Quite well-made, but in all forgettable

Rating: 7/10 (17 December 2006)

I consider three factors when rating movies: 1) How much I liked it 2) How well-made the movie was 3) What it actually contributes to cinema in general.
Firstly, I didn't like this movie. It could have been at least 15 minutes shorter without cutting a single scene, and the characters were a bit too self-centered for me to want to identify to them. Also, it is probably the most sordid movie I can ever remember seeing.
However, this movie WAS well-made (in a technical sense). The direction was good (except for the creepy-crawly pacing), the scenery and cinematography was beautiful, and the acting was great. This film was quite diverting in this aspect, and it deserved many of its Academy Awards. . .
Except for Best Picture. Why? This movie simply doesn't contribute much to cinema as a whole. Sure, it's well-made, but it's not very original. Artists have to fight hard for romances to be original, and this movie just didn't fight hard enough. The characters, while well-portrayed, aren't the kind you remember for the rest of your life. It's the kind of movie you rent and enjoy for a time or two. For movie makers and storywriters, it can also give you some general (but not specific) inspiration. But then you move on, and this movie is forgotten.
My suggestion? See above. Rent and watch once, then return it.
P.S. I read the book upon my sister's suggestion. It was a bit better than the movie, but not much better.