AN INSULT TO THE BEAUTIFUL ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Rating: 1/10 (27 February 2019)

I am aware that this is an appealing film for the most; other viewers with reason criticized the structure and mostly the plot of the film. I got confused, but now it is some time I have been in the USA, perhaps things have changed since the last time for the better. I saw this film hoping that it was going to be a clarifying experience. I have not seen the first two versions, but I saw the third with Streisand and Kristofferson and I thought it was great at the time, so I wanted to give this one a shot and compare mostly for the sake of the art of filming. You know like you have seen different versions of certain iconic themes in painting or hearing different versions of let's say the 5th of Beethoven or the Four Seasons of Vivaldi and you find interesting to appreciate the qualities of each of them, while some have certain faults or virtues in certain passages is often theme of discussion with other enthusiasts. While I find this version interesting is mostly because I wanted to find out what was wrong with it. There was something that bothered me and it was certainly not the story because in principle it was the same story as all the other versions, so after seeing it several times, eureka! I found that the script is wrong because it is repetitive, boring and full with clichés that unfortunately all in all give a negative result. I have nothing against the use of vulgarity in drama because that's what we usually do isn't it? At least that's what this film is trying desperately to convey at least among country, rock and pop musicians, and I mean desperately because of the constant use of the F word. I mean I have nothing against the use of the word in drama, but when in a sentence with let's say 20 words, 5 are the F word; that causes some kind of a degenerative effect in the language because it's misleading the real meaning of the plot. My conclusion, the version with Streisand and Kristofferson is still the best.