(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)

Baby Party - 2005-06-20 08:52:47
Cold Mountain was one of the best novels of the last 20 years. I watched 20 minutes of the movie (at home), turned to Mr. Party, and said, "are you hating this as much as I am?" And we turned it off. If you haven't read the book, please don't let this maudlin, cliched movie keep you from it. (Miles, I had a clue that the movie was going to be disappointing when I saw a trailer featuring Ruby (Renee Zellweger) running through the snow and frantically screaming, "Daddy!" Um, no.)
-------------------------------
Miles - 2005-06-20 09:33:52

OK, here's the deal: Cold Mountain, the book, is basically the story of a man in love with a place, or at least what the place represents to him, and his struggle to return there. The book is complex and affecting, and deeply moved this son of Applachia. However, Anthony Minghella's film takes an even more reductionary turn than his adaptation of The English Patient, going for the simplified "romance!" and "war is bad!" aspects whenever possible. Like The English Patient, it's undeniably well-crafted and it gets some scenes amazingly right (the goat lady comes to mind), but this makes the things he gets wildy wrong (i.e., most everything else) all the more frustrating. Of course, Charles Frazier and Michael Ondaatje are laughing all the way to the bank, so they probably couldn't care less that Kip, Carvaggio, Inman, and Ruby will be mere caricatures in most moviegoers' minds for eternity.

Given that Minghella's film career started with the subtle, sublime Truly, Madly, Deeply (imagine if Ghost was actually good), I gotta say I'm disappointed with how it's gone since then. Also, Renee Zellwegger, who I've liked in plenty of other things, chewed scenery like crazy and doesn't deserve Oscar diddly for Cold Mountain. But apparently that's just me.

I wish filmmakers/studios trusted audiences more. (I dunno, maybe as a whole we aren't a trustworthy lot).

I wish we could be trusted with a story of a man's affinity for his land, of the cruelty and kindness of strangers (and kin), and not be made to endure a silly adolescent story of delusional longing.
-------------------------------
Editrix - 2005-06-20 13:29:56
I wish filmmakers/studios trusted audiences more. (I dunno, maybe as a whole we aren't a trustworthy lot).

You and me both. I don't know, I've seen more blockbustery movies lately as an excuse to hang out with friends, and the commercials and previews have had an increasingly cringe-inducing effect. I have to wonder what someone from another country who was sitting in the audience must have thought of Americans as a whole, all hyuk-hyukking to some sorry remake of some sorry TV show. Gah.
-------------------------------
Chris - 2005-06-20 16:56:56
I have just given up. By and large not seeing blockbuster movies is a net plus; no more rants about cheap emotions, one-dimensional motives, and ear splitting sound tracks. When it comes to hollywood, your better off judging a book by its cover.
-------------------------------
Miles - 2005-06-20 17:14:43
Terrence Malick should have gotten to direct the film - no other director knows more about land, light, and the deep resonance of nature within the human soul. My 2nd choice is David Gordon Green, but only if he'd take on a screenwriter rather than do the script himself. Left to his own devices, he'd get the land-longing and countryside weirdness exactly right, but would likely turn Ada and Ruby's segments into stilted Bergman-wannabe setpieces (female characters have so far been the bugaboo of Green's otherwise wonderful movies).
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland