I can't believe this isn't widely loved!
Utomlyonnye Solntsem was such a good movie. I watched in my Russian class two years ago, and was mesmerized. I know that the movie isn't that well known, just thought I'd start a message board for it.
shareI completely agree. It's been one of my favorite movies since I saw it in Philadelphia, but the only other people I know who've seen it are those I made watch it. I think it's so lightly funny but also so vicious, with a perfect balance between the two. I'm disappointed critics like Roger Ebert don't like it...
shareEbert's a joke. I used to respect his opinions - and I still do to some extent - but I ignore him like I do every other critic out there.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You know, I really love critics. I think it's a necessary part of any art form, including movies, to have people who know it inside and out analyzing it from all aspects, but Roger Ebert, as smart as he is, is such an idiot when it comes to certain movies, as are a lot of the popular critics. Burnt by the Sun he gives two stars, yet he gives Gigli two and a half? It's all silly details, and details from different years, but they pick on some great films like Burnt by the Sun and hail some stupid ones like A Beautiful Mind as the greatest achievements in cinema. I kind of wish Ebert would do recap reviews and be like, you know what, I watched that movie again, and it's not half a star worse than Gigli, I'm changing my verdict.
shareThe funny thing here, since we are talking about critics, is that you hail A Beautiful Mind as a stupid movie. You know what people say about opinions - and you are entitled to yours. I loved the movie, myself.
The reason I don't like Ebert, or any critic, is becuase their opinions are given more weight than others. True, he's smarter than me when it comes to movies. He's seen more movies than I have, and he can delve deeper into the filming making aspect of the thing. But does that mean that his opinion is somehow more valid than mine? Maybe, maybe not. I know what I like, and it sure as hell doesn't fly with Ebert, AFI lists, or the IMDB list, for that matter. I don't think The Godfather or Citizen Kane are the best movies ever made, and I don't like Apocalypse Now (though I recognize it's greatness). I love both Lord of the Rings Movies, while Ebert trashed the first one (don't know what he thought of hte Two Towers, but he presumably didn't like it). Now matter how much you have to back up your opinions, it's still just that - your personal view on something. And in that regard, his is no more valid than mine, even if it is more educated.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Ebert's problems with the Fellowship of the Ring were unfounded, I think. He basically used the same criticism for The Two Towers, criticism I think is somewhat valid, but he fell into that trap of expecting the movie to be just like the book, which is funny because the Jackson trilogy so far pretty faithful to the Tolkien trilogy.
I liked A Beautiful Mind until the last half hour. The end ruined the movie for me and made me look at the beginning as pointless. I should say I don't think it's a stupid movie, but a good movie that was made bad (for me) by a poor script.
All that aside, Burnt by the Sun is a great movie that Ebert and some other critics just wanted more from - probably more of something very Hollywood that they usually criticize.
We have differing tastes, I see. I had no problem with A Beautiful Mind, and was moved by the ending. Burnt by the Sun, however, was far, far less than what I wanted. I was very dissappointed with the movie. I thought Bruce Willis did a good job, and Fuqua did as well - but the movie was lacking.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
No, you're thinking of Tears of the Sun, I think - which I didn't even take the time to see. Burnt by the Sun is the English billing for Utomlyonnye solntsem.
sharelol - my mistake.
Well, I guess misunderstandings become common when one doesn't actually read the post. Hehe. Sorry for the confusion on my part - I'll have to remember to read a little slower from now.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
[deleted]
I disagree. I knew very little about Russian history when I saw Burnt by the Sun for the first time, as I was only thirteen or so. It really pushed me to learn about the history and the society during and after the revolution. While I understood it better knowing more about the country's past, as happens with any quasi-historical film, I still understood it (for a thirteen-year-old) when I originally watched it. I think Ebert's problem is just that he's an idiot when it comes to quality. Other than that, I believe he's pretty well educated and generally a smart man when it comes to history and social theory.
shareI disagree. I've never lived in Russia (and every oppurtunity I've had to go has been spoiled by war...grrrrr), and yet I understood the film.
Of course, as you pointed out, one must understand Russian history (at least to some degree) to fully appreciate this film.
When in doubt, say: Ya ne znayu.
[deleted]
I still disagree.
I don't understand every nuance of every single American film ever made. I mean, it's not like these movies are made only for insiders. Films are usually accessible to outsiders.
Now let the pebble go. There goes Australia! See how stupid your theory is? - Gurtinator