8/10
Good but pales compared to Blue
3 June 2004
My Rating: *** out of ****.

White is the second film in Krzysztof's Kieslowski's Color Trilogy(The first is Blue; The third is Red). I have seen Blue and White, hopefully going to rent Red soon. Blue was a brilliant masterpiece about dealing with a loss in a woman's life. Unfortunately, White cannot be called Blue's equal. It lacks the punch of Blue and there are several possible reasons why.

First off, White has a much lighter tone than Blue. Blue had a somber mood to it, White has nothing of the sort. I guess you could call White the more enjoyable film but I did not find it anywhere near as absorbing as Blue.

Another flaw is the characters just aren't as interesting as Julie was from Blue. Maybe Kieslowski just has a way with Women that they command my attention better than the leading man does. In fact, I actually wanted the woman in the story to become the main character.

I am probably being too negative on the film, let me state that I think White is a good film. It's entertaining and will hold your attention through. It is also a very well-acted film.

The acting is definitely solid. His character may not be as interesting as Julie in Blue, but Zbigniew Zamachowski is quite good here. He's able to make his character likable and gets us on his side.

As good as Zamachowski is, it is Delpy who is the standout. Her performance is highly effective for having limited screentime. It makes me wonder that White would probably be better with her as the main character.

Like Blue, White has some breathtaking cinematography. The snowscapes in Poland are absolutely magnificent looking. The score is very impressive and supports the visuals well.

Overall, White is a well-made film that is definitely worth watching. The problem is that after Blue I was expecting a masterpiece. It is my problem. I do recommend White and acknowledge that it is a good film.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed