ticking clock. The plot is not the point; this film relies on dialogue and the strength of the two actors' performances. French actress Julie Delpy is truly radiant as Celine, instantly becoming one of my favourite actresses. Ethan Hawk, who has done little work seen by me since Dead Poets Society, is also great as Jesse. No other actor has more then a couple of lines. The dialogue of Before Sunset is wonderful, all of it feeling natural, never forced. Like the first film, the ending of this film is open-ended, although there is a very obvious (and correct) direction for series to take. Bring on Before_______.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-94

ur3109921

title: Utterly majestic. review: In 1995, director Richard Linklater released a little romantic comedy called Before Sunrise, which made only 5 million dollars, but became a cult favourite on VHS/DVD. Nearly a decade later, Linklater reunites with the film's stars (Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawk) to produce this sequel. The motive clearly wasn't financial, given the rather limited success of the original; this was a labour of love for all involved. I haven't seen the original film, but having seen the sequel, it has now become a major priority. I must see where this all began. The plot is minimalist. Jesse (Hawk) is now a successful writer, and is touring Paris when he encounters Celine (Delpy). Jesse and Celine wander around the city for an hour and a bit, with Jesse's imminent departure the film's ticking clock. The plot is not the point; this film relies on dialogue and the strength of the two actors' performances. French actress Julie Delpy is truly radiant as Celine, instantly becoming one of my favourite actresses. Ethan Hawk, who has done little work seen by me since Dead Poets Society, is also great as Jesse. No other actor has more then a couple of lines. The dialogue of Before Sunset is wonderful, all of it feeling natural, never forced. Like the first film, the ending of this film is open-ended, although there is a very obvious (and correct) direction for series to take. Bring on Before_______.

Just as amazing as before

tt0381681

Jesse (Ethan Hawke) has wrote a book based on his night with Celine (Julie Delpy) in Vienna. He talks about it in his book talk at a bookstore in Paris. Afterwards, he reunites with Celine and have a rendezvous around Paris before they - again - go their separate ways.Most sequels, nowadays, are never superior to their predecessors. Before Sunset proves it can be as terrific as its predecessor. Although this goes deeper into its source material, Before Sunset is as rich, thought-provoking, and beautiful as its predecessor. The performances by Hawke and Delpy are marvelous and their conversations are compelling. The ending is the true definition of perfection.10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-481

ur32288254

title: Just as amazing as before review: Jesse (Ethan Hawke) has wrote a book based on his night with Celine (Julie Delpy) in Vienna. He talks about it in his book talk at a bookstore in Paris. Afterwards, he reunites with Celine and have a rendezvous around Paris before they - again - go their separate ways.Most sequels, nowadays, are never superior to their predecessors. Before Sunset proves it can be as terrific as its predecessor. Although this goes deeper into its source material, Before Sunset is as rich, thought-provoking, and beautiful as its predecessor. The performances by Hawke and Delpy are marvelous and their conversations are compelling. The ending is the true definition of perfection.10/10

Man, it's great to be alive

tt0381681

Initially, I had planned to watch Richard Linklater's Before trilogy in three days, watching one film after another. However, upon viewing Before Sunrise, along with writing the review, I took note that this trilogy was about time, time progression, and how people respond with being in company with one another for either an extended period of time or, in contrast, a relatively short period of time sporadically. I thought in order to make the trilogy bear a wee bit more relevance and realism for me, as a viewer, seeing as impatiently waiting nine years between each film to see them in theaters was an option I missed, I'd distance each film by about two weeks (and with the amount of films I watch in between, there would hopefully be little obsessing over what happens to the characters in between that time). My confession to you, the reader, is that it took all of my strength not to watch Before Sunset sooner than I had scheduled it; Before Sunrise is the kind of film that blindsides you so greatly, and tickles your human spirit so tenderly, that when it's over, knowing there's more films of the like makes you want to seek those others out immediately. Unfortunately, I had to exercise some restraint in the process to at least add some personal realism to this series; like I was impatiently waiting with these characters to see one another again.Before Sunset picks up exactly nine years after the events of Before Sunrise, which focused on an American man named Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and a Frenchwoman named Céline (Julie Delpy) met aboard a train in Vienna and spent the entire day roaming and conversing through the city, agreeing to meet nine years later in the same place. Jesse is back overseas, however, this time in Paris, doing a book tour for the novel he wrote about his encounter with Céline and how it changed his life. During the book tour, he runs into Céline, shocked as can be, as he recalls how their original meeting didn't go as scheduled because she presumably forgot about their agreement to meet. It turns out, a personal tragedy occurred in Céline's life, making her unable to meet up with him. Now, however, they are together and spend a brief but glorious day in Paris together, again, roaming the streets talking about philosophy, personal happiness, their own lives, their own musings, and so forth, all captured under the beautiful streets and attractions that Paris has to offer.Hawke and Delpy have officially made themselves comfortable in the roles of Jesse and Céline. In this effort, they seem more relaxed with one another, especially Hawke, who has made his character assume more of a pleasantly comic role, but never to any particular fault. Delpy's character, on the other hand, has grown more cynical to the idea of love and attraction, remarking how the past two guys she dated wound up breaking up with her and finding love immediately following the break up. "Why couldn't they ask me to marry them?," she asks Jesse, in a crying fit in a taxi, "I would've said 'no,' but the least they could've done was ask." Jesse, on the other hand, is married with a kid, and breathlessly doing a handful of book tours. He's not happy, surprisingly enough, but just passively content with his life. He admits his marriage isn't provided with the romantic/fairy-tale idealism that he's madly in love with the person he sleeps with every day, but that he respects, cares for, and trusts his wife as a person, which, he believes, is what it comes down to ultimately. However, any thinking person can see what Jesse and Céline share is true love. After nine years of no contact, and not even knowing each others last names of full backgrounds, the two can assimilate back into a particular environment and pick up a conversation that's laid dormant for nine years as if it was just discussed on the previous day. On top of that, it's important to note how comfortable the two souls are around one another, sharing personal opinions and diving into past experiences in a way that only happens with one other person once in a blue moon. If you can recall one experience you've had with another person where you and them divulged personal details with one another because you felt explicitly comfortable and safe in their presence, you are an incredibly lucky soul. If you can hold on to that, you're an even more fortunate person.Before Sunset, above all, is a continuation of Linklater's fascination and study of time and human interaction. He has constructed two very interesting and complex characters and has given them the ability to reconnect with one another every nine years. With that, he toys with settings, ideas, and philosophies, and essentially uses these two souls to communicate thoughts and ideas about how we interact and how times heals, impacts, and effects all of us, especially our relationships, in different ways. Before Sunset is a beautiful continuation; a love-letter and joyous appreciation for the human spirit, with two great actors even more adjusted and oriented to their roles than ever before, leaving for seventy-seven minutes of rich and potent dialog. If you don't extract something from this film, or feel something, I may need to check you for a pulse.Starring: Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Directed by: Richard Linklater.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-522

ur23483288

title: Man, it's great to be alive review: Initially, I had planned to watch Richard Linklater's Before trilogy in three days, watching one film after another. However, upon viewing Before Sunrise, along with writing the review, I took note that this trilogy was about time, time progression, and how people respond with being in company with one another for either an extended period of time or, in contrast, a relatively short period of time sporadically. I thought in order to make the trilogy bear a wee bit more relevance and realism for me, as a viewer, seeing as impatiently waiting nine years between each film to see them in theaters was an option I missed, I'd distance each film by about two weeks (and with the amount of films I watch in between, there would hopefully be little obsessing over what happens to the characters in between that time). My confession to you, the reader, is that it took all of my strength not to watch Before Sunset sooner than I had scheduled it; Before Sunrise is the kind of film that blindsides you so greatly, and tickles your human spirit so tenderly, that when it's over, knowing there's more films of the like makes you want to seek those others out immediately. Unfortunately, I had to exercise some restraint in the process to at least add some personal realism to this series; like I was impatiently waiting with these characters to see one another again.Before Sunset picks up exactly nine years after the events of Before Sunrise, which focused on an American man named Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and a Frenchwoman named Céline (Julie Delpy) met aboard a train in Vienna and spent the entire day roaming and conversing through the city, agreeing to meet nine years later in the same place. Jesse is back overseas, however, this time in Paris, doing a book tour for the novel he wrote about his encounter with Céline and how it changed his life. During the book tour, he runs into Céline, shocked as can be, as he recalls how their original meeting didn't go as scheduled because she presumably forgot about their agreement to meet. It turns out, a personal tragedy occurred in Céline's life, making her unable to meet up with him. Now, however, they are together and spend a brief but glorious day in Paris together, again, roaming the streets talking about philosophy, personal happiness, their own lives, their own musings, and so forth, all captured under the beautiful streets and attractions that Paris has to offer.Hawke and Delpy have officially made themselves comfortable in the roles of Jesse and Céline. In this effort, they seem more relaxed with one another, especially Hawke, who has made his character assume more of a pleasantly comic role, but never to any particular fault. Delpy's character, on the other hand, has grown more cynical to the idea of love and attraction, remarking how the past two guys she dated wound up breaking up with her and finding love immediately following the break up. "Why couldn't they ask me to marry them?," she asks Jesse, in a crying fit in a taxi, "I would've said 'no,' but the least they could've done was ask." Jesse, on the other hand, is married with a kid, and breathlessly doing a handful of book tours. He's not happy, surprisingly enough, but just passively content with his life. He admits his marriage isn't provided with the romantic/fairy-tale idealism that he's madly in love with the person he sleeps with every day, but that he respects, cares for, and trusts his wife as a person, which, he believes, is what it comes down to ultimately. However, any thinking person can see what Jesse and Céline share is true love. After nine years of no contact, and not even knowing each others last names of full backgrounds, the two can assimilate back into a particular environment and pick up a conversation that's laid dormant for nine years as if it was just discussed on the previous day. On top of that, it's important to note how comfortable the two souls are around one another, sharing personal opinions and diving into past experiences in a way that only happens with one other person once in a blue moon. If you can recall one experience you've had with another person where you and them divulged personal details with one another because you felt explicitly comfortable and safe in their presence, you are an incredibly lucky soul. If you can hold on to that, you're an even more fortunate person.Before Sunset, above all, is a continuation of Linklater's fascination and study of time and human interaction. He has constructed two very interesting and complex characters and has given them the ability to reconnect with one another every nine years. With that, he toys with settings, ideas, and philosophies, and essentially uses these two souls to communicate thoughts and ideas about how we interact and how times heals, impacts, and effects all of us, especially our relationships, in different ways. Before Sunset is a beautiful continuation; a love-letter and joyous appreciation for the human spirit, with two great actors even more adjusted and oriented to their roles than ever before, leaving for seventy-seven minutes of rich and potent dialog. If you don't extract something from this film, or feel something, I may need to check you for a pulse.Starring: Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. Directed by: Richard Linklater.

Just two characters constantly talking...And it's great.

tt0381681

What this movie basically is, is a conversation between two character, one guy and a woman talking about life in general, there dreams, society and what they faced etc...But the movie is very interesting and is just entertaining to watch two character just ramble on. The movie is believable and realistic to the point you can't help but buy into it. Although few times I felt it was actors and actresses on screen but most of the way through it felt like real people not characters having real conversations with each other. And that is one of the elements that drives this movie besides the topic of the conversations which is another key element that made this movie good. What other thing that impressed me is the long one take scenes during the conversations since if they screwed up they would have to start that whole long take over again. Sometimes it seems like it compacted a bunch of interesting thoughts about certain stuff into one movie as much as possible but for the most part it's alright. And it also didn't seem all that forced and seemed natural most of the way through to the point it felt like a improv or they winged it. Some of the stuff the characters cover some audiences might agree with and some might not, but it's still interesting conversations that you won't mind listening to. Like how sometimes you might eavesdrop into other people's conversation and be interested in it, this movie is the epitome of that. The chemistry between the two characters was also really good. The "what if" aspect to this movie is also very well integrated into this movie. Even if this movie is about two people having conversations you will probably appreciate this movie even more the second time you watch it.8.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-454

ur22171966

title: Just two characters constantly talking...And it's great. review: What this movie basically is, is a conversation between two character, one guy and a woman talking about life in general, there dreams, society and what they faced etc...But the movie is very interesting and is just entertaining to watch two character just ramble on. The movie is believable and realistic to the point you can't help but buy into it. Although few times I felt it was actors and actresses on screen but most of the way through it felt like real people not characters having real conversations with each other. And that is one of the elements that drives this movie besides the topic of the conversations which is another key element that made this movie good. What other thing that impressed me is the long one take scenes during the conversations since if they screwed up they would have to start that whole long take over again. Sometimes it seems like it compacted a bunch of interesting thoughts about certain stuff into one movie as much as possible but for the most part it's alright. And it also didn't seem all that forced and seemed natural most of the way through to the point it felt like a improv or they winged it. Some of the stuff the characters cover some audiences might agree with and some might not, but it's still interesting conversations that you won't mind listening to. Like how sometimes you might eavesdrop into other people's conversation and be interested in it, this movie is the epitome of that. The chemistry between the two characters was also really good. The "what if" aspect to this movie is also very well integrated into this movie. Even if this movie is about two people having conversations you will probably appreciate this movie even more the second time you watch it.8.4/10

Long time coming

tt0381681

So it took them a few years to make this happen. But it was worth the wait (if you waited that is). The script is exceptional once again, with dialog that doesn't feel like it is scripted. Some might even argue that this is slightly (or a lot) better than the original film this is based on. Whatever the case, we have one of the rare occasions, where a sequel does not fall off quality wise.You have to like romantic drama or stories about life in general to really get into this of course. But with the trilogy and this being the second part of it, you should know what you are getting yourself into. Good acting and a scenario that takes the characters and the time that has passed and gives us a spin on it. Watch chronological!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-489

ur5876717

title: Long time coming review: So it took them a few years to make this happen. But it was worth the wait (if you waited that is). The script is exceptional once again, with dialog that doesn't feel like it is scripted. Some might even argue that this is slightly (or a lot) better than the original film this is based on. Whatever the case, we have one of the rare occasions, where a sequel does not fall off quality wise.You have to like romantic drama or stories about life in general to really get into this of course. But with the trilogy and this being the second part of it, you should know what you are getting yourself into. Good acting and a scenario that takes the characters and the time that has passed and gives us a spin on it. Watch chronological!

Before Sunset

tt0381681

I am pretty sure that I heard the title of this sequel before that title of the original, Sunrise, so having watched the fantastic original I was very interested to see how the follow up would fare, from writer / director Richard Linklater (Waking Life, School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly, Me and Orson Welles). Basically it has been nine years since Jesse (Ethan Hawke), now a writer from the United States, and Céline (Julie Delpy), now an environmental protection organisation worker, met on the train from Budapest to Vienna and spent a day, and a night, together. They "coincidentally" reconnect when Jesse is in France, Paris to promote his novel This Time, inspired by his time with Céline, as he talks about the book, and a new one he is planning he has flashbacks about her, and then he spots her outside smiling. The bookstore manager reminds him he will be catching a plane back to America within an hour or so, so when they decide to spend some time together just wandering the city their time together is again constrained. As before they talk about themselves, but mostly what has happened since they last met and what they have learned and changes in their circumstances, for example Jesse is married with a little boy, and Céline has a boyfriend, and obviously as they find all this out there are many personal questions and explanations. Jesse admits that he did show up in Vienna at the spot where they said they would meet again in six months, but Céline explains that she could not come because her grandmother died and the funeral happened to be that day, and they did not exchange addresses or phone numbers, so the chances of them meeting again were slim. As they talk and continue to stroll around Paris they express opinions of how life in general has changed, i.e. in the world, but mostly they clearly show dissatisfaction of the lives they have now, Jesse is only staying married for the sake of his son, and Céline hardly sees her boyfriend at all because he is always on assignment, and they talk about the fact that they had sex together, twice. They go through various venues, a coffee shop, a garden, a park, an open excursion boat, and in a hire car, their feelings for each other are slowly rekindled, but at the same time there is small frustration that they could not get together those nine years ago. Jesse admits that he was desperate to see Céline again so much that he wrote the book in the hope of her reading it and finding her, and she admits that she did read it, twice, and it brought back emotional memories of their time together. The concluding scene sees them go quickly into her apartment where Céline promised to play him a song on her guitar that she wrote herself, she plays him her waltz song (written by Delpy) which contains lyrics that clearly relate to their time together, and Jesse then puts on a Nina Simone CD that she dances to and imitates Simone's voice and attitude, and the last moment sees her say "Baby... you are gonna miss that plane.", and he just smiles and says "I know", and the film ends. Once again Hawke and Delpy have great chemistry together, obviously being in their thirties their characteristics have changed slightly, but you can tell that the characters long to possibly show stronger affection than they may be expressing. The script is still witty enough, and the real time concept this time makes the film flow in a different style that is interesting, I will admit the fact that they already know each other makes their conversation not as much fun, but it certainly engages you enough to see what will happen next, whether they will reconnect, so overall a likable romantic drama sequel. Good!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/reviews-464

ur4248714

title: Before Sunset review: I am pretty sure that I heard the title of this sequel before that title of the original, Sunrise, so having watched the fantastic original I was very interested to see how the follow up would fare, from writer / director Richard Linklater (Waking Life, School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly, Me and Orson Welles). Basically it has been nine years since Jesse (Ethan Hawke), now a writer from the United States, and Céline (Julie Delpy), now an environmental protection organisation worker, met on the train from Budapest to Vienna and spent a day, and a night, together. They "coincidentally" reconnect when Jesse is in France, Paris to promote his novel This Time, inspired by his time with Céline, as he talks about the book, and a new one he is planning he has flashbacks about her, and then he spots her outside smiling. The bookstore manager reminds him he will be catching a plane back to America within an hour or so, so when they decide to spend some time together just wandering the city their time together is again constrained. As before they talk about themselves, but mostly what has happened since they last met and what they have learned and changes in their circumstances, for example Jesse is married with a little boy, and Céline has a boyfriend, and obviously as they find all this out there are many personal questions and explanations. Jesse admits that he did show up in Vienna at the spot where they said they would meet again in six months, but Céline explains that she could not come because her grandmother died and the funeral happened to be that day, and they did not exchange addresses or phone numbers, so the chances of them meeting again were slim. As they talk and continue to stroll around Paris they express opinions of how life in general has changed, i.e. in the world, but mostly they clearly show dissatisfaction of the lives they have now, Jesse is only staying married for the sake of his son, and Céline hardly sees her boyfriend at all because he is always on assignment, and they talk about the fact that they had sex together, twice. They go through various venues, a coffee shop, a garden, a park, an open excursion boat, and in a hire car, their feelings for each other are slowly rekindled, but at the same time there is small frustration that they could not get together those nine years ago. Jesse admits that he was desperate to see Céline again so much that he wrote the book in the hope of her reading it and finding her, and she admits that she did read it, twice, and it brought back emotional memories of their time together. The concluding scene sees them go quickly into her apartment where Céline promised to play him a song on her guitar that she wrote herself, she plays him her waltz song (written by Delpy) which contains lyrics that clearly relate to their time together, and Jesse then puts on a Nina Simone CD that she dances to and imitates Simone's voice and attitude, and the last moment sees her say "Baby... you are gonna miss that plane.", and he just smiles and says "I know", and the film ends. Once again Hawke and Delpy have great chemistry together, obviously being in their thirties their characteristics have changed slightly, but you can tell that the characters long to possibly show stronger affection than they may be expressing. The script is still witty enough, and the real time concept this time makes the film flow in a different style that is interesting, I will admit the fact that they already know each other makes their conversation not as much fun, but it certainly engages you enough to see what will happen next, whether they will reconnect, so overall a likable romantic drama sequel. Good!

Surreal and confusing

tt0414993

Non-linear surreal story about immortality, life and death told in 3 time-lines.I expected to like this movie and expected a clever, passionate and deep experience to overwhelm the viewer. Unfortunately it became a rather confused and repetitive show of images and sounds, which weren't bad, but about an hour would have been enough.There is no-clear path to the film, other than the message that instead of searching for immortality, you should take the opportunity to cherish your time on this planet. If you don't, you may regret it. This film shows the longing and regret from a future perspective and a rather unusual story within a story as the main plot line.The result is a rather boring film that, at no point, really grabs the viewer, you always feel you are looking in on the periphery and waiting for the dots to be joined. However they never are.5/10 – nice try, but falls short.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-468

ur0382572

title: Surreal and confusing review: Non-linear surreal story about immortality, life and death told in 3 time-lines.I expected to like this movie and expected a clever, passionate and deep experience to overwhelm the viewer. Unfortunately it became a rather confused and repetitive show of images and sounds, which weren't bad, but about an hour would have been enough.There is no-clear path to the film, other than the message that instead of searching for immortality, you should take the opportunity to cherish your time on this planet. If you don't, you may regret it. This film shows the longing and regret from a future perspective and a rather unusual story within a story as the main plot line.The result is a rather boring film that, at no point, really grabs the viewer, you always feel you are looking in on the periphery and waiting for the dots to be joined. However they never are.5/10 – nice try, but falls short.

terrible idea

tt0414993

I admit, I didn't get it. I thought it didn't make sense. I did sort of get the past scenes with Tom as a conquistador and the present as a scientist searching for a cure for his wife's brain tumor. But the future Tom made no sense. Being in outer space, a giant tree, surrounded by a ball; it was plain silly. And why this movie did poorly at the box office. Was it supposed to be the exact same Tom as a conquistador and in the present or just his spirit the same? And what about Izzy? Was it the same woman or spirit or soul or whatever? FINAL VERDICT: I did not like this at all. Definitely one of the worst sci-fi films I've seen in a while.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-706

ur1773414

title: terrible idea review: I admit, I didn't get it. I thought it didn't make sense. I did sort of get the past scenes with Tom as a conquistador and the present as a scientist searching for a cure for his wife's brain tumor. But the future Tom made no sense. Being in outer space, a giant tree, surrounded by a ball; it was plain silly. And why this movie did poorly at the box office. Was it supposed to be the exact same Tom as a conquistador and in the present or just his spirit the same? And what about Izzy? Was it the same woman or spirit or soul or whatever? FINAL VERDICT: I did not like this at all. Definitely one of the worst sci-fi films I've seen in a while.

Incredibly beautiful and spiritual movie.

tt0414993

Let me start by first saying that this movies divides a lot of opinions; some people call it "Boring and Pretentious", while others like me call it "a deeply spiritual and philosophical" movie. Darren Aronofsky believed the film was released at the wrong time but I don't believe it was, I believe the reason why the masses didn't accept it was because of the theme of death that runs through it and how death isn't the end, but just the beginning and a lot of people don't like to talk about death. The fountain is a deeply spiritual and philosophical movie on many levels and it is an incredibly underrated movie that unfairly gets a lot of negative reviews. It is basically about a love story that lasts the test of time and it also tackles issues such as fear of death and what happens to us when we pass on from this live to another and how love will never end. Darren Aronofsky should be applauded with making such a beautiful and heartbreaking movie about death, Clint Mansell deserves applause for composing such a memorable soundtrack while the string quartet Kronos Quartet also deserves credit for contributing to the film score. While I believe that the fountain was Hugh Jackman's best movie, his performance was just incredible about a man looking for some difficult answers. Rachel Weisz's performance was just heartbreaking and hauntingly beautiful. The Fountain is about love and death and how death is not the end but only the beginning.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-995

ur26897720

title: Incredibly beautiful and spiritual movie. review: Let me start by first saying that this movies divides a lot of opinions; some people call it "Boring and Pretentious", while others like me call it "a deeply spiritual and philosophical" movie. Darren Aronofsky believed the film was released at the wrong time but I don't believe it was, I believe the reason why the masses didn't accept it was because of the theme of death that runs through it and how death isn't the end, but just the beginning and a lot of people don't like to talk about death. The fountain is a deeply spiritual and philosophical movie on many levels and it is an incredibly underrated movie that unfairly gets a lot of negative reviews. It is basically about a love story that lasts the test of time and it also tackles issues such as fear of death and what happens to us when we pass on from this live to another and how love will never end. Darren Aronofsky should be applauded with making such a beautiful and heartbreaking movie about death, Clint Mansell deserves applause for composing such a memorable soundtrack while the string quartet Kronos Quartet also deserves credit for contributing to the film score. While I believe that the fountain was Hugh Jackman's best movie, his performance was just incredible about a man looking for some difficult answers. Rachel Weisz's performance was just heartbreaking and hauntingly beautiful. The Fountain is about love and death and how death is not the end but only the beginning.

Together We Will Live Forever

tt0414993

Three stories - one each from the past, present, and future - about men in pursuit of eternity with their love. A conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; a medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble, moves toward a dying star that's wrapped in a nebula; he seeks eternity with his love. The stories intersect and parallel; the quests fail and succeed. This Film Is Quite Clearly A Modern Classic. After I Heared So Many Positive Things That People Said About This Movie I Wanted To Get An Opinion For Myself.This Is Not The "All Crying" Movie So Many People Claim It To Be. I Could Find A Lot Of Character Development & This Is Truly A Unique Film...Never Before Have I Ever Seen Sci/Fi Combined With Drama. After I Saw This I Went To Check Who Did The Soundtrack...By My Surprise It Was One Of My Favourite Movie Composers, Clint Mansell(For Those Who Want The Soundtrack To Another Movie He Has Done He Did "Moon" & "Requiem For A Dream").All In All If You Like Either Sci/Fi Or Drama Or If You Like Both Then I Would Recommend This Movie To You.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-882

ur20815663

title: Together We Will Live Forever review: Three stories - one each from the past, present, and future - about men in pursuit of eternity with their love. A conquistador in Mayan country searches for the tree of life to free his captive queen; a medical researcher, working with various trees, looks for a cure that will save his dying wife; a space traveler, traveling with an aged tree encapsulated within a bubble, moves toward a dying star that's wrapped in a nebula; he seeks eternity with his love. The stories intersect and parallel; the quests fail and succeed. This Film Is Quite Clearly A Modern Classic. After I Heared So Many Positive Things That People Said About This Movie I Wanted To Get An Opinion For Myself.This Is Not The "All Crying" Movie So Many People Claim It To Be. I Could Find A Lot Of Character Development & This Is Truly A Unique Film...Never Before Have I Ever Seen Sci/Fi Combined With Drama. After I Saw This I Went To Check Who Did The Soundtrack...By My Surprise It Was One Of My Favourite Movie Composers, Clint Mansell(For Those Who Want The Soundtrack To Another Movie He Has Done He Did "Moon" & "Requiem For A Dream").All In All If You Like Either Sci/Fi Or Drama Or If You Like Both Then I Would Recommend This Movie To You.

Wonderously ponderous

tt0414993

There is something strangely hypnotic and alluring about 'The Fountain'.The sets and photography are crafted to create this otherworldly feel and to take you through a narrative that shifts from the Spanish Inquisition to a Space Odyssey of the future.The script is ponderous and grand in its depiction, which it ultimately fails to reach. However, Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman are engaging and do very well with the understated emotions that are necessary in this delicate piece of film making.I appreciate this film for what it is, a look into the delicacy of life, love and death and if you can admire its audacity to venture into such territory and not be unsettled by its meanderings it will be a worthwhile experience, one that will oddly remain with you for sometimes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-703

ur1545857

title: Wonderously ponderous review: There is something strangely hypnotic and alluring about 'The Fountain'.The sets and photography are crafted to create this otherworldly feel and to take you through a narrative that shifts from the Spanish Inquisition to a Space Odyssey of the future.The script is ponderous and grand in its depiction, which it ultimately fails to reach. However, Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman are engaging and do very well with the understated emotions that are necessary in this delicate piece of film making.I appreciate this film for what it is, a look into the delicacy of life, love and death and if you can admire its audacity to venture into such territory and not be unsettled by its meanderings it will be a worthwhile experience, one that will oddly remain with you for sometimes.

The story seems original, but if you look closer, you can see that it is cliché and its visuals are no more than a slide show

tt0414993

The Fountain seems like a different film, it is a combination of past, present and future with different settings and stories. It is a hybrid movie, it has science fiction elements, it is a drama about a doctor and his ill wife, it is epic, there are Mad Max- like punk? tribes, it is a postmodern film, but none of those makes The Fountain a good film. The present story is the main story, it is the starting point, but this main story is very cliché that we saw even in some B movies! A doctor's wife is sick. He uses science to try to cure his wife who he loves. That's the story of the film. What a simple story! The worse thing is that this story doesn't go any further and we can't feel the romance or the pain either. Other than this, yes, as some other audiences said, the movie is extremely pretentious. The images, all those visual elements doesn't make any sense, instead it was like a long and very boring slide show. As a moviegoer, I very rarely call a movie boring, but The Fountain just pushed my limits. The images, some of those were beautiful, yes, but it is like all those images has not any supportive or enough background or emotion. It is called pretentious, right? This is not style over substance stuff, because there is not any real story for this feature length film, there are rather some ideas. I said the man who tries to save his wife is the brief story of the film, but it is more like a sum of ideas rather than a real, interesting story. Hugh Jackman doesn't fit his role, also he was not very good in this, Rachel Weisz was more adaptable than him, but both of them were literally missing in the movie. It seems that even they didn't believe the story, the movie. This film proves that all of the different time zones, different stories films are not good, just because it sounds or looks different. If you liked Moon, you will like The Fountain, there is no doubt about it! I couldn't like Moon either, because it was the same as The Fountain. No heart and soul. The Fountain has no heart and soul, no dramatic scene or twist. The movie's pseudo weightiness was over for me. This isn't high art for me, this isn't entertainment, this isn't a cinematic journey, this is something else, but I am sure about one thing, it was a zest-less experience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-963

ur22423593

title: The story seems original, but if you look closer, you can see that it is cliché and its visuals are no more than a slide show review: The Fountain seems like a different film, it is a combination of past, present and future with different settings and stories. It is a hybrid movie, it has science fiction elements, it is a drama about a doctor and his ill wife, it is epic, there are Mad Max- like punk? tribes, it is a postmodern film, but none of those makes The Fountain a good film. The present story is the main story, it is the starting point, but this main story is very cliché that we saw even in some B movies! A doctor's wife is sick. He uses science to try to cure his wife who he loves. That's the story of the film. What a simple story! The worse thing is that this story doesn't go any further and we can't feel the romance or the pain either. Other than this, yes, as some other audiences said, the movie is extremely pretentious. The images, all those visual elements doesn't make any sense, instead it was like a long and very boring slide show. As a moviegoer, I very rarely call a movie boring, but The Fountain just pushed my limits. The images, some of those were beautiful, yes, but it is like all those images has not any supportive or enough background or emotion. It is called pretentious, right? This is not style over substance stuff, because there is not any real story for this feature length film, there are rather some ideas. I said the man who tries to save his wife is the brief story of the film, but it is more like a sum of ideas rather than a real, interesting story. Hugh Jackman doesn't fit his role, also he was not very good in this, Rachel Weisz was more adaptable than him, but both of them were literally missing in the movie. It seems that even they didn't believe the story, the movie. This film proves that all of the different time zones, different stories films are not good, just because it sounds or looks different. If you liked Moon, you will like The Fountain, there is no doubt about it! I couldn't like Moon either, because it was the same as The Fountain. No heart and soul. The Fountain has no heart and soul, no dramatic scene or twist. The movie's pseudo weightiness was over for me. This isn't high art for me, this isn't entertainment, this isn't a cinematic journey, this is something else, but I am sure about one thing, it was a zest-less experience.

The most indescribably brilliant movie in years.

tt0414993

This is probably the most difficult film to review ever. The Fountain isn't going to sound like much if I give you just a brief plot synopsis. But I'll give it a go. Tom Creo, a brilliant Doctor, is searching for a cure for cancer. His wife Izzy is dying and his research on Monkeys only seems to mysteriously reverse the ageing process. The secret ingredient to his new medicine is taken from a magic tree in South America. The tree of life, or the fountain of youth. Whatever you want to call it. As Izzy slips away, Tom becomes intrigued with her unfinished novel The Fountain. It turns out that the novel is about Tom and Izzy's past lives as a Spanish Queen and Captain in South America hundreds of years ago. And the only way Tom can finish the book is if he stays around for the future, when he can literally take the long-dead Izzy into the heavens.Phew! That sounds disconcertingly strange, but trust me it's an amazing experience. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are brilliant, delivering multi-layered performances. The dialogue avoids soap opera clichés of dying young and instead is filled with many philosophic double meanings and a lot of undeclared emotions. I could go on for ages about how good it all is from the direction, gorgeous cinematography, beautiful score, flawless storytelling etc. But I think you get the point already.What The Fountain mostly resembles is the most beautiful, otherworldly dream you've ever had but can barely remember. It's a hypnotic movie filled with moments that will stay with you forever. Just when you think the film has given you all that it has to offer it surprises you with more and more amazing revelations.To deny yourself a movie like this would be a heinous act. There's just so much about it I can rave on about. But I won't. Go see for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-401

ur0102816

title: The most indescribably brilliant movie in years. review: This is probably the most difficult film to review ever. The Fountain isn't going to sound like much if I give you just a brief plot synopsis. But I'll give it a go. Tom Creo, a brilliant Doctor, is searching for a cure for cancer. His wife Izzy is dying and his research on Monkeys only seems to mysteriously reverse the ageing process. The secret ingredient to his new medicine is taken from a magic tree in South America. The tree of life, or the fountain of youth. Whatever you want to call it. As Izzy slips away, Tom becomes intrigued with her unfinished novel The Fountain. It turns out that the novel is about Tom and Izzy's past lives as a Spanish Queen and Captain in South America hundreds of years ago. And the only way Tom can finish the book is if he stays around for the future, when he can literally take the long-dead Izzy into the heavens.Phew! That sounds disconcertingly strange, but trust me it's an amazing experience. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are brilliant, delivering multi-layered performances. The dialogue avoids soap opera clichés of dying young and instead is filled with many philosophic double meanings and a lot of undeclared emotions. I could go on for ages about how good it all is from the direction, gorgeous cinematography, beautiful score, flawless storytelling etc. But I think you get the point already.What The Fountain mostly resembles is the most beautiful, otherworldly dream you've ever had but can barely remember. It's a hypnotic movie filled with moments that will stay with you forever. Just when you think the film has given you all that it has to offer it surprises you with more and more amazing revelations.To deny yourself a movie like this would be a heinous act. There's just so much about it I can rave on about. But I won't. Go see for yourself.

Imaginative but jumbled; perhaps needs more than 90min...

tt0414993

The Fountain is imaginative and distinctive in it's look, and features vigorous acting from Hugh Jackman. It reminded me of something like a "good" version of "The Cell". Unfortunately, The Fountain at times feels like it's trying to cram in 3 movies into one 90 min session. Without any foreknowledge of what the story is, it took some 15-20 min to come to grips with the maker's reality or narrative.... Not too good for me, tried my patience. There is a pretty clear message of a cyclical meaning in life and death - they support one another and are linked. However, for me, whenever religion, faith, or spirituality permeate into explanations, it's a bit of let-down. I'm one more for reasoning and logic. Going back to medieval Spain with inquisitors and dark ages type setting is interesting as narrative, but not as an explanation really. Another thing is because of all the jumping around, I never quite empathized with the main 2 characters - they don't get much of a chance to develop, but rather are thrown onto us. Still the look is vivid and dreamlike - the filmmakers at least dared to make something less clichéd even though jumbled.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-607

ur0635312

title: Imaginative but jumbled; perhaps needs more than 90min... review: The Fountain is imaginative and distinctive in it's look, and features vigorous acting from Hugh Jackman. It reminded me of something like a "good" version of "The Cell". Unfortunately, The Fountain at times feels like it's trying to cram in 3 movies into one 90 min session. Without any foreknowledge of what the story is, it took some 15-20 min to come to grips with the maker's reality or narrative.... Not too good for me, tried my patience. There is a pretty clear message of a cyclical meaning in life and death - they support one another and are linked. However, for me, whenever religion, faith, or spirituality permeate into explanations, it's a bit of let-down. I'm one more for reasoning and logic. Going back to medieval Spain with inquisitors and dark ages type setting is interesting as narrative, but not as an explanation really. Another thing is because of all the jumping around, I never quite empathized with the main 2 characters - they don't get much of a chance to develop, but rather are thrown onto us. Still the look is vivid and dreamlike - the filmmakers at least dared to make something less clichéd even though jumbled.

The Fountain

tt0414993

Darren Aronofsky has always been a little weird, his directorial debut µ was a crazed black and white drug filled trip through the mind of a mad scientist and no less weird but a tad more mainstream was the equally trippy Requiem for a Dream, well he's done it again and he is here to baffle us once more with the fountain. It's a film about a book that is the film and the book; oh forget it I can see I'm losing you already. Lets just say it's a very messed up love story that spans a thousand years and the universe and involves living forever but eventually dieing, am I making sense? Well the film hardly does either. Visually it is stunning as we fly through space and visit dieing stars, jumping backwards and forwards in our pursuit of answers to death, disease and eternal love, it all looks very pretty indeed its just that doesn't really help us understand it anymore. Science, fantasy, Mayan pyramids, yoga it all sounds a bit like Tom Cruise's belief system and yes at times it is that bizarre and just when you think there's going to be a revel or you've kind of got a handle on what the hells going off whoosh it spins of again into eating trees and self tattooing all while having flashback from several periods in history that are miles apart, am I losing you again? You see the thing is The Fountain is one of those films that you have to submerge yourself in; you have to live with it, feel it, and even become it. The first half of this review was written by me straight after seeing the film, this bit is nearly two weeks later and the film has taken that long to sink in, to imbed itself in my brain, it is a complex beast and one you will need time to tame. If people aren't getting it I guess they don't want to or its too much effort, where's the explosions and car chases? What is being presented here is a film with intelligence and a challenge to the audience if you go with it you will be rewarded if you don't you will miss out on one the most amazing cinematic experiences you could possibly have. I for one need to see it many more times to really appreciate its ultimate beauty. I have heard it being compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey and that is maybe stretching it but I can tell you it's not far off. A time spanning timeless masterpiece of modern cinema, a shame that people will probably not start getting it for years to come.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-410

ur4995240

title: The Fountain review: Darren Aronofsky has always been a little weird, his directorial debut µ was a crazed black and white drug filled trip through the mind of a mad scientist and no less weird but a tad more mainstream was the equally trippy Requiem for a Dream, well he's done it again and he is here to baffle us once more with the fountain. It's a film about a book that is the film and the book; oh forget it I can see I'm losing you already. Lets just say it's a very messed up love story that spans a thousand years and the universe and involves living forever but eventually dieing, am I making sense? Well the film hardly does either. Visually it is stunning as we fly through space and visit dieing stars, jumping backwards and forwards in our pursuit of answers to death, disease and eternal love, it all looks very pretty indeed its just that doesn't really help us understand it anymore. Science, fantasy, Mayan pyramids, yoga it all sounds a bit like Tom Cruise's belief system and yes at times it is that bizarre and just when you think there's going to be a revel or you've kind of got a handle on what the hells going off whoosh it spins of again into eating trees and self tattooing all while having flashback from several periods in history that are miles apart, am I losing you again? You see the thing is The Fountain is one of those films that you have to submerge yourself in; you have to live with it, feel it, and even become it. The first half of this review was written by me straight after seeing the film, this bit is nearly two weeks later and the film has taken that long to sink in, to imbed itself in my brain, it is a complex beast and one you will need time to tame. If people aren't getting it I guess they don't want to or its too much effort, where's the explosions and car chases? What is being presented here is a film with intelligence and a challenge to the audience if you go with it you will be rewarded if you don't you will miss out on one the most amazing cinematic experiences you could possibly have. I for one need to see it many more times to really appreciate its ultimate beauty. I have heard it being compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey and that is maybe stretching it but I can tell you it's not far off. A time spanning timeless masterpiece of modern cinema, a shame that people will probably not start getting it for years to come.

An Unfortuneate Miss

tt0414993

Loved Pi and Requiem for a Dream. Read TIME's favorable review and rented this with lofty expectations. Sorely disappointed.Looking over all these private reviews, most folk either loved or hated this film. I am sympathetic to both camps. The film was a visual beauty and sad even if you were struggling to figure things out. On the other hand, there were tons of plot details thrown in demanding consideration but making little sense.Clearly, the Inquisition/Conquistador portion is Izzi's book and the space bubble travel is the end - or part - of the sequence. But did Tom write the ending?; i.e., "finish it"? If so, why does Izzi appear in the bubble; e.g., she cannot be a character in her own book! When does Tom learn to accept death? Upon HIS death? He surely has no change of heart during his lifetime and shows no inclination to "finish" the book! Why does the Mayan priest, a character in Izzi's book see, acknowledge, etc., Tom the Space Traveler as "Father"? For the first two-thirds of the film, I was struggling with a plot idea that this was science fantasy or science fiction. Since Tom Scientist has found a magical South American substance I was justified in thinking the "Tree of Life" would become a physical plot devise and its transport in space was akin to the slab in 2001 Space Oddessey. Also that Izzi has actually been the Queen of Spain and lived 450 years before writing an autobiographical book and, finally, acknowledging that death is part of life and accepting such. Tom Scientist's discovery of the magical substance and his obsession with such supports this idea. This, ultimately, does not appear to be Aranosky's intent, though it is a no less cohesive take on what Darin DID have in mind.I can believe some of the user reviews mentioning that film audiences audibly groaned at some points and/or laughed at parts were such was not intended. Mr. Aranosky should not dismiss such reactions, nor the cry that the film is confusing. That is poor film making. On the upbeat, this guy has made some excellent films and certainly will do such again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-687

ur0697468

title: An Unfortuneate Miss review: Loved Pi and Requiem for a Dream. Read TIME's favorable review and rented this with lofty expectations. Sorely disappointed.Looking over all these private reviews, most folk either loved or hated this film. I am sympathetic to both camps. The film was a visual beauty and sad even if you were struggling to figure things out. On the other hand, there were tons of plot details thrown in demanding consideration but making little sense.Clearly, the Inquisition/Conquistador portion is Izzi's book and the space bubble travel is the end - or part - of the sequence. But did Tom write the ending?; i.e., "finish it"? If so, why does Izzi appear in the bubble; e.g., she cannot be a character in her own book! When does Tom learn to accept death? Upon HIS death? He surely has no change of heart during his lifetime and shows no inclination to "finish" the book! Why does the Mayan priest, a character in Izzi's book see, acknowledge, etc., Tom the Space Traveler as "Father"? For the first two-thirds of the film, I was struggling with a plot idea that this was science fantasy or science fiction. Since Tom Scientist has found a magical South American substance I was justified in thinking the "Tree of Life" would become a physical plot devise and its transport in space was akin to the slab in 2001 Space Oddessey. Also that Izzi has actually been the Queen of Spain and lived 450 years before writing an autobiographical book and, finally, acknowledging that death is part of life and accepting such. Tom Scientist's discovery of the magical substance and his obsession with such supports this idea. This, ultimately, does not appear to be Aranosky's intent, though it is a no less cohesive take on what Darin DID have in mind.I can believe some of the user reviews mentioning that film audiences audibly groaned at some points and/or laughed at parts were such was not intended. Mr. Aranosky should not dismiss such reactions, nor the cry that the film is confusing. That is poor film making. On the upbeat, this guy has made some excellent films and certainly will do such again.

Cloying, superficial, grandiose and weirdly empty for a movie trying to be so profound

tt0414993

The Fountain (2006)A superficially ambitious, fantastical film that throws clichés like peanut butter--sticky, oily, uncooked bits of Profundity. I love deep, romantic, obsessive movies, and I couldn't stand this one. I think young people (or my younger self) might soak this up, especially people looking for meaning in their lives. For pure inventive fantasy, the Lord of the Rings movies are far better, and less pompous, and the Harry Potter movies have better plots and characters. "Pan's Labyrinth" has more magic and imagination. In fact, any number of movies in these kinds of fantastical realms have more going on. Because half the movie occurs in a modern hospital (with all its own clichés--the heart monitor, the dying people, the rush of medical workers to save someone) and because it's about true love that cannot die, the closest parallel might be "What Dreams May Come," which has the life/death struggle and the investigation of what our souls are, what a spirit is, what life is. For me "The Fountain" was overstuffed with overused ideas of what serious, epic, mysterious, meaningful things are. It is equal parts wishful thinking and self-importance, with quasi-inventive set design (modeled after other fantasy films in its endless darkness, unwashed hair, overgrown trees, misty landscapes). It is also photographed with almost painfully consistent symmetry across the wide screen aspect ratio. I think this is meant to imply something grand and important, something with Eastern religious overtones, but it also makes the scenes static, even ones where characters are going through hugely physical, violent, or emotional events.Hugh Jackman? He's not my idea of an actor with depth (watch "Australia" for proof)--but then, this movie isn't really about depth, it's about the appearance of depth, the kind of depth a Hallmark sympathy card has. It's not like really weeping, it's about watching what weeping should look like. Rachel Weisz is only a pretty face here, which only cheapens the movie more, as there is no real reason for the Jackman character to obsess over her. Call it love, yes--it's a love story, technically--but you won't see any real love at work. There's better obsessive love with spiritual overtones in Coppola's "Dracula" fantasia."The Fountain" is not without interest, but it will have to be up your alley, to get into it meaningfully. Good luck.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-878

ur20961309

title: Cloying, superficial, grandiose and weirdly empty for a movie trying to be so profound review: The Fountain (2006)A superficially ambitious, fantastical film that throws clichés like peanut butter--sticky, oily, uncooked bits of Profundity. I love deep, romantic, obsessive movies, and I couldn't stand this one. I think young people (or my younger self) might soak this up, especially people looking for meaning in their lives. For pure inventive fantasy, the Lord of the Rings movies are far better, and less pompous, and the Harry Potter movies have better plots and characters. "Pan's Labyrinth" has more magic and imagination. In fact, any number of movies in these kinds of fantastical realms have more going on. Because half the movie occurs in a modern hospital (with all its own clichés--the heart monitor, the dying people, the rush of medical workers to save someone) and because it's about true love that cannot die, the closest parallel might be "What Dreams May Come," which has the life/death struggle and the investigation of what our souls are, what a spirit is, what life is. For me "The Fountain" was overstuffed with overused ideas of what serious, epic, mysterious, meaningful things are. It is equal parts wishful thinking and self-importance, with quasi-inventive set design (modeled after other fantasy films in its endless darkness, unwashed hair, overgrown trees, misty landscapes). It is also photographed with almost painfully consistent symmetry across the wide screen aspect ratio. I think this is meant to imply something grand and important, something with Eastern religious overtones, but it also makes the scenes static, even ones where characters are going through hugely physical, violent, or emotional events.Hugh Jackman? He's not my idea of an actor with depth (watch "Australia" for proof)--but then, this movie isn't really about depth, it's about the appearance of depth, the kind of depth a Hallmark sympathy card has. It's not like really weeping, it's about watching what weeping should look like. Rachel Weisz is only a pretty face here, which only cheapens the movie more, as there is no real reason for the Jackman character to obsess over her. Call it love, yes--it's a love story, technically--but you won't see any real love at work. There's better obsessive love with spiritual overtones in Coppola's "Dracula" fantasia."The Fountain" is not without interest, but it will have to be up your alley, to get into it meaningfully. Good luck.

"Death is a disease. There is a cure, and I will find it."

tt0414993

After the phenomenal critical success of 'Pi' and 'Requiem for a Dream' (neither of which I have yet had the pleasure of seeing), director Darren Aronofsky became recognised as one of the great emerging talents of the decade. His third feature-length offering, released after a six year hiatus, was 'The Fountain,' a film that has universally divided the opinions of reviewers and audiences. For example, though it was booed by many critics at its opening press screening at the 63rd Venice International Film Festival, 'The Fountain' received a ten-minute standing ovation at the public showing the following evening. Not particularly knowing what to expect coming in, I must say that I quite enjoyed it. Though undoubtedly flawed in some regards, 'The Fountain' is ambitious, brilliantly-acted and stunningly beautiful; it's the sort of bold film-making that you love to see a young director try his hands at.The plot of 'The Fountain' is a blurred combination of drama, science-fiction and fantasy. Three thematically-linked narratives – respectively set in the year 1500, the present day, and somewhere around the year 2500 – are interwoven throughout the film, each era featuring similar characters played by Hugh Jackman (fresh from Christopher Nolan's 'The Prestige') and Rachel Weisz ('The Constant Gardener'). In the present day, Jackman plays Dr. Tommy Creo, a devoted husband who is dedicating all his time to uncovering a cure for his wife Izzi's (Weisz) terminal brain tumour. Izzi, in her final months, has been writing a novel, entitled "The Fountain." The novel, which she would like Tom to complete himself, traces the struggles of a 16th century Spanish conquistador, Tomas (Jackman), to discover the famed Tree of Life in the New World, a mission granted to him by his beloved Queen Isabel (Weisz). The third story, set in the far future – or perhaps merely in Tommy Creo's mind – shows astronaut Tom (Jackman again) travelling towards the golden nebula Xibalba in an ecospheric bubble spacecraft, his only companion a dying tree and occasional visits from present-day Izzi, in spirit form.If all this sounds very confusing to you, then you're not alone. 'The Fountain' really is a film that you have to think about to receive most rewarding movie experience, and multiple viewings are sure to be beneficial in understanding the intricacies of the plot and themes. The "Conquistador" portions were certainly inspired by films such as Herzog's 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God' (and, reportedly, Aronofsky based his script on that of Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon A Time in America,' which also employs a flashback structure between three different eras). Originally set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the main roles, production of the film was ceased in September 2002 after Pitt left due to script disagreements. However, in 2004, production was restarted (with half the original budget), and Jackman and Weisz were coaxed onboard. Ellen Burstyn, the star of 'Requiem for a Dream' was also hired to appear in the film.With a relatively small budget of about $35 million, Aronofsky chose to limit his spending on visual effects as much as possible. Rather than wasting millions of dollars on lavish CGI, visual effects supervisors Jeremy Dawson and Dan Schrecker discovered macrophotography, which is the extreme close-up photography of chemicals, fluids and bacteria. Peter Parks, who specialises in such photography, explains why such a method was highly suited to the visual effects of the film: "When these images are projected on a big screen, you feel like you're looking at infinity. That's because the same forces at work in the water—gravitational effects, settlement, refractive indices—are happening in outer space." The final result is a product that generally looks convincing and timeless. However, especially in the final climactic sequence, the effects do begin to show their low-budget origins.Though Aronofsky's dialogue is perhaps a bit simplistic at times, the actors deliver it with a real passion. Hugh Jackman is particularly good during the present-day sequences, and we can only watch with despair as the impending loss of his wife begins to tear him apart from the inside. Rachel Weisz is also very good, and the two actors share a strong chemistry, never leaving us in doubt that their two characters are very much in love with each other. 'The Fountain' is an especially visual film, relying on its vibrant colours and stunning cinematography to inspire emotion. The dying golden nebula, Xibalba, towards which Jackman's astronaut travels is simply beautiful to look at, encompassing all that is beautiful and fascinating about the endless universe. Clint Mansell's score also contributes greatly to the awe-inspiring feel of the film, gradually becoming stronger and stronger in tone, before exploding in a flash of sound and energy for the heart-racing climax.At just over 90 minutes in length, 'The Fountain' is long enough to adequately get its message across, but it ultimately feels as though there could and should be more to it. In my view at least, not nearly enough of the conquistador's journey was shown to us, and, indeed, another filmmaker might even have made that single section into a fascinating feature-length film of its own. 'The Fountain' is often compared to Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' in tone and style. Though the film itself is probably not even science-fiction – as I'm inclined to view the astronaut's journey as being metaphorical more than literal – 'The Fountain' is similar to '2001' in at least one way: both films were bold and daring enough to stray from the mainstream, from what audiences are used to; time, I predict, will be very kind to this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-588

ur10334028

title: "Death is a disease. There is a cure, and I will find it." review: After the phenomenal critical success of 'Pi' and 'Requiem for a Dream' (neither of which I have yet had the pleasure of seeing), director Darren Aronofsky became recognised as one of the great emerging talents of the decade. His third feature-length offering, released after a six year hiatus, was 'The Fountain,' a film that has universally divided the opinions of reviewers and audiences. For example, though it was booed by many critics at its opening press screening at the 63rd Venice International Film Festival, 'The Fountain' received a ten-minute standing ovation at the public showing the following evening. Not particularly knowing what to expect coming in, I must say that I quite enjoyed it. Though undoubtedly flawed in some regards, 'The Fountain' is ambitious, brilliantly-acted and stunningly beautiful; it's the sort of bold film-making that you love to see a young director try his hands at.The plot of 'The Fountain' is a blurred combination of drama, science-fiction and fantasy. Three thematically-linked narratives – respectively set in the year 1500, the present day, and somewhere around the year 2500 – are interwoven throughout the film, each era featuring similar characters played by Hugh Jackman (fresh from Christopher Nolan's 'The Prestige') and Rachel Weisz ('The Constant Gardener'). In the present day, Jackman plays Dr. Tommy Creo, a devoted husband who is dedicating all his time to uncovering a cure for his wife Izzi's (Weisz) terminal brain tumour. Izzi, in her final months, has been writing a novel, entitled "The Fountain." The novel, which she would like Tom to complete himself, traces the struggles of a 16th century Spanish conquistador, Tomas (Jackman), to discover the famed Tree of Life in the New World, a mission granted to him by his beloved Queen Isabel (Weisz). The third story, set in the far future – or perhaps merely in Tommy Creo's mind – shows astronaut Tom (Jackman again) travelling towards the golden nebula Xibalba in an ecospheric bubble spacecraft, his only companion a dying tree and occasional visits from present-day Izzi, in spirit form.If all this sounds very confusing to you, then you're not alone. 'The Fountain' really is a film that you have to think about to receive most rewarding movie experience, and multiple viewings are sure to be beneficial in understanding the intricacies of the plot and themes. The "Conquistador" portions were certainly inspired by films such as Herzog's 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God' (and, reportedly, Aronofsky based his script on that of Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon A Time in America,' which also employs a flashback structure between three different eras). Originally set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the main roles, production of the film was ceased in September 2002 after Pitt left due to script disagreements. However, in 2004, production was restarted (with half the original budget), and Jackman and Weisz were coaxed onboard. Ellen Burstyn, the star of 'Requiem for a Dream' was also hired to appear in the film.With a relatively small budget of about $35 million, Aronofsky chose to limit his spending on visual effects as much as possible. Rather than wasting millions of dollars on lavish CGI, visual effects supervisors Jeremy Dawson and Dan Schrecker discovered macrophotography, which is the extreme close-up photography of chemicals, fluids and bacteria. Peter Parks, who specialises in such photography, explains why such a method was highly suited to the visual effects of the film: "When these images are projected on a big screen, you feel like you're looking at infinity. That's because the same forces at work in the water—gravitational effects, settlement, refractive indices—are happening in outer space." The final result is a product that generally looks convincing and timeless. However, especially in the final climactic sequence, the effects do begin to show their low-budget origins.Though Aronofsky's dialogue is perhaps a bit simplistic at times, the actors deliver it with a real passion. Hugh Jackman is particularly good during the present-day sequences, and we can only watch with despair as the impending loss of his wife begins to tear him apart from the inside. Rachel Weisz is also very good, and the two actors share a strong chemistry, never leaving us in doubt that their two characters are very much in love with each other. 'The Fountain' is an especially visual film, relying on its vibrant colours and stunning cinematography to inspire emotion. The dying golden nebula, Xibalba, towards which Jackman's astronaut travels is simply beautiful to look at, encompassing all that is beautiful and fascinating about the endless universe. Clint Mansell's score also contributes greatly to the awe-inspiring feel of the film, gradually becoming stronger and stronger in tone, before exploding in a flash of sound and energy for the heart-racing climax.At just over 90 minutes in length, 'The Fountain' is long enough to adequately get its message across, but it ultimately feels as though there could and should be more to it. In my view at least, not nearly enough of the conquistador's journey was shown to us, and, indeed, another filmmaker might even have made that single section into a fascinating feature-length film of its own. 'The Fountain' is often compared to Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' in tone and style. Though the film itself is probably not even science-fiction – as I'm inclined to view the astronaut's journey as being metaphorical more than literal – 'The Fountain' is similar to '2001' in at least one way: both films were bold and daring enough to stray from the mainstream, from what audiences are used to; time, I predict, will be very kind to this film.

This makes me wonder if anyone can make good surrealist fiction . . .

tt0414993

Before you assume I'm one of the countless people who didn't get the plot, thus doesn't like this movie, think again. I understood everything about The Fountain from open to close. Being someone who honestly used to enjoy good surrealist fiction, I hoped this may have been at least worth a watch. And maybe it was. However, the main problem isn't that the movie was too confusing, but rather that it was too elementary.It's almost an unspoken rule among bad surrealist authors and screenwriters: "If I'm too unintelligent to think of anything but a traditional, clichéd plot, then I have to awe the viewer into thinking I've done something so utterly original and intelligent they don't even realize I just picked up some children's book off my bookshelf and copied it word-for-word." Darren Aronofsky knows that rule, and he follows it here. It fooled a lot of viewers, but it didn't fool me.The surrealist elements of The Fountain deal with the (presumed) spiritual world of the Garden of Eden. The main character, who is presented as your standard male hero, tries to save his dying wife by finding the Fountain of Youth, aka the Tree of Life in this spiritual world by finding a way to reverse aging in the physical world through medicine. That's the basic synopsis you get from the first fifteen minutes, and that plot takes you up to the last twenty minutes when the results of all this come into place. Without spoiling anything, the ending is traditional and expected, but—back to that rule—is laced with some of the most over-the-top surrealist imagery ever put on screen. If you see past the intense flashes of gold light, you'll realize the ending was completely dull and unoriginal. And so was the rest of the movie.So . . .This is the point when it gets hard for me to write a review. Put simply, The Fountain isn't likely going to be in the top 10 worst movie list you've ever seen, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. Like the rule states, it bashes you over the head with some very pretty environments and some truly emotional-grabbing scenes in order to create a faux sense of awe . . . then nothing. It's like going to a concert and the stage lights are going crazy and the band is tearing up the stage with more energy than anything you've ever seen and the lead singer tells you the meaning to one of their most powerful songs and it hits you hard . . . but they don't sing.Put another way: The Fountain is literally nothing but a small love story with a semi-cliché ending. All the surrealist aspects are throw-away when it comes to the actual plot. They're just a hook. If that's what you enjoy, traditional love stories, then this movie is for you. But if you came here for a deep, intelligent movie, then you're going to be disappointed like I was. I guess I'm trying to instruct you to watch it with low expectations.Other minor complaints/complements: The surrealist aspects really got so over-the-top they were borderline cheesy in more than one part of the movie. They also needed to be shortened by a lot, because they took away from the shallow plot—which was the director's intention. On the other hand, the casting was very well selected and the acting was solid.The director avoided a lot of obvious things he could have done to cheese this movie up considerably—such as add pointless nudity or a longer run-time—and that is something else I give him credit for.Overall, worth a watch. Once. You may like it or you may not. It is not the intelligent, original movie that the trailer advertises it is. If anything, it's pretty typical.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-781

ur19835265

title: This makes me wonder if anyone can make good surrealist fiction . . . review: Before you assume I'm one of the countless people who didn't get the plot, thus doesn't like this movie, think again. I understood everything about The Fountain from open to close. Being someone who honestly used to enjoy good surrealist fiction, I hoped this may have been at least worth a watch. And maybe it was. However, the main problem isn't that the movie was too confusing, but rather that it was too elementary.It's almost an unspoken rule among bad surrealist authors and screenwriters: "If I'm too unintelligent to think of anything but a traditional, clichéd plot, then I have to awe the viewer into thinking I've done something so utterly original and intelligent they don't even realize I just picked up some children's book off my bookshelf and copied it word-for-word." Darren Aronofsky knows that rule, and he follows it here. It fooled a lot of viewers, but it didn't fool me.The surrealist elements of The Fountain deal with the (presumed) spiritual world of the Garden of Eden. The main character, who is presented as your standard male hero, tries to save his dying wife by finding the Fountain of Youth, aka the Tree of Life in this spiritual world by finding a way to reverse aging in the physical world through medicine. That's the basic synopsis you get from the first fifteen minutes, and that plot takes you up to the last twenty minutes when the results of all this come into place. Without spoiling anything, the ending is traditional and expected, but—back to that rule—is laced with some of the most over-the-top surrealist imagery ever put on screen. If you see past the intense flashes of gold light, you'll realize the ending was completely dull and unoriginal. And so was the rest of the movie.So . . .This is the point when it gets hard for me to write a review. Put simply, The Fountain isn't likely going to be in the top 10 worst movie list you've ever seen, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. Like the rule states, it bashes you over the head with some very pretty environments and some truly emotional-grabbing scenes in order to create a faux sense of awe . . . then nothing. It's like going to a concert and the stage lights are going crazy and the band is tearing up the stage with more energy than anything you've ever seen and the lead singer tells you the meaning to one of their most powerful songs and it hits you hard . . . but they don't sing.Put another way: The Fountain is literally nothing but a small love story with a semi-cliché ending. All the surrealist aspects are throw-away when it comes to the actual plot. They're just a hook. If that's what you enjoy, traditional love stories, then this movie is for you. But if you came here for a deep, intelligent movie, then you're going to be disappointed like I was. I guess I'm trying to instruct you to watch it with low expectations.Other minor complaints/complements: The surrealist aspects really got so over-the-top they were borderline cheesy in more than one part of the movie. They also needed to be shortened by a lot, because they took away from the shallow plot—which was the director's intention. On the other hand, the casting was very well selected and the acting was solid.The director avoided a lot of obvious things he could have done to cheese this movie up considerably—such as add pointless nudity or a longer run-time—and that is something else I give him credit for.Overall, worth a watch. Once. You may like it or you may not. It is not the intelligent, original movie that the trailer advertises it is. If anything, it's pretty typical.4/10

A Serious Slaughterhouse-Five Update

tt0414993

Unfortunately, whether due to lack of sleep or the movie, I fell asleep during part of the movie. Personally, I think I was tired. The closest movie that can be contrasted with this movie is Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) but without the lighter and more action-oriented thrills. This experimental looking, somewhat uneven movie is one of the few widely released fresh and innovative attempt at film-making in years. The ending is consistent with the more esoteric, but quality films. The possible interpretations and the whole look and approach to the theme of life and death is refreshing and bold. Confusing and slow in places, this movie doesn't shy away from its attempt to conceptually and visually fuse the concept of universal holy grail. Possibly an excellent movie, but one that requires a second look, like Solaris. Eight out of Ten Stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-335

ur0972645

title: A Serious Slaughterhouse-Five Update review: Unfortunately, whether due to lack of sleep or the movie, I fell asleep during part of the movie. Personally, I think I was tired. The closest movie that can be contrasted with this movie is Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) but without the lighter and more action-oriented thrills. This experimental looking, somewhat uneven movie is one of the few widely released fresh and innovative attempt at film-making in years. The ending is consistent with the more esoteric, but quality films. The possible interpretations and the whole look and approach to the theme of life and death is refreshing and bold. Confusing and slow in places, this movie doesn't shy away from its attempt to conceptually and visually fuse the concept of universal holy grail. Possibly an excellent movie, but one that requires a second look, like Solaris. Eight out of Ten Stars.

Life, death, love, I'm okay with those things

tt0414993

"Spanning over one thousand years, and three parallel stories, The Fountain is a story of love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world." I confess myself not a fan of Aronofsky, and this ambitious excursion into sci-fi metaphysics does nothing to banish my previous annoyance at his muddy avant-gardism (Pi) and his simpleminded tract on drugs that unaccountably was greeted as hip (Requiem for a Dream). After a longish pause, he has taken another direction, one of greater ambition but no greater clarity or good sense. He now has a beautiful girlfriend, mother of his child, Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz, whom he's made the center of a movie about—what? You be the judge, but obviously it touches on modest topics like love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world, seeking to encompass them through a three-pronged story-line about: 1. A present-day medical researcher, Tommy Oreo (Hugh Jackman), working on monkeys with brain tumors in hopes of finding a cure for his wife Izzi's (Wiesz's) tumor; she has one too. This leads to some medically and scientifically questionable procedures (unlikely ones too) which a distinguished supervisor, Dr. Lillian Guzetti (Ellen Burstyn) strenuously disapproves of. 2. A Spanish explorer, Tomas (Jackman, looking for the fountain of life (or youth) in Latin America, urged on by Queen Isabel (Weisz), with trouble afoot from Grand Inquisitor Silecio (Stephen McHattie). Encounters with Mayan hierophants dressed up like in Apocalypto also occur. Thre's some hand-to-hand combat, but nobody's heart gets ripped out. 3. Meanwhile in the future sometime a sort of astronaut or guru is floating in outer space, sometimes in the yoga position. His name is Tommy (Jackman) and his guiding spirit is …..you guessed it, Izzi (Weisz). He seems to be the custodian of a magical tree. Variations in chevelure distinguish the two stars in the separate time-frames. In sequence 1, Jackman has the unshaven look, with a down-flop hairdo. In No. 2, he's lushly bearded. In 3, he's as bald as an egg. Weisz's hair lengths vary appropriately. Now, themes do emerge, and they're grand. "Death is an act of creation," the Maya priest (who's into killing people) says. "What if you could live forever?""Death is a disease, like any other," medical researcher Tommy shouts. "Death frees every soul," somebody says. Tomas samples the sap from a magical tree. Dropped on the ground it makes a stripling spring up instantly covered with leaves. Tomas applies it to a wound and the wound closes. He drinks a big glob of it and that is a big mistake. He's covered with striplings, springing out of his body. Back to the drawing board on that one. The plight of researcher Tommy and his brave but doomed wife Izzi gets most of the screen time, and this is the segment that is easiest to parse into a narrative (though it's corny and punctuated with vapid dialogue), while not only is the development of the other segments spotty, their relationship to each other and the main plot remains incoherent, at most symbolic. Jackman is a good sport; it's not his fault that his futuristic guru and his conquistador are mere fragments and his recurrent stints as the nervous researcher are stagy and less convincing than a TV hospital series. Weisz is a radiant beauty and a warm presence; she has a few moments when her emotions seem real. Her Spanish queen is just a static cameo. Ellen Burstyn adds class to a minor role. It's hard to speak of direction. The uncertainty of this project is indicated by the fact that it is an attempt to redo a glossier one for which Warner Brothers put up $75 million (of which $20 million was spent), and which was to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Irreconcilable difference between Pitt and Aronofsky were cited. Brad and Cate apparently went off to do the equally over-ambitious but infinitely superior Babel This pickup version was made for less than half the original budget. It appears corners were cut on the lighting. It is dim. The movie itself is a murky mess. This is one genius whose mind I don't want to be trapped inside of.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-334

ur1501216

title: Life, death, love, I'm okay with those things review: "Spanning over one thousand years, and three parallel stories, The Fountain is a story of love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world." I confess myself not a fan of Aronofsky, and this ambitious excursion into sci-fi metaphysics does nothing to banish my previous annoyance at his muddy avant-gardism (Pi) and his simpleminded tract on drugs that unaccountably was greeted as hip (Requiem for a Dream). After a longish pause, he has taken another direction, one of greater ambition but no greater clarity or good sense. He now has a beautiful girlfriend, mother of his child, Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz, whom he's made the center of a movie about—what? You be the judge, but obviously it touches on modest topics like love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world, seeking to encompass them through a three-pronged story-line about: 1. A present-day medical researcher, Tommy Oreo (Hugh Jackman), working on monkeys with brain tumors in hopes of finding a cure for his wife Izzi's (Wiesz's) tumor; she has one too. This leads to some medically and scientifically questionable procedures (unlikely ones too) which a distinguished supervisor, Dr. Lillian Guzetti (Ellen Burstyn) strenuously disapproves of. 2. A Spanish explorer, Tomas (Jackman, looking for the fountain of life (or youth) in Latin America, urged on by Queen Isabel (Weisz), with trouble afoot from Grand Inquisitor Silecio (Stephen McHattie). Encounters with Mayan hierophants dressed up like in Apocalypto also occur. Thre's some hand-to-hand combat, but nobody's heart gets ripped out. 3. Meanwhile in the future sometime a sort of astronaut or guru is floating in outer space, sometimes in the yoga position. His name is Tommy (Jackman) and his guiding spirit is …..you guessed it, Izzi (Weisz). He seems to be the custodian of a magical tree. Variations in chevelure distinguish the two stars in the separate time-frames. In sequence 1, Jackman has the unshaven look, with a down-flop hairdo. In No. 2, he's lushly bearded. In 3, he's as bald as an egg. Weisz's hair lengths vary appropriately. Now, themes do emerge, and they're grand. "Death is an act of creation," the Maya priest (who's into killing people) says. "What if you could live forever?""Death is a disease, like any other," medical researcher Tommy shouts. "Death frees every soul," somebody says. Tomas samples the sap from a magical tree. Dropped on the ground it makes a stripling spring up instantly covered with leaves. Tomas applies it to a wound and the wound closes. He drinks a big glob of it and that is a big mistake. He's covered with striplings, springing out of his body. Back to the drawing board on that one. The plight of researcher Tommy and his brave but doomed wife Izzi gets most of the screen time, and this is the segment that is easiest to parse into a narrative (though it's corny and punctuated with vapid dialogue), while not only is the development of the other segments spotty, their relationship to each other and the main plot remains incoherent, at most symbolic. Jackman is a good sport; it's not his fault that his futuristic guru and his conquistador are mere fragments and his recurrent stints as the nervous researcher are stagy and less convincing than a TV hospital series. Weisz is a radiant beauty and a warm presence; she has a few moments when her emotions seem real. Her Spanish queen is just a static cameo. Ellen Burstyn adds class to a minor role. It's hard to speak of direction. The uncertainty of this project is indicated by the fact that it is an attempt to redo a glossier one for which Warner Brothers put up $75 million (of which $20 million was spent), and which was to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Irreconcilable difference between Pitt and Aronofsky were cited. Brad and Cate apparently went off to do the equally over-ambitious but infinitely superior Babel This pickup version was made for less than half the original budget. It appears corners were cut on the lighting. It is dim. The movie itself is a murky mess. This is one genius whose mind I don't want to be trapped inside of.

Pretentious

tt0414993

Having showed considerable potential with his first two features Aronofsky runs a little too free with an idea this time. The Fountain has some worthy ideas concerning the nature of mortality and whether life or love have greater longevity. Unfortunately these ideas are trapped with trite lovers' small talk/emoting and then drowned in a bleached, sub-2001 animation that glosses the visual into contemptible mush.Aronofsky's gift is to suggest ideas and then weave a credible, stylish cinematic narrative around them. Those ideas need not be particularly coherent - The Fountain is the least insubstantial in a list which probably has Pi next, then Black Swan.Unlike M Night Shyamalan, whose storytelling relies on its content, none of this really matters. Aronofsky's art is in the telling. Here it's gooey mess (and often impenetrably dark) and the principal actors look like they've given themselves over to the editing suite rather than engaged with something of the story or its philosophy. General intensity is insufficient.I think the film's about the immortality of love versus the only seen when corporeal mortality is embraced. This has been covered in much greater, penetrating, resonant tale called Tristan and Isolde, and I would rather see Kevin Reynolds' decent-if-literal 2006 film than this. 3/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-886

ur2206551

title: Pretentious review: Having showed considerable potential with his first two features Aronofsky runs a little too free with an idea this time. The Fountain has some worthy ideas concerning the nature of mortality and whether life or love have greater longevity. Unfortunately these ideas are trapped with trite lovers' small talk/emoting and then drowned in a bleached, sub-2001 animation that glosses the visual into contemptible mush.Aronofsky's gift is to suggest ideas and then weave a credible, stylish cinematic narrative around them. Those ideas need not be particularly coherent - The Fountain is the least insubstantial in a list which probably has Pi next, then Black Swan.Unlike M Night Shyamalan, whose storytelling relies on its content, none of this really matters. Aronofsky's art is in the telling. Here it's gooey mess (and often impenetrably dark) and the principal actors look like they've given themselves over to the editing suite rather than engaged with something of the story or its philosophy. General intensity is insufficient.I think the film's about the immortality of love versus the only seen when corporeal mortality is embraced. This has been covered in much greater, penetrating, resonant tale called Tristan and Isolde, and I would rather see Kevin Reynolds' decent-if-literal 2006 film than this. 3/10

A fantastic Sci-Fi movie...

tt0414993

"The Fountain" is a Sci-Fi movie which has to do with three parallel stories, the first is in the past, the second in the present and the third in the future. These three stories are in contact because the actors are also connected with them.I liked this movie because it has plenty of suspense and passion and I believe that these two feelings are in the most out in this movie and make it unique. I also liked this movie because of the interpretations of Hugh Jackman who is really outstanding and Rachel Weisz who is also made a really nice interpretation.Finally I have to tell you that I recommend this movie and I believe that you will really love it if you are a fan of parallel story movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-978

ur33907744

title: A fantastic Sci-Fi movie... review: "The Fountain" is a Sci-Fi movie which has to do with three parallel stories, the first is in the past, the second in the present and the third in the future. These three stories are in contact because the actors are also connected with them.I liked this movie because it has plenty of suspense and passion and I believe that these two feelings are in the most out in this movie and make it unique. I also liked this movie because of the interpretations of Hugh Jackman who is really outstanding and Rachel Weisz who is also made a really nice interpretation.Finally I have to tell you that I recommend this movie and I believe that you will really love it if you are a fan of parallel story movies.

Dreary, disjointed and nigh on pretentious

tt0414993

The Fountain is a film that tries too hard. A non-linear plot device can be very powerful but the presentation here is a little too contrived and a little too opaque to pull the technique off effectively.There is a kernel of a really potent story; the anguished fight to save a loved one from a terminal disease. My problem is that it's so laden with clumsy and pretentious transcendental metaphors, delivered in that non- linear style, that it just ended up annoying me by totally undermining my ability to immerse myself in the movie and connect with the characters.For me, this film is overrated and just isn't my cup of tea at all.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-840

ur10130491

title: Dreary, disjointed and nigh on pretentious review: The Fountain is a film that tries too hard. A non-linear plot device can be very powerful but the presentation here is a little too contrived and a little too opaque to pull the technique off effectively.There is a kernel of a really potent story; the anguished fight to save a loved one from a terminal disease. My problem is that it's so laden with clumsy and pretentious transcendental metaphors, delivered in that non- linear style, that it just ended up annoying me by totally undermining my ability to immerse myself in the movie and connect with the characters.For me, this film is overrated and just isn't my cup of tea at all.

Underrated IMO...

tt0414993

Beautifully shot with some stunning images. I wasn't sure about the muted tones used at first but as the film went on it grew on me. The musical score by Clint Mansell was both beautiful and inspired; I will be tracking it down. The performances of the two central characters; Hugh Jackman as Tomas / Tommy / Tom Creo and Rachel Weisz as Isabel / Izzi Creo were stunning; Aronofsky certainly knows how to get a performance and they didn't let him down. I also have to give honourable mentions to; Ellen Burstyn as Dr. Lillian Guzetti, Mark Margolis as Father Avila, Stephen McHattie as Grand Inquisitor Silecio and Fernando Hernandez as Lord of Xibalba.I have to admit this is the second time I've seen this one and it's one of those that gets better each time you see it. There are so many nuances and plot devices that it can be quite a hard one to get a handle on first time around. That's probably one of the reasons it has divided opinion so much. The three threads of the story seem so remote at first but as you watch it all gradually pulls together. For me it is just the right length, any longer and it might have become a little tedious. I know there are many out there that didn't like if first time around; to you I say; give it another chance… try to watch it with an open mind. It is slow-paced deliberately to allow the audience time to assimilate the story. If you're watching it for the first time on my recommendation, then be prepared to give it a second viewing; you may not get it all first time around.SteelMonster's verdict: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.My score: 8.1/10You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-943

ur29798050

title: Underrated IMO... review: Beautifully shot with some stunning images. I wasn't sure about the muted tones used at first but as the film went on it grew on me. The musical score by Clint Mansell was both beautiful and inspired; I will be tracking it down. The performances of the two central characters; Hugh Jackman as Tomas / Tommy / Tom Creo and Rachel Weisz as Isabel / Izzi Creo were stunning; Aronofsky certainly knows how to get a performance and they didn't let him down. I also have to give honourable mentions to; Ellen Burstyn as Dr. Lillian Guzetti, Mark Margolis as Father Avila, Stephen McHattie as Grand Inquisitor Silecio and Fernando Hernandez as Lord of Xibalba.I have to admit this is the second time I've seen this one and it's one of those that gets better each time you see it. There are so many nuances and plot devices that it can be quite a hard one to get a handle on first time around. That's probably one of the reasons it has divided opinion so much. The three threads of the story seem so remote at first but as you watch it all gradually pulls together. For me it is just the right length, any longer and it might have become a little tedious. I know there are many out there that didn't like if first time around; to you I say; give it another chance… try to watch it with an open mind. It is slow-paced deliberately to allow the audience time to assimilate the story. If you're watching it for the first time on my recommendation, then be prepared to give it a second viewing; you may not get it all first time around.SteelMonster's verdict: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.My score: 8.1/10You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

Spirals of divinity

tt0414993

In the last decade, I can say that no movie has been more horribly underrated than this gem of dramatic film-making. The Fountain is, in essence, a tribute to our vulnerability and our fear and simultaneous acceptance of the unknown. Jackman and Weisz don't create chemistry so much as they attempt to tear out your heart strings. They're ability to communicate the ocean of love, bewilderment and trepidation in Aronofsky's story is something that borders on magical. Admittedly, the story telling is labyrinthine and incredibly high on its demands, but the giving in is the great reward in unlocking the message running intravenously through the film. And while critics may claim that the film reaches to high, for too much, it's over-thinking the Fountain's core message that can sour its taste. I'm confident in saying this is one of my favorite films of all time. It speaks through loving, universal tongues and goes places few are comfortable in exploring in film. If this film doesn't send you away with stars in your eyes and the human condition heavy on your mind, then you need to take a breath and give it another shot. It's nothing short of a marvel, one that unwraps differently each time you come back to it and like any film worthy of timeless distinction, you can never watch it too much to not feel moved.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-762

ur18987190

title: Spirals of divinity review: In the last decade, I can say that no movie has been more horribly underrated than this gem of dramatic film-making. The Fountain is, in essence, a tribute to our vulnerability and our fear and simultaneous acceptance of the unknown. Jackman and Weisz don't create chemistry so much as they attempt to tear out your heart strings. They're ability to communicate the ocean of love, bewilderment and trepidation in Aronofsky's story is something that borders on magical. Admittedly, the story telling is labyrinthine and incredibly high on its demands, but the giving in is the great reward in unlocking the message running intravenously through the film. And while critics may claim that the film reaches to high, for too much, it's over-thinking the Fountain's core message that can sour its taste. I'm confident in saying this is one of my favorite films of all time. It speaks through loving, universal tongues and goes places few are comfortable in exploring in film. If this film doesn't send you away with stars in your eyes and the human condition heavy on your mind, then you need to take a breath and give it another shot. It's nothing short of a marvel, one that unwraps differently each time you come back to it and like any film worthy of timeless distinction, you can never watch it too much to not feel moved.

Is it all coming from her book or his mind?

tt0414993

Unlike "Requiem" I found this film to be upsetting, upsetting because the style overpowered its substance. In "Requiem" the universe and many of its forces are destroyed by the fragility of our abilities to resist the darkness that can annihilate us. It is tragic to see how four individuals are ripped to pieces as drugs take over their lives. There is, ironically, beauty in the way the director presented that horrible tragedy.Here we are dealing with more beauty, but it is all disfigured by the presentation, a movie that should have immeasurable power, is delivered mangled by the way, magnificent performances, a lovely score, and a terrific idea, fall secondary to some very interesting special effects and some confusing editing. There is so much potential in the way the story hints come across, and somehow, we are left with a very repetitive delivery of sequences that do not have any new meaning as more is "revealed" about the story line. Instead, they feel repetitive and burdensome.The effect is puzzling because we have some strong acting by both Jackman and his leading lady, Weitz. They look believable and shouldn't become a problem because they are fantastic actors and not stars. They are attractive and effective in their parts, and here is where the problems are. Their acting doesn't complement or enhance the story. It shows how weak the narrative is.It starts promising, as we are witnessing some spectacular and violent odyssey in the middle of the Mayan lands, soon we're pulled into some existential worlds that might or not exist, and before we know it, we are dealing with some tremendous amount of suffering and guilt, and yet, it feels hollow as the film never takes flight.There should be more buy in about the power of their love since it appears to transcend time and matter, but a terrific score and very good acting is not nearly enough in this case. There is not enough concern with the need for a great script. It is not all a matter of style. It should be a perfect marriage of both. Too bad, since this film was coming with so many expectations. Maybe next time, we can get some more of the real thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-111

ur2115026

title: Is it all coming from her book or his mind? review: Unlike "Requiem" I found this film to be upsetting, upsetting because the style overpowered its substance. In "Requiem" the universe and many of its forces are destroyed by the fragility of our abilities to resist the darkness that can annihilate us. It is tragic to see how four individuals are ripped to pieces as drugs take over their lives. There is, ironically, beauty in the way the director presented that horrible tragedy.Here we are dealing with more beauty, but it is all disfigured by the presentation, a movie that should have immeasurable power, is delivered mangled by the way, magnificent performances, a lovely score, and a terrific idea, fall secondary to some very interesting special effects and some confusing editing. There is so much potential in the way the story hints come across, and somehow, we are left with a very repetitive delivery of sequences that do not have any new meaning as more is "revealed" about the story line. Instead, they feel repetitive and burdensome.The effect is puzzling because we have some strong acting by both Jackman and his leading lady, Weitz. They look believable and shouldn't become a problem because they are fantastic actors and not stars. They are attractive and effective in their parts, and here is where the problems are. Their acting doesn't complement or enhance the story. It shows how weak the narrative is.It starts promising, as we are witnessing some spectacular and violent odyssey in the middle of the Mayan lands, soon we're pulled into some existential worlds that might or not exist, and before we know it, we are dealing with some tremendous amount of suffering and guilt, and yet, it feels hollow as the film never takes flight.There should be more buy in about the power of their love since it appears to transcend time and matter, but a terrific score and very good acting is not nearly enough in this case. There is not enough concern with the need for a great script. It is not all a matter of style. It should be a perfect marriage of both. Too bad, since this film was coming with so many expectations. Maybe next time, we can get some more of the real thing.

A moving treatise on life and death

tt0414993

Aronofsky's thoughts on the nature of life and death certainly do not disappoint. I'm shocked, however, that the studio chose to release this film on thanksgiving weekend to little fanfare, where it will almost certainly get slaughtered. At any rate, the film is great and flirts with being tremendous. Matthew Libatique's cinematography never fails to be anything less than breathtaking, and it certainly is here. There are striking, majestic images, and the film truly does look amazing. The film uses silence to great effect, but when Clint Mansell's score does show up, it is fitting and powerful as well. Jackman's performance I thought was strong, and is certainly light years away from his turn as Wolverine in X-men. After seeing the film I can't really imagine Brad Pitt playing this part, as he was originally intended to. That being said, this certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and is probably less accessible than either Pi or Requiem. For those who might not quite "get it", the following is my interpretation of the film, with **SPOILERS**. The film's theme, at it's very heart, is that holding desperately onto life can lead only to death, while accepting death as a form of life and creation, can make life come alive. There are three story lines, the only one that may really be "real" is the one in the present, but it doesn't matter much as they all end up saying the same thing. In the present, Jackman's wife Izzy has brain cancer and is on her way out, and he is a doctor studying cancer treatments, desperately trying to find one that will save her. All through their interaction in the present, he is obsessed with holding onto her, with finding a way to make her live. He ignores things that she says in conversation, focusing only on the things that he think may allow her to live. He is absolutely terrified about her impending doom. At one point while he is in a hospital room with her, he even exclaims "I just want to be with you!" and her reply to this is "You ARE with me, right now!" But his obsession with finding some way to prolong her life blinds him to most everything else (one notable scene illustrating this is when he walks down the road to a completely silent audio track, even as ambulances drive by with sirens flashing), even to his remaining time with her. What leads to his eventual liberation is what Izzy found so fascinating, and even wrote her story on, the Mayan mythology. Their creation story contains the "first man" who sacrificed himself in order to create the world. It is a common theme throughout all mythology across all cultures, life out of death. There cannot be life without death. We come from the earth, our bodies are built out of it, and when we die we return to it so that new forms can be created. Stars are formed from accumulations of gases and dust, and when they explode with unbelievable grandeur, they spew these components out into the void, where they will form new stars. Izzy was able to find peace in this notion, that her life and death were part of the great mystery of life, and she was able to identify with this great cosmic energy that pervades everything. Jackman's character cannot accept this, and he decries death as a disease, which he will work to cure. But in the end, this is fruitless. Man cannot live forever, and what's more, even if it WERE possible, it would serve only to rob life of its meaning. He realizes this, as in the final chapter of Izzy's book, he has the conquistador taste the sap of the tree, and he then immediately returns to the earth. In this sense he can "live forever", but not in the way that he had hoped as his consciousness perishes. In the future (which to me seemed like a generalization of the present storyline, i.e. the tree of life dying wasn't JUST Izzy dying, but represented life in general) the Jackman character laughs when, after the tree has died, he realizes that he too will finally perish. As the star explodes, we see him rise upwards, identifying with the fact that he will die, and thus transcending it, even AS he dies. And the tree of life blooms, again, life out of death. I would like to quote one of my friends who I think summed the concept up brilliantly: "these things point the way to reveling in and revering the passions we experience in life. In the spirit of these revels, we are engaged, connected, conscious, and wholly (and holy-ly) participating in the moment rather than scheming on how we can prolong, guard, or perpetually keep the moment, all for ourselves (eternal exclusivity being the province of ego), never allowing change to transmute these pinnacles of human-ness we are fortunate enough to find ourselves experiencing. In the words of another wise teacher, "Love is the middle way between attachment and detachment." If we are living from, in, and with love, where will we find the need to hold on, to form an attachment, when we are surrounded, enveloped, and fully part of an energy that is exponentially more powerful?" and thus, why should we be afraid of death. This is why Jackman goes back, and chooses to spend time with his wife, choosing to life his life NOW. This is, in the end, all that we can do, and by recognizing that we WILL die, and identifying with that, EVERY moment that we DO have, necessarily becomes so important, becomes truly alive.Definitely check this film out, and if you enjoy it, spread the word. Pi and Requiem signaled the arrival of a major talent in Aronofsky, but after The Fountain I positively cannot wait to see what he does next.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-79

ur8396180

title: A moving treatise on life and death review: Aronofsky's thoughts on the nature of life and death certainly do not disappoint. I'm shocked, however, that the studio chose to release this film on thanksgiving weekend to little fanfare, where it will almost certainly get slaughtered. At any rate, the film is great and flirts with being tremendous. Matthew Libatique's cinematography never fails to be anything less than breathtaking, and it certainly is here. There are striking, majestic images, and the film truly does look amazing. The film uses silence to great effect, but when Clint Mansell's score does show up, it is fitting and powerful as well. Jackman's performance I thought was strong, and is certainly light years away from his turn as Wolverine in X-men. After seeing the film I can't really imagine Brad Pitt playing this part, as he was originally intended to. That being said, this certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and is probably less accessible than either Pi or Requiem. For those who might not quite "get it", the following is my interpretation of the film, with **SPOILERS**. The film's theme, at it's very heart, is that holding desperately onto life can lead only to death, while accepting death as a form of life and creation, can make life come alive. There are three story lines, the only one that may really be "real" is the one in the present, but it doesn't matter much as they all end up saying the same thing. In the present, Jackman's wife Izzy has brain cancer and is on her way out, and he is a doctor studying cancer treatments, desperately trying to find one that will save her. All through their interaction in the present, he is obsessed with holding onto her, with finding a way to make her live. He ignores things that she says in conversation, focusing only on the things that he think may allow her to live. He is absolutely terrified about her impending doom. At one point while he is in a hospital room with her, he even exclaims "I just want to be with you!" and her reply to this is "You ARE with me, right now!" But his obsession with finding some way to prolong her life blinds him to most everything else (one notable scene illustrating this is when he walks down the road to a completely silent audio track, even as ambulances drive by with sirens flashing), even to his remaining time with her. What leads to his eventual liberation is what Izzy found so fascinating, and even wrote her story on, the Mayan mythology. Their creation story contains the "first man" who sacrificed himself in order to create the world. It is a common theme throughout all mythology across all cultures, life out of death. There cannot be life without death. We come from the earth, our bodies are built out of it, and when we die we return to it so that new forms can be created. Stars are formed from accumulations of gases and dust, and when they explode with unbelievable grandeur, they spew these components out into the void, where they will form new stars. Izzy was able to find peace in this notion, that her life and death were part of the great mystery of life, and she was able to identify with this great cosmic energy that pervades everything. Jackman's character cannot accept this, and he decries death as a disease, which he will work to cure. But in the end, this is fruitless. Man cannot live forever, and what's more, even if it WERE possible, it would serve only to rob life of its meaning. He realizes this, as in the final chapter of Izzy's book, he has the conquistador taste the sap of the tree, and he then immediately returns to the earth. In this sense he can "live forever", but not in the way that he had hoped as his consciousness perishes. In the future (which to me seemed like a generalization of the present storyline, i.e. the tree of life dying wasn't JUST Izzy dying, but represented life in general) the Jackman character laughs when, after the tree has died, he realizes that he too will finally perish. As the star explodes, we see him rise upwards, identifying with the fact that he will die, and thus transcending it, even AS he dies. And the tree of life blooms, again, life out of death. I would like to quote one of my friends who I think summed the concept up brilliantly: "these things point the way to reveling in and revering the passions we experience in life. In the spirit of these revels, we are engaged, connected, conscious, and wholly (and holy-ly) participating in the moment rather than scheming on how we can prolong, guard, or perpetually keep the moment, all for ourselves (eternal exclusivity being the province of ego), never allowing change to transmute these pinnacles of human-ness we are fortunate enough to find ourselves experiencing. In the words of another wise teacher, "Love is the middle way between attachment and detachment." If we are living from, in, and with love, where will we find the need to hold on, to form an attachment, when we are surrounded, enveloped, and fully part of an energy that is exponentially more powerful?" and thus, why should we be afraid of death. This is why Jackman goes back, and chooses to spend time with his wife, choosing to life his life NOW. This is, in the end, all that we can do, and by recognizing that we WILL die, and identifying with that, EVERY moment that we DO have, necessarily becomes so important, becomes truly alive.Definitely check this film out, and if you enjoy it, spread the word. Pi and Requiem signaled the arrival of a major talent in Aronofsky, but after The Fountain I positively cannot wait to see what he does next.

Road To Awe

tt0414993

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS OR QUOTES.'What if you could live forever?'' The Fountain is one of the deepest movies I've ever had the pleasure to witness. If you follow it through to its conclusion and are open minded, a deep thinker then it becomes gratifyingly mind-blowing. As for the tree of life and Izzi's book, is it real? Is she the tree? Or maybe Tom and Izzi are both a combined element of the tree in the end, the Tree representing or being their eternal love in essence them.Guess the main message is accepting death and its hard to lose a loved one. I could watch this film over and over, and still pick up different ideas from it. People will understand this film one day, maybe when were more evolved mentally, we've all closed our minds.I think to the best of my ability I understand The Fountain now. I accept what other people think because end of the day I'm in awe of something that is unlike most material, that isn't afraid of being hated by a religious or material obsessed public. Always seems whatever card you play, the more stupid people become. The tree she is, he is, entwined in love. Some people think this film is about death or life, that it is sad, the truth is in between, death is the road to awe.Death as a means of life, falls on deaf ears in todays zombie-like society. All in our little boxes or one track thoughts. We want a movie that has a basic plot, simple characters, that forever keep changing titles but in essence end up all the same. Well I don't want that, thats why Fountain is so special to me because it explores the whole notion of Death, Rebirth and Love, not to mention the difficult process of losing a loved one and how we would do anything to save them. In essence sometimes we can't change something that's destined to happen, which begs for the old acceptance and to let the river run its course which remains the real message. The Fountain is neither stereotypically happy or sad to me, in the end its resolute, a simple Zen-like fable bordering on rebirth and love eternal.The parts played beautifully by Hugh Jackman and Rachael Weisz and the love they feel for each other is for me genuinely believable. One scene near the end where he is looking at her like an embodiment of memories, of realities where the Queen Isabella and Izzy merge, is wondrous to behold. Which begs me to wonder if the book Izzi writes isn't something made up from her imagination but one where she has remembered a previous life. Queen Isabella being one of he incarnations. Aztec beliefs also strangely mirror Buddhist ideas in a ''Death is the road to Awe'' sacrificial sense, underlining First Father and Rebirth. Which also makes me think the future Tom, is he not Tom at all or the embodiment of First Father. In essence is he First Father? Darren Aronofsky has a talent for looking at things that I think is so close to my own reflection and thoughts on higher things. Upon reflection Fountain is very similar to Requiem but does it in a more spiritual approach.Darren's fascination with Mortality has always been there, just go back to Pi with the conversation at that Coffee Shop concerning the Tree Of life. The Fountain will cut Movie Lovers down the middle one half thinking it's cult inducing hippy trash about some bald guy in a bubble and the other half truly seeing it for the deep visual entrancing Journey of one man's struggle with Death, in a race against time to try to save his wife.A masterpiece of Film Fountain belongs with 2001 and even Requiem for it's higher meaningful depictions. Each time I watch it there's always another piece, another juicy mesmerizing question raised that I didn't see before.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-697

ur18020496

title: Road To Awe review: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS OR QUOTES.'What if you could live forever?'' The Fountain is one of the deepest movies I've ever had the pleasure to witness. If you follow it through to its conclusion and are open minded, a deep thinker then it becomes gratifyingly mind-blowing. As for the tree of life and Izzi's book, is it real? Is she the tree? Or maybe Tom and Izzi are both a combined element of the tree in the end, the Tree representing or being their eternal love in essence them.Guess the main message is accepting death and its hard to lose a loved one. I could watch this film over and over, and still pick up different ideas from it. People will understand this film one day, maybe when were more evolved mentally, we've all closed our minds.I think to the best of my ability I understand The Fountain now. I accept what other people think because end of the day I'm in awe of something that is unlike most material, that isn't afraid of being hated by a religious or material obsessed public. Always seems whatever card you play, the more stupid people become. The tree she is, he is, entwined in love. Some people think this film is about death or life, that it is sad, the truth is in between, death is the road to awe.Death as a means of life, falls on deaf ears in todays zombie-like society. All in our little boxes or one track thoughts. We want a movie that has a basic plot, simple characters, that forever keep changing titles but in essence end up all the same. Well I don't want that, thats why Fountain is so special to me because it explores the whole notion of Death, Rebirth and Love, not to mention the difficult process of losing a loved one and how we would do anything to save them. In essence sometimes we can't change something that's destined to happen, which begs for the old acceptance and to let the river run its course which remains the real message. The Fountain is neither stereotypically happy or sad to me, in the end its resolute, a simple Zen-like fable bordering on rebirth and love eternal.The parts played beautifully by Hugh Jackman and Rachael Weisz and the love they feel for each other is for me genuinely believable. One scene near the end where he is looking at her like an embodiment of memories, of realities where the Queen Isabella and Izzy merge, is wondrous to behold. Which begs me to wonder if the book Izzi writes isn't something made up from her imagination but one where she has remembered a previous life. Queen Isabella being one of he incarnations. Aztec beliefs also strangely mirror Buddhist ideas in a ''Death is the road to Awe'' sacrificial sense, underlining First Father and Rebirth. Which also makes me think the future Tom, is he not Tom at all or the embodiment of First Father. In essence is he First Father? Darren Aronofsky has a talent for looking at things that I think is so close to my own reflection and thoughts on higher things. Upon reflection Fountain is very similar to Requiem but does it in a more spiritual approach.Darren's fascination with Mortality has always been there, just go back to Pi with the conversation at that Coffee Shop concerning the Tree Of life. The Fountain will cut Movie Lovers down the middle one half thinking it's cult inducing hippy trash about some bald guy in a bubble and the other half truly seeing it for the deep visual entrancing Journey of one man's struggle with Death, in a race against time to try to save his wife.A masterpiece of Film Fountain belongs with 2001 and even Requiem for it's higher meaningful depictions. Each time I watch it there's always another piece, another juicy mesmerizing question raised that I didn't see before.

Stylish, Emotional and Unusual ...

tt0414993

This movie was pretty different from most I've seen - but in a really good kind of way. It was emotional, visually impressive and presented in a very unique manner. It was kind of a work of art.The story is about a medical doctor/researcher whose wife is dying of a tumor. He is desperately working on finding a cure, when something else is discovered ... and the story progresses from there.Given the setup, the movie has an emotionally intense / serious tone. It is presented from three different vantage points: the core plot, a visualization of what's going on in the doctor's mind, and a visualization of a book the doctor's wife is writing.The visualizations in this movie are pretty stunning. When combined with the classical-type music the combined effect is very poetic. I will probably remember some of the haunting visuals for a long time.If you're looking for a good, serious and meditative fantasy/sci-fi movie - here it is. This is worth the time and will leave you with a lot to think about.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-711

ur5146276

title: Stylish, Emotional and Unusual ... review: This movie was pretty different from most I've seen - but in a really good kind of way. It was emotional, visually impressive and presented in a very unique manner. It was kind of a work of art.The story is about a medical doctor/researcher whose wife is dying of a tumor. He is desperately working on finding a cure, when something else is discovered ... and the story progresses from there.Given the setup, the movie has an emotionally intense / serious tone. It is presented from three different vantage points: the core plot, a visualization of what's going on in the doctor's mind, and a visualization of a book the doctor's wife is writing.The visualizations in this movie are pretty stunning. When combined with the classical-type music the combined effect is very poetic. I will probably remember some of the haunting visuals for a long time.If you're looking for a good, serious and meditative fantasy/sci-fi movie - here it is. This is worth the time and will leave you with a lot to think about.

A sad, intellectual, visually entertaining movie

tt0414993

If you know and liked the director and his movies (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) then this movie you'll probably love. If only one thing that can be said about this film, then its attempting to "stand the test of time." This is not only an interesting story and superb acting cast and I mean Superb!! This movie also is a visual spectacle, yet they used very little CG in this movie. In certain climatic parts of the movie where you would swear there was computer graphics...there isn't. This is one of those movies where as soon as you see it you'll want to see it again to make more sense of it or to get more meaning out of it. These movies are rare. The storyline is difficult to follow and requires the audiences vulnerability. If you try to connect the story lines (and there are three of them) you 'll miss everything else. Just sit back relax, watch, enjoy. This is nothing like Requiem for a Dream or Pi, it has a heavier feel to it, though it is not as depressing. This movie has gotten a lot of negative responses from those, I believe, were expecting an epic Sci-Fi movie from one of the great directors. However The trailers were completely misleading and it is better almost to have never have watched them. This is a fantasy movie. I read that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchet were supposed to play in this movie. On this note Hugh Jackman should have been the first and only choice. Brad Pitt is good for looking cool and thats about it. (sorry to all you B.P. fans)Not everyone will like this movie, in fact, I find it hard to believe that this will get a wide viewing, as it is not a commercial film. It is an art film, a discussion piece, a beautiful poem about the fragility of life and the idea of forever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-532

ur5252199

title: A sad, intellectual, visually entertaining movie review: If you know and liked the director and his movies (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) then this movie you'll probably love. If only one thing that can be said about this film, then its attempting to "stand the test of time." This is not only an interesting story and superb acting cast and I mean Superb!! This movie also is a visual spectacle, yet they used very little CG in this movie. In certain climatic parts of the movie where you would swear there was computer graphics...there isn't. This is one of those movies where as soon as you see it you'll want to see it again to make more sense of it or to get more meaning out of it. These movies are rare. The storyline is difficult to follow and requires the audiences vulnerability. If you try to connect the story lines (and there are three of them) you 'll miss everything else. Just sit back relax, watch, enjoy. This is nothing like Requiem for a Dream or Pi, it has a heavier feel to it, though it is not as depressing. This movie has gotten a lot of negative responses from those, I believe, were expecting an epic Sci-Fi movie from one of the great directors. However The trailers were completely misleading and it is better almost to have never have watched them. This is a fantasy movie. I read that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchet were supposed to play in this movie. On this note Hugh Jackman should have been the first and only choice. Brad Pitt is good for looking cool and thats about it. (sorry to all you B.P. fans)Not everyone will like this movie, in fact, I find it hard to believe that this will get a wide viewing, as it is not a commercial film. It is an art film, a discussion piece, a beautiful poem about the fragility of life and the idea of forever.

You have to have some HEART to enjoy this film

tt0414993

I vacillated on whether or not to see this film. I read lots of reviews and synopses; then I decided to see for myself. I like it. I think you have to be a person who deals with death a lot to understand this film, I do and I did, right from the start. It is visually beautiful but it also make s a good point. Yes it seem overly dramatic like something you'd find of Lifetime or the Hallmark channel, kind of a 'Touched By An Angel' episode without the angels. I liked the multi-layered storyline, even though it really wasn't multi-layered, it was the same story told through two other points of view. I thought the acting was superb and the beauty was in the quiet and yes predictable ending. But so what even a predictable movie can be good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-309

ur1062771

title: You have to have some HEART to enjoy this film review: I vacillated on whether or not to see this film. I read lots of reviews and synopses; then I decided to see for myself. I like it. I think you have to be a person who deals with death a lot to understand this film, I do and I did, right from the start. It is visually beautiful but it also make s a good point. Yes it seem overly dramatic like something you'd find of Lifetime or the Hallmark channel, kind of a 'Touched By An Angel' episode without the angels. I liked the multi-layered storyline, even though it really wasn't multi-layered, it was the same story told through two other points of view. I thought the acting was superb and the beauty was in the quiet and yes predictable ending. But so what even a predictable movie can be good.

A brilliant film, but not for everyone.

tt0414993

The Fountain is a movie that chronicles three parallel story lines that span a thousand years.It is my firm belief that this is the greatest work of film art produced since Stanley Kubrick's 2001, or maybe even Orson Welles Citizen Kane. That being said if you are not a knowledgeable film viewer and are looking to be purely entertained, do not see this movie.This movie is primarily told through images. Through a series of very structured and recurrent symbols the movie weaves an intricate syntax that it uses to tell the story like no other movie I have ever seen. The cinematography is second to none. The way the shot is framed and placed is as much used to tell the story as the actual progression itself. The editing between shots is flawless and meaningful. All the technical and directorial aspects of this film fuse with Aronofsky's script to convey a wide variety of themes as well as, not one, but three coherent story lines. While utilizing filming technique's that disregard traditional horizontal shot structure, Aronofsky uses a primarily depth oriented and vertical shot structure with great skill. His vaunted non CGI special effects that he used to cut the budget of the film by almost thirty million dollars are seamless. The sound track composed by Aronofsky's longtime cohort Clint Mansell is beautifully rendered. Performed by the virtuoso Kronos Quartet, the music serves to enhance the symbolism of the movie making something very much akin to an aural narrative. The theme's in this movie convey a magnitude that has not been attempted since metaphysical poetry was in vogue in the late 16th early 17th century.The acting is equally superb. Every member of the cast delivers and does their job. Aronofsky has a reputation for being exceptionally demanding of his actors, yet the performances that he captures are well worth whatever he has them go through. Hugh Jackman is at his best, he delivers a performance of total realism and honesty. This movie cements in my mind the fact that Jackman is one of the next great actors. Rachel Weisz is nearly beatific, though not quite as powerful as Jackman, in her role. She does exactly what the role required of her.This movie is definitely not for everyone. However, if you are in the mood for an intelligent, critical, and moving piece of art, this is the movie for you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-459

ur1686345

title: A brilliant film, but not for everyone. review: The Fountain is a movie that chronicles three parallel story lines that span a thousand years.It is my firm belief that this is the greatest work of film art produced since Stanley Kubrick's 2001, or maybe even Orson Welles Citizen Kane. That being said if you are not a knowledgeable film viewer and are looking to be purely entertained, do not see this movie.This movie is primarily told through images. Through a series of very structured and recurrent symbols the movie weaves an intricate syntax that it uses to tell the story like no other movie I have ever seen. The cinematography is second to none. The way the shot is framed and placed is as much used to tell the story as the actual progression itself. The editing between shots is flawless and meaningful. All the technical and directorial aspects of this film fuse with Aronofsky's script to convey a wide variety of themes as well as, not one, but three coherent story lines. While utilizing filming technique's that disregard traditional horizontal shot structure, Aronofsky uses a primarily depth oriented and vertical shot structure with great skill. His vaunted non CGI special effects that he used to cut the budget of the film by almost thirty million dollars are seamless. The sound track composed by Aronofsky's longtime cohort Clint Mansell is beautifully rendered. Performed by the virtuoso Kronos Quartet, the music serves to enhance the symbolism of the movie making something very much akin to an aural narrative. The theme's in this movie convey a magnitude that has not been attempted since metaphysical poetry was in vogue in the late 16th early 17th century.The acting is equally superb. Every member of the cast delivers and does their job. Aronofsky has a reputation for being exceptionally demanding of his actors, yet the performances that he captures are well worth whatever he has them go through. Hugh Jackman is at his best, he delivers a performance of total realism and honesty. This movie cements in my mind the fact that Jackman is one of the next great actors. Rachel Weisz is nearly beatific, though not quite as powerful as Jackman, in her role. She does exactly what the role required of her.This movie is definitely not for everyone. However, if you are in the mood for an intelligent, critical, and moving piece of art, this is the movie for you.

The Road to Awe

tt0414993

Greetings again from the darkness. Interesting, open to interpretation film from the brilliant mind of writer/director Darren Aronofsky. The film spans over 1000 years, but the three stories are presented in a non-linear manner so as to encourage thought and discussion. The whole topic of everlasting life or death as a disease could and has filled numerous research papers. Mr. Aronofsky brings his unique visual element to the topics.The two leads are played well enough by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Jackman's look spans that of Mick Fleetwood as a conquistador, TV's Dr. House in the present, and the zen of David Carradine in the future. Regardless of the era, he spends the entire film extremely agitated with a constant frown. Weisz, on the other hand, makes a lovely queen, a perky dying lady and sickly tree. Supporting help is provided by Ellen Burstyn (making up for her horrible turn in "The Wicker Man") and the powerful Stephen McHattie as The Inquistor.Each story has a frenetic pace and the climax of Jackman discovering "The Fountain" is pretty well done. This one doesn't score higher due to lack of connection to the two main characters in any period of time. We just aren't really given any reason to care.Although not in the class of "PI" and certainly not the excellence of "Requiem for a Dream", Mr. Aronofsky delivers another thought provoking visual feast that will be loved by many and hated by some.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-164

ur0806494

title: The Road to Awe review: Greetings again from the darkness. Interesting, open to interpretation film from the brilliant mind of writer/director Darren Aronofsky. The film spans over 1000 years, but the three stories are presented in a non-linear manner so as to encourage thought and discussion. The whole topic of everlasting life or death as a disease could and has filled numerous research papers. Mr. Aronofsky brings his unique visual element to the topics.The two leads are played well enough by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Jackman's look spans that of Mick Fleetwood as a conquistador, TV's Dr. House in the present, and the zen of David Carradine in the future. Regardless of the era, he spends the entire film extremely agitated with a constant frown. Weisz, on the other hand, makes a lovely queen, a perky dying lady and sickly tree. Supporting help is provided by Ellen Burstyn (making up for her horrible turn in "The Wicker Man") and the powerful Stephen McHattie as The Inquistor.Each story has a frenetic pace and the climax of Jackman discovering "The Fountain" is pretty well done. This one doesn't score higher due to lack of connection to the two main characters in any period of time. We just aren't really given any reason to care.Although not in the class of "PI" and certainly not the excellence of "Requiem for a Dream", Mr. Aronofsky delivers another thought provoking visual feast that will be loved by many and hated by some.

Living with Grace

tt0414993

The opening sequences of "The Fountain" are disorienting, even having a clue about the movie. In one scene Hugh Jackman is conquistador Tomas battling fierce warriors before a Mayan temple in the service of his Queen Isabel (Rachel Weisz). In the next, Jackman is Tom Creo traveling in a spherical globe to a distant nebula in 2500 A.D. with what looks like the remains of a tree. My clarity comes from having seen the entire movie. Director and Screenwriter Darren Aronofsky is bold and daring in "The Fountain". Though flawed, Arononfsky's "The Fountain" needs to be acknowledged for its ambition and nobility. "The Fountain" is worthy of view and thought as perhaps one of the year's best. Granted the movie is not for everyone. On the surface "The Fountain" is about the search for eternal life. As poignantly pleaded by Tommy (Jackman) in the present day, he wishes to "stop dying (death)". "The Fountain" is a reference to the Fountain of Youth. From Genesis, when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden after tasting from the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree of Life was forfeited and lost forever. Or perhaps it was not.I believe that Aronofsky is really interested in coming to terms with one's mortality and making peace with that. In the present story setting Izzy Creo (Weisz) says to Tommy (Jackman) that "In death there is creation." Hers is the romantic conceit. With powerful performances from Jackman and Weisz, "The Fountain" is about eternal love, without attachment and acceptance of fate. What resonates for me is that in the end "The Fountain" ultimately is about one's life being whole and complete. In Aronfsky's and Ari Handel's story "The Fountain" is a story within the movie, set in New Spain of 1500 A.D. written by Izzy. The dying Izzy tells her husband Tommy, "Finish it." He replies, "I don't know how it ends." Izzy has made her peace, but Tommy can't let go. Aronofsky touchingly asks: How does life end? "The Fountain" has one of the most bizarre narratives of any movie, at times even vexing. The story spans 1000 years with three interconnected story lines. One is a fable of Tomas's search for the mythical Tree of Life in the New World. In the present day, Tommy (Jackman) is a brilliant and impetuous medical researcher consumed with finding a cure for his dying wife Izzy (Weisz), who suffers from a malignant brain tumor. The cure may lie in a botanical sample from Central America. In the distant future Tom (also Jackman) is on solo trek to the nebula from a Mayan legend on a mission to return the Tree of Life. Aronofsky darts back and forth between all stories at will, culminating in the compelling catharsis. Here I thought he went a little nonlinear and tangential. However, the final resolution is moving and poignant.Hugh Jackman is absolutely amazing. Though "The Fountain" mandates concentration and effort upon viewing, Jackman's performance is effortless. I don't think anyone else could have pulled off this role. The strikingly handsome and physical Jackman has the charisma to realize the brave conquistador Captain Tomas. As researcher Tommy he is the compassionate and driven husband caring for his ailing wife Izzy. In the future as Tom, a head shaved Jackman embodies a lonely and haunted man full of regret as he looks back upon his life. Jackman is that rare combination of powerful presence and gentle compassion. Rachel Weisz is inspiring as Tommy's eternal love over several lifetimes. Weisz commands a quiet strength and a natural ease. She gives Izzy a tangible nobility. She and Jackman have beautiful chemistry. Their touching love story endures the provocative narrative shifts throughout."The Fountain" promises a story about eternal life, and instead delivers a moving and touching story about our mortality. Perhaps, "The Fountain" is about living with grace. Darren Aronofsky does not cleanly resolve everything. I guess much like life, we have to kind of work it out for ourselves. Acknowledge Aronofsky and story writer Handel for making a movie dominated by grand ideas. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz give inspiring and resonating performances in this eternal love story. "The Fountain" is not the easiest movie to watch, nor is it the most black and white. However, it will make you look upon life. And that is a noble thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/reviews-98

ur1016453

title: Living with Grace review: The opening sequences of "The Fountain" are disorienting, even having a clue about the movie. In one scene Hugh Jackman is conquistador Tomas battling fierce warriors before a Mayan temple in the service of his Queen Isabel (Rachel Weisz). In the next, Jackman is Tom Creo traveling in a spherical globe to a distant nebula in 2500 A.D. with what looks like the remains of a tree. My clarity comes from having seen the entire movie. Director and Screenwriter Darren Aronofsky is bold and daring in "The Fountain". Though flawed, Arononfsky's "The Fountain" needs to be acknowledged for its ambition and nobility. "The Fountain" is worthy of view and thought as perhaps one of the year's best. Granted the movie is not for everyone. On the surface "The Fountain" is about the search for eternal life. As poignantly pleaded by Tommy (Jackman) in the present day, he wishes to "stop dying (death)". "The Fountain" is a reference to the Fountain of Youth. From Genesis, when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden after tasting from the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree of Life was forfeited and lost forever. Or perhaps it was not.I believe that Aronofsky is really interested in coming to terms with one's mortality and making peace with that. In the present story setting Izzy Creo (Weisz) says to Tommy (Jackman) that "In death there is creation." Hers is the romantic conceit. With powerful performances from Jackman and Weisz, "The Fountain" is about eternal love, without attachment and acceptance of fate. What resonates for me is that in the end "The Fountain" ultimately is about one's life being whole and complete. In Aronfsky's and Ari Handel's story "The Fountain" is a story within the movie, set in New Spain of 1500 A.D. written by Izzy. The dying Izzy tells her husband Tommy, "Finish it." He replies, "I don't know how it ends." Izzy has made her peace, but Tommy can't let go. Aronofsky touchingly asks: How does life end? "The Fountain" has one of the most bizarre narratives of any movie, at times even vexing. The story spans 1000 years with three interconnected story lines. One is a fable of Tomas's search for the mythical Tree of Life in the New World. In the present day, Tommy (Jackman) is a brilliant and impetuous medical researcher consumed with finding a cure for his dying wife Izzy (Weisz), who suffers from a malignant brain tumor. The cure may lie in a botanical sample from Central America. In the distant future Tom (also Jackman) is on solo trek to the nebula from a Mayan legend on a mission to return the Tree of Life. Aronofsky darts back and forth between all stories at will, culminating in the compelling catharsis. Here I thought he went a little nonlinear and tangential. However, the final resolution is moving and poignant.Hugh Jackman is absolutely amazing. Though "The Fountain" mandates concentration and effort upon viewing, Jackman's performance is effortless. I don't think anyone else could have pulled off this role. The strikingly handsome and physical Jackman has the charisma to realize the brave conquistador Captain Tomas. As researcher Tommy he is the compassionate and driven husband caring for his ailing wife Izzy. In the future as Tom, a head shaved Jackman embodies a lonely and haunted man full of regret as he looks back upon his life. Jackman is that rare combination of powerful presence and gentle compassion. Rachel Weisz is inspiring as Tommy's eternal love over several lifetimes. Weisz commands a quiet strength and a natural ease. She gives Izzy a tangible nobility. She and Jackman have beautiful chemistry. Their touching love story endures the provocative narrative shifts throughout."The Fountain" promises a story about eternal life, and instead delivers a moving and touching story about our mortality. Perhaps, "The Fountain" is about living with grace. Darren Aronofsky does not cleanly resolve everything. I guess much like life, we have to kind of work it out for ourselves. Acknowledge Aronofsky and story writer Handel for making a movie dominated by grand ideas. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz give inspiring and resonating performances in this eternal love story. "The Fountain" is not the easiest movie to watch, nor is it the most black and white. However, it will make you look upon life. And that is a noble thing.