MovieChat Forums > The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) Discussion > Awful, bad, horrible movie.

Awful, bad, horrible movie.

posted 19 years ago by schtrunfe
116 replies | jump to latest

This movie is in fact very bad, and why? For all those who have read the book the answer is straight and simple, for those who haven't read, well, go out, buy it and read it, it won't take much more time than seeing this almost 3 hours boring piece.

The reasons:

- The actors are awful, except for Lena Olin that plays Sabina. If you read the book you will know why. Both Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche can’t get the essence and spirit of their characters, they look completely dull.

- Of course the bad acting is originated by the dreadful adaptation of the novel. The movie, despite being so long, can’t explain anything about the characters, all we see is people that connect with each other, but we never understand why they behave like that, why they do some things they do, and that’s because of the script, completely bad written.

- For last, as all this wasn’t already terrible enough, Philip Kaufman sells the female body in this movie in a way that is totally free. Read the book and you will get in shock when you realize that the movie in fact shows nudity for nothing, just to appeal the audience or not letting anyone fall asleep. If only these scenes helped the construction of the characters, but they don’t, and even if they had that intention, it doesn’t work, because the rest isn’t there.

[–] judiatsz 19 years ago

When I think of Euro-trash, I think of this movie.

I haven't read the book nor do I have any inclination to if it resembles in any way the movie. Lordy.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lyrakill 9 years ago

The movie doesn't resemble the book at all, but if you think of this as "Euro-trash," you'd probably hate the book, as well.

Lordy.

Coulson has a plan.

[–] Flickers-4 19 years ago

I love the movie. I saw it only once when it first came out in 1988. Maybe you've seen it recently on video or DVD. I saw it at a weekdaay matinee in a nearly empty 1000 seat theater. A lot of film language has changed in the 17 years or so since this film firsst came out. I've noticed that older movies I've loved in the past kind of drag now. I was deeply affected by the movie, I'm sure it struck a chord in my heart and was overpowered with emotion when it was over. But, you've read the book and I haven't. Perhaps I should seek out the book. I agree that books adapted for film loose a lot in the translation.

Frank in Miami

[–] marxandcola 19 years ago

I didn't think it was bad, although anything not involving Olin [especially the thirty or so minutes when she leaves, and the couple enjoy Life on the Farm] screeched the film to a halt. It was all rather grim and earnest without her around.

[–] forsterbusiness 19 years ago

I totally agree with the original comment, every word of it. Binoche and Day-Lewis are great actors, but here they suck, bad screenplay, bad directing. Wonderful novel though. I read the book, but was aware that the movie was gonna be different.
One more detail (among many) that disturbed me: making modern footage look old by simply putting huge scratches on them (the scene with the russians). You can actually tell which footage is not original: the one with the scratches on. Come on, what a cheap trick! Just leave it modern, who cares? It's fiction, and we know anyway that it's not really back then. Annoying movie.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ebrown2112 18 years ago

If you think that Juliette Binoche and Daniel Day-Lewis are bad actors, I don't know that you can be helped...

Coffee is for closers only!

- Alec Baldwin, Glengarry Glen Ross

[–] schtrunfe 18 years ago

When I said the actors were awful, I meant only for this specific movie.

KIM: Well, then why did you do it?
EDWARD: Because you asked me to.

[–] editor-19 18 years ago

Are you joking? It's a brilliant film - one that really captures this aspect of human sexuality and relationships.

Comparisons to the book are meaningless - the film and the book should be judged separately, not against each other. They are two different mediums, with two different modes of story telling. People that compare books to movies made from them are really missing the point.

Andy

[–] schtrunfe 18 years ago

It would be a brilliant film if it was brilliantly adapted from the book, but it isn’t, neither the work of the actors reflects the intensity of the characters. I don’t compare books to films, I do compare a story told in a book and that same story seen in a screen.

KIM: Well, then why did you do it?
EDWARD: Because you asked me to.

[–] warmislandsun 15 years ago

I saw the movie and then read the book and then enjoyed the movie again. It is hard to fully understand the movie without reading the book, but the movie is still enjoyable and beautifully filmed. The real footage of the invasion in the movie added a lot to it for me. I enjoyed both. I cherish the book and like the movie.

[–] TheSario 18 years ago

Jean-Claude Carrière I thought made an excellent point on the movie's commentary track: when talking about adapting the story, he said something to the effect of "If you keep going back to the book, you end up making illustrations for a novel, not a film."

I agree with this sentiment and editor-19's post wholeheartedly.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shannybobanny3 18 years ago

the novel is amazing, the movie, is awful. they made the movie into a love story, unlike the book.

[–] MaouriCeltic 18 years ago

You know original poster a movie does not have to be exactly like the book. It is a seperate entity and can stand on its own. That is what movies are about. If we used your standard anyone The Godfather would be a bad movie.

[–] bigfishx7 18 years ago

this is the worse movie i have ever saw in my life!!!! i am 40 years old & i rented it & i would love to have my money back not to mention my time wasted watching it!! i agree it is just an awful,bad,horrible movie!

[–] rollerskater61 18 years ago

hey bigfishx7, any idea *why* you felt the way you did about the film? a rant without any content is not really worth posting, now is it? maybe if you can explore your feelings a little you will learn something: even at the age of 40 it is still possible ;-)

[–] bigfishx7 18 years ago

rollerskater61 - it was just my personal opinion that i hated the movie. i just found it to be awfully boring & it did not appeal to me. i do know how to explore my feelings. i am a adoptive/foster parent (have been for 10 years now)& have 7 children at this time. i help out the elderly in my community & hand raise birds, oppossums, etc..of other wildlife that have lost their parent. everyone's taste is different & i just personally thought this movie was a waste of the "rare" time that i have.
i collect anything to do with dr pepper!! i'm a pepper, wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?

[–] rollerskater61 18 years ago

Hi bigfishx7, sounds like you have a lot of wonderful things going on in your life. I have a pond full of these really big turtles, deer all over the place & 'possums aplenty but they are just out there, no help from me. you sure got me beat w/ the 7 children. hats off to you.

-------------------

Darling, nothing is final 'til you're dead, and even then, I'm sure God negotiates.

[–] bigfishx7 18 years ago

thank you rollerskater61!!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i collect anything to do with dr pepper!! i'm a pepper, wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?