An 82 on metacritc!!http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-deep-blue-sea
These reviews are excellent, box office not so much. I'm wandering if critics will resurrect Weisz like these reviews suggest they might? Is there another example we can compare to?
Yes. Bright Star.Originally Posted by Dooby
Yes, but Bright Star made 4.4 million in the US. Deep Blue Sea probably won't even make 1 million unless they re-release it.
Both numbers are depressing; particularly DBS.
This was perfect. Filmy is right.
The best scene was the shark eating Samuel L. Jackson.
Movies recently reviewed by RRA:
Star Trek (2009)
Pain & Gain (2013)
Oblivion (2013)
Jurassic Park III (2001)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
The New RRA: Less Spam, still 100% ruining AD.
Now watch Margaret. You will understand, master.
Hopefully next week if it's still playing in a theatre
But I plan to review this soon, first.
First time we're total agreement? :O
My opinion of this continues to grow.
SPOILERS THOROUGHOUT, including SPOILERS for BRIEF ENCOUNTER
In a way, I find it amazing that this film is basically a 98 minutes long “Bullshit!” scream against the ending of Brief Encounter. Don’t get me wrong, Brief Encounter is a masterpiece in my eyes, but you could cut that epilogue and the film would still be wonderful.
The intention is made explicit in the subway scene, with the image of Weisz being hit by the lights of the train’s interior as it passes in front of her, which is lifted almost intact from Lean’s film. Both leading ladies reject suicide via throwing themselves at the train’s tracks (in obvious reference to the first adulteress of their kind, Anna Karenina, and Dooby, Joe Wright has now an uphill fight to make a better film about adulterous passion). But while in Lean’s film, after that moment of extreme hesitation, Johnson goes back to her husband and repents, in Davies’ film Weisz goes to her home, it’s her husband who goes to her, and she rejects him, and rejects the safety of a passionless marriage.
Which is the key to understanding this movie, a sort of “Far from Heaven”, doing with British melodramas of the 40’s what Haynes did with American melodramas of the 50’s.
But I’d say that this one is even more perfect than FFH, because I felt Haynes forgot a bit to make the core drama of his movie as insightful or powerful as his musings of the codes of representation of it, whereas The Deep Blue Sea is every bit as insightful and intense about its core drama as it is about the ways of representing it and how film has encoded our perception of love, passion, memory and a few other things.
Hester, contrary to what abnegated heroines of older melodramas did, takes her feelings to their last consequences and refuses to be tamed by the threat of becoming an outcast and a lonely, penniless divorced woman. Which, in itself, makes her an outcast.
That’s why she doesn’t sing in the different sing-along scenes we see (in the pub in the subway), because she refuses the comfort of communal healing and prefers to be a loner than meshing with a mild happiness that’s not what she wants. She only sings to her lover, and mostly when they’re alone. She doesn’t want to belong to society, but just to one man and to herself. I find it amazing how Davies has integrated such an important part of his style (these communal songs in pubs) in the fabric of a story that’s not his. I didn’t find those scenes out of place at all, I found them sublime and the moments in which the movie crystallizes into something marvellous.
I’ve read some pieces insisting in how Davies’ main concern is memory once again, and how Hester is condemned to live her love through memories again and again (and yes, Davies is incredibly adept at representing the idea of love and obsession as an obsession of the memory, a need for repeating in one’s head, in slow motion, in misty, idealised settings that cannot be fully apprehended, the key moments of bliss or despair); but I’d say this complements and represents the main themes rather than being the main themes. Because to me, the film was, first and foremost, one of the most insightful and stingy examinations on the implications of love in a long time. I’m talking from the top of my head, but I think I have to go back to Ophuls to find something so perceptive and poignant about these topics, and the fact that Davies has found a way to do it his style and to add a layer of how all these things have traditionally been represented by art, to a point in which it conditions the way we thought about them and even feel these things, is beyond impressive.
Bravo.
I really agree with all of you that liked this. This was tight, smart and engaging, but never too much.
Davies' Gertrud, yes, and his Albert Nobbs too. This will be on my year's end list and has stayed with me.
Tomo, no.
Weisz is superb, but the film was far too dreary and artsy for my taste.
Sorry Andy.
Are Terence Davies' movies always this wonderful?
I loved this so much.I was mesmerized by the slow-burning rhythm,the composition,the intricate bits of dialogue that made the situation at once tragic and pathetic.And the characters...the passionless yet incredibly caring and thoughtful husband,the irresponsible,damaged Eros,the doomed yet ultimately independent and honest Hester.I also really liked the landlady,especially her monologue about what love is,which actually described Haneke's Amour pretty well.She was the most level headed character in the whole film and served as contrast to the carnal urges and naive delusions of the other three.
A tremendous film.
I quite enjoyed some aspects of this (Weisz' performance), adored others (the sort of mood piece feel of it, the stretches at the beginning with no dialogue) but somehow the film feels unfinished or incomplete to me. Like, there was something missing but I cannot put my finger on what? Oh, and Hiddleston's performance was mostly good but occasionally really OMG acting! Weisz too a couple of times but the rest of her performance was so sublime that I forgive her.
Did anyone else notice how similar Weisz' work was to Kate Winslet's usual thing?Like, I don't mean that in a "Kate is sublime" way lol, but Winslet is a fairly physical performer; all actors use their body to act, but Kate's physical movements and facial expressions are sort of obvious somehow, which is part of why maybe some people hate her? I found Weisz' used a lot of sort of obvious moves here, but that it all worked wonderfully somehow. It's actually kind of a nice choice for the NYFCC, you don't see a lot of performances like this from actresses.
Last five movies seen:
Valhalla Rising (2009) ** 1/2
Young Adult (2011) *
How I Ended This Summer (2010) *1/2
Biutiful (2010) **1/2
Iron Man 3 (2013) **
I thought this was garbage. Watched it two weeks ago to see what the fuss was about Weisz, and jeez, what a bore.
Hiddleston was far more impressive then Weisz. I don't get why critics are showering her with love and praise.
Hiddleston?I frankly found him the wink link compared to the Weisz and Russell Beale's impressive work.
I too was a bit put off by the overwhelming music, I just wasn't sure where they were going with this movie, would it have any sort of linear action at all? I appreciated those scenes later on and it was a nice touch to have the camera pan away from the house at the end, reflecting the way the film began.
This is probably my favourite Weisz performance and I'd love to see her get that nomination.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
