Do you have any thoughts of your own on this film or are you trying to make some point here that I failed to get ?
Merely because someone who studied James Joyce for any given amount of time, a reporter who happens to be of the same nationality as the great author, and two british(?) newspapers give this film great praises does not in anyway make this a noteworthy film.
Its place in film history, and in this case litterary adaptation history, will be the only judge on the true merit of the material brought up to the screen by the makers of this film.
Personally, I never give in to a film based on some joe-shmoe's comments... I may be influenced to see a film if someone who knows me personally and has seen this hypothetical film whatever it may be and thinks I may find something enlightening or thought-provoking that has something to do with the line of interests I hold, but NOT on advertisements or cheap news reviews by reporters who don't have any cinematic education to begin with and can't even bring any analytical thought to back their superlative comments.
But, hey, that's just me... I don't like to get fooled into something stupid, life's too short for stupidity.
reply
share
20 years ago
[deleted]
kristenrobertson
20 years ago
No matter. This film had huge potential. If it had been shot well, a lot could be forgiven. But considering the amateur community theatre feeling of the performances and the self-serving ending (director cameo at the end and Molly speaking "Destiny" on the set of her bedroom) turned my stomach as a Joyce scholar and enthusiast.
reply
share
bongo-6
19 years ago
The one thing you are wrong about – Joyce scholar – is that it WAS shot well. It was shot exceptionally well and the performances were up to snuff too by the professional cast and crew. To call it amateur is just an insult and it doesn’t deserve that.
reply
share