Anybody else ?
I think it's wondefull adaptation of Strindberg's (allready wondefull) play ... Performances r AMAZING ! Extremely underated movie ... Unfortunatly ...
"Persona" von Bergman - my all time favourite, than comes "Dogville" ...
OH GO ON PEOPLE !!!
There must be someone !
There was a bunch of replies when I posted that Saffron is hot !
BUT WE ALL ALLREADY KNOW THAT !!!
"I'm thirsty & your daughter is a cow ! Do the math ! "
I absolutely adored it the first time I saw it, years ago, and I'm sure I would feel the same today. Hell, if it's stayed in my memory this long there must be something to it. The acting was exquisite, the dialogue brilliant (I must read the play sometime), all in all excellent.
shareFilm was excellent. Great acting all around, imo.
shareI loved it as well. I had seen the 1951 Swedish version a few years ago while home sick, and it made quite an impression on me. This morning I caught this version, also while home sick!
The 1951 version had its merits; I thought the setting, bright Midsummer's Night, contrasted well with the dark intensity of the characters and dialogue. I liked the flashback sequences, and they seemed to go well with that version.
But this version was mesmerizing! Burrows and Mullen are amazing, the cinematography lush and evocative, even if it was a bit more claustrophobic and not as bright as the 1951 version. I loved the camera work, especially the dual cameras during the 'hiding in the pantry' scene. And while it was much more contained as far as the setting, I think flashbacks would have ruined the pace.
I've never read the Strindberg play, but this now makes me want to seek it out.