Reviews

One of those where were you when you first saw it films. Extraordinarily gloomy in its outlook, the only redeeming character being the dying mother.

The acting is also variable though very styylised. Gritty, unpleasant, urban and claustrophobic, the storyline just concentrates on unkowing self destruction for all.

Manzano is not a subtle actor which serves to emphasise the physicality on screen rather than any emotional nuances. The subject drugs and their impact is laboured to literal death here, but that approach works.

Ultimately very disturbing if you have western susceptibilities. The result is very effective cinema which the director did not take on board personally, a crying shame!

Finally an American film that is neither utterly predictable nor filmed in the dark. The central performance is a trifle showy in a brilliant way but it is also highly original. Congratulations to those who made this film for persevering with the very subtle twist, possibly the best thing about it. Aren't ambitious women capable of the absolutely terrible? I loved it and it had the same mood (sense of fun), though less stylised, as the glorious Heathers. Why has young Reece not received nominations for his performance or is this film anathema for "Hollywood"? I do hope the more worldly amongst you give this film a chance. It is not just entertainment.

Based on the previous reviewers' contributions I appear to be in a minority of one. I have not read or read about the book the film is based on. I did not realise the impact this film has had in Hungary or elsewhere. I have no particular interest in the Holocaust.

I could not get to sleep after watching this film. Simply put it has a series of messages that seem more contemporary than mid twentieth century. There is a moment when it almost falls over into pathos but in the main it plays like a modern tragedy as unavoidably the boy's circumstances become worse but his spirit becomes more resolute.

With two exceptions the support acting is almost irrelevant (though a touch too elaborate for my taste) but the father and experienced fellow inmate are very important and well played. I should imagine Marcell Nagy's mother must have been quite concerned about the impact the role might have had on her son's mentality because the portrayal required resembles life at a rate of light years per minute. Apart from a couple of horrible Hollywoodesque moments, Nagy is first rate and believable but I am neither Hungarian nor Jewish nor an actor so his ability to get completely under my skin and evoke my sympathy may have just been technique.

Thank god for brave attempts like this one!

I saw the DVD of this film in Danish with English subtitles. Firstly, it is far from being an Andersen fairy tale, in fact it is quite disturbing and not what you may expect. Secondly, it is very contemporary and deliberately heavy handed in its moralistic points of view. The casting and acting are uniformly excellent as all the main characters display enthusiasm, confusion, disillusionment, distrust and, unfortunately, the willingness to sacrifice to achieve very questionable goals. The film is not exploitative, in fact, I assume it was produced as much for its educational purposes as for its dramatic contribution. For any pop star wannabes please catch this film if it shown outside Denmark. There is also a very telling family development in this film which I particularly appreciated. The songs are part of the general character development and seemed fitting.

I am that rare person who managed to read Prince Caspian without having read The LWW. I have seen the first film and believe the last 15 minutes reasonably reflected the Pevensie children as I imagined them from reading the second book. I'm afraid the liberties taken by this film version distort the family relationships as well as rendering other characters completely unfaithful in that context. Enough about the authenticity of the film.

There has been a fair amount of criticism of this film's actors on this board. As an eldest child I feel compelled to defend the actor portraying Peter as he can hardly have recognised the character he was playing from the book. Whether he appreciated the changes made to Peter or not, he was acting blind, and, surely, it is up to the director to ensure that there is an appropriate consistency in the portrayal. The character presented makes absolutely no sense when compared with the character developed at the end of the first film. To suggest he is having difficulty adapting to being a physical child again is a real stretch. The other children's roles are a tad more consistent with the written word though there is a 21st century knowing about all of them that causes them to lose the sense of wonder necessary. The portrayal of Caspian is also dumbed down, as if, children are no longer expected to imagine the breadth of personality and mixed emotions reflected in the book.

As usual I ended up enjoying certain elements of the film because of its visual nature (New Zealand excels again), but, now is the time to challenge the children of the world's imaginations rather than spoon feed them this shallower version.

Not everyone's taste but this film has it all at whatever level you want if you just prompt your imagination the teeniest little bit. All you need is an unknown young lead actor who will never be seen again, character acting in support that just drools its nationality and fruity flavour and an American Diva with a great singing voice. Oh I forgot the Metro chase for visual effect and the most convoluted and deliberately surreal plot (and filming) and hey presto its like nothing else. It was probably considered too commercial to win French awards and too French to win global ones but this film induces a breathlessness that you can feel from the start. Yet it is so tongue in cheek, poking fun at the early 80s France.

Vincent Van Patten was one of the most gifted tennis players I have seen in 40 years watching the sport. His part time (yes part time) tennis career included a tournament win, early 20s in the world ranking and two or three important doubles titles with very limited professional tennis tuition. He even beat McEnroe once, was a consummate athlete and had remarkably quick hands at the net. He should have applied his quick hands to the script and some of the amateurish tennis involved in this considerably disappointing film.

Its a hotchpotch of what I assume he wanted to film and what movie conventions made him film. This was an opportunity for the average film viewer to understand the personal physical and mental pressures associated with being a day in day out quality performer in an individual's game. The film abdicates any educational purpose and hails convention and even the tennis filming is not up to much.

I watched this film without foreknowledge of the storyline other than that implied by the title. Having read the other reviews on this board I would like to add an elder male perspective. This is definitely not a film just for adolescents about adolescence. In fact I found the portrayal of the lead male character one of the best played (and surprising) performances I have seen in a considerable time. Unlike the other commentators (and since I did not know what was coming) I think there were sufficient hints as to the character's true nature as revealed in the last third of the film. This is a fine example of where European cinema empowers its younger generation to think while Hollywood generally denies the same audience the same right.