lambbin

imdb comment by katstar1982:

I used to complain about Sex and the City during its original incarnation on HBO because it bored me to watch people spend unfathomable sums of money on shoes and unremittingly prattle about love-d*ck-and-shopping (and nothing else, ever). I irritated its disciples when I asked them how Samantha, though admittedly the most interesting character on the show, wasn’t crawling with STDs. Or why all the women had to be filthy rich and emaciated. They’d always say the same thing: “It’s not supposed to be realistic. It’s a fantasy.”

Oh, okay, I get it. Sex and the City depicts the kind of fantasy world where no one has anything to worry about except for satisfying every possible selfish impulse because there are no poor (or even middle-class) people, virtually no brown people, and no ‘uppity’ gays who want more out of life than to be accessories on par with a pair of flamboyant Manolo Blahniks to straight girls.

Still, despite my contempt for this bigoted fantasy, I was frequently, begrudgingly, seduced into watching and following most of its central story lines back in its HBO heyday. Truly, the show was that charming.

The movie on the other hand, was like an episode on steroids, sans the charm. For example, its implicit racism, which was once marked by the flagrant whitewashing of New York City, was upgraded to the more overt variety. Here, Jennifer Hudson is Carrie’s servant (i.e. personal assistant), a character that exists to do Carrie’s every bidding, no matter how menial. Hmmm, did anyone among the cast or crew ever stop to think that this contrived relationship wreaked of a racist tradition in Hollywood, which relentlessly limited African American actors to images of servitude?

Of course Carrie’s ‘happy slave girl’ from St. Louis (they had to go all the way to St. Louis to find a Black girl by the way, because there aren’t any in Carrie Bradshaw’s New York) comprises only the tip of the Klan-hood shaped iceberg. There is also the scene where Miranda is apartment hunting in what is apparently too ethnic a neighborhood, so she opts to “follow the white guy with the baby” in order to find a suitable residence. And there was the bit about Charlotte accidentally drinking the water in ‘savage’ Mexico, which culminated in a brazenly unfunny crap-and-fart joke.

All 76 racist moments aside, the movie just wasn’t entertaining. It was extraordinarily predictable excluding the part when the poster-child for anorexia nervosa that is Carrie asks a healthy looking Samantha how she let herself get so fat. I’ll admit that surprised me. But only because Kim Cattrall looks exactly the same as she ever did. Meanwhile, sarah jessica parker starves to death, becoming more gaunt and skeletal by the minute.

Other points of contention include but are not limited to: Carrie’s post-jilt depression, which was tired, creepy and ego-maniacal. Samantha’s out-of-character abstinence in face of the opportunity to hook up with her sexy manslut neighbor. The incredible amount of screen time that was wasted on advertising famous designers, including an awkwardly placed and paced fashion show . Etc.

I suspect that the droves of women who liked this film (and thus, make me ashamed to call myself a woman) had decided they would like it before even seeing it. Because empirically, this film sucked.

and Roger Ebert’s review:

 imdb comment by DanFrazen:

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this movie is a twisty-curvy, tightly plotted suspense thriller on the order of Notes on a Scandal. Instead of a plot that takes plausible but largely unforeseeable left turns, Atonement ‘s story is obvious, too blunt, and crackling with cliché. Everything, from the haphazard direction and editing to the numb acting, is a bit of an embarrassment to all involved.

Wildly overrated, Atonement is closer in style and scope to a Merchant-Ivory film, so if that’s your cup of tea, you might like this one a little more than I did. But it’s more like the dimwitted, held-back-in-school bastard child of such films, because although it contains all the proper hoity-toity attitude and pretty costumery, it has none of the subtlety or charm – in short, the characters are all largely unsympathetic, giving the audience no one to root for. This isn’t always a deal breaker for me, but when the characters are dull, vapid, vacuous space takers, it does sort of put a damper on things.

At age 13, Briony ( Saoirse Ronan ) is a pretentious, self-possessed newbie writer. She’s supposed to be a child prodigy of sorts, but she seems more perfunctory than imaginative (to be sure, we don’t get much of a glimpse of her writing efforts at that age; it’s merely implied how great she is). She harbors a crush on the handsome, strapping son (James McAvoy) of her wealthy family’s housekeeper, who has long had eyes for Briony’s older sister Cecilia ( Keira Knightley ). On a hot summer day, Briony illicitly reads a note from Robbie (McAvoy) intended for Cecilia (gasp) and then later sees something she shouldn’t have. Subsequently the girl swears to seeing something she definitely didn’t see, her perspective colored by her feelings for Robbie and her interception of the note. This irrevocably alters the lives of all three, of course .

The movie jumps around quite a bit, timewise, which at one point was an interesting approach to film-making but more often than not nowadays seems sort of played out and unnecessary; here it’s done to confuse the audience a little bit, some trickery thrown in to distract from the fact that the plot itself is fairly bland and melodramatic. Because of Briony’s misinterpretation, Robbie winds up in prison and later in the military, fighting in WW II. Much of the film describes his attempts to get back to London to be with Cecilia. Cecilia, meanwhile, works as a waitress – a job that’s a bit lower than her family’s station should allow. Briony forgoes attending an exclusive writing academy and becomes a nurse, all owing to her guilt (not to mention her obstinacy).

But what does it all mean? That one person’s sworn testimony can screw up the lives of somewhat-innocent people? Oh, there’s news. In the end, it all feels like much ado about nothing. Has Briony truly atoned for her sin? Of course not. She didn’t have the guts to say anything when she had the power to do so; to make herself feel better, she writes a novel over the course of the rest of her life. So, no real atonement, just a general sense of comfort and insincere assuaging of guilt.

I think that’s the crux of the issue here – the movie feels insincere. Are Robbie and Cecilia madly in love, or do they just want to have hot sex all the time? Little in the early half of the movie indicates the former, and plenty of evidence is shown for the latter. But even if they are in love… well, here is where the issue of What the Movie Is crops up; this is not a psychological thriller, it’s a dopey romance movie. It’s a chick flick, even with some truly garish and probably unnecessary war scenes. (Do we really need to see burn victims? How does this further the plot?) The script is even based on a romance novel, by Ian McEwan. If pining for lost loves sounds like a grand old time to you, by all means dive into this murky, tortured movie.

As for the casting, it’s not terrible. Knightley, who has said she wants to play more mature roles, continues to look like a tall, bug-eyed boy, with her shapeless, bony figure. She’s not a bad actress, but she might have been a little in over her depth here; at no point did I feel sympathy toward Cecilia, although she’s supposed to be a victim here. McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland) looks a little more girlish here than Knightley does, what with his impossibly red lips, even in the war scenes.

So. If you’re expecting a thick-plotted, twisty thriller about what happens when a lie spirals out of control, this is not the movie for you; if you like costume dramas with actors rising to their material, this is also not the movie for you; if you like love stories with no apparent happy ending and actors sinking to melodramatic depths, this is a winner.

 

 

imdb comment by frendly from palo alto:

 

Atonement fails to deliver a compelling story. It is plodding, lacks direction, and when it gathers momentum and manages to build tension, it fritters it away. The style gets in the way of storytelling. There’s no real antagonist, and it’s not even a romance. The romantic link between the Robbie & Cecilia is tenuous, and their supposed attachment and subsequent angst feels, since it’s left to the imagination, contrived.

It drags at the outset, but eventually the characters become interesting and the relationships between them show promise, though it’s still unclear what the movie is about. The film’s jumping around in time and re-playing of a scene from a second perspective largely feels like an imposition of style at the expense of story. Despite this, through the first act of the movie, there was enough potential that I still thought it might deliver a compelling drama.

After the first big turning point, all the characters save the main three disappear. Cecilia is essentially abandoned as well, as her experiences in the intervening four years are barely given lip service. Robbie’s story hints that he suffered in prison but we are never sure why, since all we get is the last few days of his attempt to return home. Why do they want each other so badly? How much have they been in touch? Why is Robbie in such a hurry, and what happens if he is late? We are not told. Instead, we are treated to an interminable montage on the beach at Dunkirque, pointlessly piling on the ambiance just in time for that storyline to end.

When the film finally rejoins the protagonist, Briany, it is the most potentially poignant part of the film. She has abandoned her personal ambitions and immersed herself in a life of service to try to atone for her lie and the damage it caused. At least this is interesting, since she is the least sympathetic of the three and even though we want her to earn redemption , she only makes it part way. But even this feels belabored and without direction: she is remorseful and feels she can’t ever suffer enough to atone, yet there is no further interplay of the characters or deepening of their conflict. The final chance for this is squandered when the three characters finally come together near the end, and instead the story abruptly jumps 65 years into the future and the movie ends.

This movie fails to convey what the characters lost as a result of Briany’s betrayal, never gives us enough to understand how their three lives were ruined, and hints at but never develops the potential for conflict between the three and tension surrounding Briany’s possible redemption. Of the three, only Briany’s suffering is really captured. I wanted to like it, but ultimately it fails to tell the story in a compelling way, and so it fails as a film.

 Also, in my opinion, the AMPAS tends to avoid awarding depressing movies only in the Best Film category – from fear of alienating the average American viewers who prefer uplifting fantasy to realistic downers (it’s all about the ratings, baby!). Foreign films, however are not viewed by average viewers, but rather by more intellectual ones, who are much less in number (sadly), and can handle all that existential angoisse and gloom and doom. Therefore, the amount of viewers who would be upset by the Academy’s choice in the Best Foreign Film section is too small to count when it comes to choosing quality over feel-good. Ultimately, when it comes to foreign films, I’d say it all depends more on the AMPAS members’ level of intellect and comprehension and their mentality/beliefs regarding social issues.

(monimm18)

 

Oh do cut it with the overly exagerated enthusiasm please, sporty.

If the movie was any good, it’s the team’s accomplishment, director, actors, and all that, not Romania’s accomplishment, that must be applauded. It’s the individuals, not the country.

Second of all, why the need to behave like a lapdog ? "Good girl, Romania, look we gave you a prize in a film festival, now sit, rollover, play dead."

You like the movie already – does a "Palm D’or winner 2007" tag make you like it more ?
It’s still the same movie, now it just has a label saying that a bunch of other people liked it too. Well whoop-dee-doo – that doesn’t change the movie.

On another note, i’m sleepy and cranky right now, so, take my comment with a grain of salt.
(ym 2004)

 

Mungiu does the mistake that you praise him for: he makes the message too loud and too clear! I do agree that ‘ugly things must not be able to hide under beautiful chlotes’ as you said in the message above, and if you’ll look at my profile, then you’ll see that I’m a fan of realism in general [british kitchen sink and italian neorealism specially], but this film is shrill and strident in it’s depictions of human action and nature. It does not manage to embody that specific feeling of intense given by sadness that realism generaly requires. Mungiu is so obsessed by making his message loud and clear, that he completly forgets to think about how to introduce subtle into the film. The result is a film that ostentatiously wants to impress the audience by depicting misery. (accattonedefassbinder)

Contains spoilers!
The dialogues are hard to believe? For someone like me who lived those times the lines were all too believable. I’ve been a student and I slept in a dorm just like that in the movie and let me say the dialogues between the students are all too believable and plausible. It was like a time travel for me.
And the lines of Bebe aren’t believable? Haven’t you ever had to deal with a street tough like that? He’s very plausible and veridic. That’s how underground characters like him are.
The visual manner is sterile? Not sterile enough, I tell you. It should have been worse, but Mungiu was lenient, and swept out the ‘ugly things’. He concentrated on the story, not the miserable environment, although it would have been room for a lot more in that chapter if wanted to. The hotel clerks, the students, the underground abortionist, the family reunion were very real without being sleazy. The story was the point.
The message was ‘loud and clear’, and ostentatious? That’s the most puzzling of all to say and I’d like to know what was so clear? The advice of not calling the ambulance when you’re bleeding was clear? Cause I found it troubling instead. The risk of being arrested if you go to church was obvious to you? I found it absurd. Is giving advice on how to discard a dead fetus from the tenth floor a clichee? Not to me. What I’ve seen and felt were kafkian situations but genuine human characters.

(dragos dd)

2. When the guy threatens to leave, Otilia says "ok, put the probe, and…" And the rest is obvious. All the more as previously in the conversation the guy says "I’ll go to the toilet and when I get back you tell me wich one of you is first."

But why did you get the ideea Bebe was a doctor? Nobody says he’s a doctor. Not Bebe, not anyone else. And the procedure is quite simple once you see how is done. (dragos dd)

Gabita was a "user". She lied to everyone around her. Each person got a bit of the truth. She told each person what they needed to hear so that they would do the next task of what she wanted. She was a walking talking series of disasters and crises. She was effective in luring people into her problems and then revealing the full extent of her lies … and then playing the helpless role such that Otoilia was left with two choices; do what was needed (however disgusting) or make the project fail.

1. Gabita screwed up the hotel reservation.

2. She did not meet Bebe in person.

3. She did not bring the plastic sheet

4. She was short of money

5. When she had the fever, she took the antibiotic, not the aspirin Bebe directed her to take for a fever.

6. Even after Bebe told them how to dispose of the fetus, she implored her friend Otilia to bury the fetus, not dispose of it.

7. She was too sick to even clean up her mess, but was dressed and having a nice meal when Otilia returned from what had to be a traumatic task.

8. Otilia was a "fixer". She made things happen. Excuses did not matter, results were the full measure of her friendship.

All in all, Gabita was a "black hole" that sucked people around her dry. I could not imagine a relationship with such a needy person.(ericgeis)

 

 

Cristian Mungiu’s film is the most successful in what is called the Romanian Cinama New Wave, although it’s not the very best in my opinion. I liked more ‘The Death of Dante Lazarescu’, and even ‘California Dreamin’ (Nesfarsit’) had better chances from start. And yet ’4-3-2′ succeeded better than other because it vibrates different chords in the viewers souls and on different planes. Women will resonate with the story of the imposed tragedy at a personal and national level resulted from the anti-abortion policies in Communist Romania, and one cannot say it’s only a pro-choice movie, it’s a real indictment. If one is interested in recent European history he may see the results of what communist propaganda named the Golden Age, an apocalyptic landscape of cold, dark and loneliness. If you are Romanian and lived these times you may feel you returned in time and the end of the movie may seem the awakening from a recurring nightmare.

And if you are a fan of good cinema you will admire the Virtuosity of a director who learned perfectly the lessons of Jim Jarmusch and DOGMA and transfered them in the East European space. You need the hand of a master to create those those long shots in which every detail is in place, camera, actors, lights and voices. I see from time to time older Romanian movies where I observe not that much the lack of technical means in the 70s or 80s, but more the lack of capacity of the directors to compensate this disadvantages with simplicity of concept and turn them into quality as other directors from less privileged schools of cinema have done. Well, the last films of directors like Mungiu or the late Nemescu I could see a jump ahead in quality of expression that takes many generations for other film schools.

There are many memorable scenes in this film. One of them describes a family dinner, where the principal character, a student from a lesser means family arrives invited by her boyfriend. It’s his mother’s birthday, and they have as guests two couples of friends from the local mid-upper class. The scene is a nine minute shot with fixed camera, focusing on four characters sited at the head of the table, with a few others voices being heard from out of the screen space. She is in the middle, and obliged to listen and participate, but she wants to be some other place, near her friend who just underwent an illegal abortion. Every minute may be fatal for the life of her friend. The dialog is not meaningless, it is a short novella on its own about the art of compromise necessary for survival in a dictatorship. And yet, she is there and is not there – all looks like a Da Vinci painting, with Jesus sited among the apostles, but already in a different spiritual reality. Magnificent to follow as its character has its own life, its like a concatenation of first plans one near the other.

In another memorable scene Otilia runs in the night to get rid of the aborted child. It’s one of these long and cold nights into which Romania was plunged at these times because of electricity savings. She runs on the streets scared, scared not that much by the shades of the night but by the proof of the ‘crime’ she is carrying and which can incriminate her for many years of jail if she is caught. Best horror scene of the year in my view.

Anamaria Marinca is superb in the role of Otilia. No mannerism, no melodrama, no make-up – the actress is just living the character of a girl ready to sacrifice everything to help her naive and maybe a little dumb friend. It is by this humanity of the simple people that dictatorship can be survived at the human level the film seems to say.

’4-3-2′ is a candidate for the best foreign film at the Oscars, but I am afraid it will not get the prize. The film starts slowly and needs patience to get the sense, and many jurors may not get over the first third. The interest for East-European cinema is decreasing, it’s not such a new thing any longer, and Romanian cinema is little known out of Europe. Anyway, Oscar or not, this film is simply good, and it demonstrates that the Romanian cinema passed the period of transition and it’s time for maturity. It’s now even harder, as Romanian directors will need to find the inspiration to make films that do not look that much into the past but still can catch the interest of the local and international audiences. It will be interesting to follow.

(dromasca)

 

also ctp’s article in gandul:

 

Subsemnatul vreau să se consemneze că n-am râs, am înţeles gravitatea momentului şi am stat şi m-am gândit: vasăzică problema cu avorturile ilegale de dinainte de ’89 erau chiuretangiii neomenoşi, care umblau cu vitrionul, nu medicii, miliţia şi procuratura, care, potrivit legii instituite de Partid, anchetau femei pe jumătate moarte în avorturi septice, cum credeam eu în mod greşit şi acum m-a desluşit dl. Mungiu.(ctp)

 – Somewhere down the crazy river, Robbie Robertson

 

– High fidelity ( your own worst enemy, p.62)

 

–Conrad: Secret agent

– Sartre : Les mains sales

–Household Geoffrey: Rogue Male

–The day of the jackal (movie)