Fraught with over obvious symbolism, Hartley's early feature is nonetheless a joy to watch. Hal here shows us his uncanny ability to cast his characters perfectly came early in his career.
Adrienne Shelley is a near perfect foil to herself, equal parts annoying teen burgeoning in her sexuality (though using sex for several years); obsessed with doom and inspired by idealism gone wrong she is deceptively – and simultaneously – complex and simple. Her Audrey inspires so many levels of symbolism it is almost embarrassingly rich (e.g., her modeling career beginning with photos of her foot – culminating her doing nude (but unseen) work; Manhattan move; Europe trip; her stealing, then sleeping with the mechanics wrench, etc.)
As Josh, Robert Burke gives an absolutely masterful performance. A reformed prisoner/penitent he returns to his home town to face down past demons, accept his lot and begin a new life. Dressed in black, and repeatedly mistaken for a priest, he corrects everyone ("I'm a mechanic"), yet the symbolism is rich: he abstains from alcohol, he practices celibacy (is, in fact a virgin), and seemingly has taken on vows of poverty, and humility as well. The humility seems hardest to swallow seeming, at times, almost false, a pretense. Yet, as we learn more of Josh we see genuineness in his modesty, that his humility is indeed earnest and believable. What seems ironic is the character is fairly forthright in his simplicity, yet so richly drawn it becomes the viewer who wants to make him out as more than what he actually is. A fascinatingly written character, perfectly played.
The scene between Josh and Jane (a wonderful, young Edie Falco . . . "You need a woman not a girl") is hilarious . . . real. But Hartley can't leave it as such and his trick, having the actors repeat the dialogue over-and-over becomes frustratingly "arty" and annoying . . . until again it becomes hilarious. What a terrific sense of bizarre reality this lends the film (like kids in a perpetual "am not"/"are too" argument).
Hartley's weaves all of a small neighborhood's idiosyncrasies into a tapestry of seeming stereotypes but which delves far beneath the surface, the catalyst being that everyone believes they know what the "unbelievable truth" of the title is, yet no two people can agree (including our hero) on what exactly that truth is. A wonderful little movie with some big ideas.
「报社如今变成了商店，向公众出售他们想听的。报纸不再开明，而是煽动意见，或是创造意见。新闻、辩论和观点都变成了商品，用来哄骗订阅者。记者们变成了语言的零售商、词语贩子、艺术家和公众之间的经纪人。」
三星半，完成度很好，但是能拿这么多凯撒大奖估计也是确实很合那些白人老头评委的胃口吧，毕竟片中的法国文化应该是他们从小长大中耳濡目染的吧？不过我倒还蛮喜欢的，看历史片也很有意思。看完出来，我和发财都惊讶道：多兰竟然一点魁北克口音都没有？
过气演员大联欢。也许19世纪的东西真的不适合21世纪了。我们看巴尔扎克，就像剧里的人拿脏水泼的拉辛一样陈腐。想起老王说19世纪，the nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass; the nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
但还是值得一看
今年真的是看了太多better stay as fiction的电影了。
我倒是挺想看到吕西安的失败，但是卡洛琳有点无辜，整部剧略拖沓
轻松杀了一众枪手后，被一个脖子中了一枪的人，打中两枪。。。
让我想去读一下原著了～巴尔扎克系列在现今社会越来越具有警示作用。
海明威说巴黎是一席流动盛宴，这个片子实在是把巴黎纸醉金迷、浮动的欲望展现出来了。上一个让我惊艳的复古质感的电影是巴里林登。台词功底还是得益于巴尔扎克了？
引用句评论:城市套路深，我要回农村。
7分。原来是巴尔扎克的原著电影，难怪看着很有质感，但电影本身却没任何精彩之处。看这片不如去读原著，真心这样觉得。
为啥我脑补了一出多兰侯爵夫人利用他人脉资源给夏东导演拍这部戏的画面呢？毕竟才华这玩意儿，要靠贵族血统砸，也要靠全场最高价砸。
“不要问我心里有没有你，我余光中都是你。”
Pineapple will save us from poetry!就非常basic或者說老套的名著改編，男主也說不上有魅力（大概就是土和演技麻麻吧，主要看起來就智商很低）當年看小說的時候是很喜歡的，但電影實在是睏到不行，多蘭這個扮相實在太奇怪了，好好搞導演事業別演了哥（
神枪手匪徒亨利·麦卡蒂妻子死后与儿子怀亚特独自在俄克拉荷马州切克沙镇从事农业养殖猪。1906年一天，妻子的哥哥艾尔·霍布斯过来帮忙，艾尔走后，父子屠宰猪，这时远处走来一匹母马且马鞍有血迹。于是循着血迹找到一昏迷受伤的男子，旁边有手枪和装满钱的皮包意识到是劫匪。救走男子后第二天去找医生且途中遇到3个寻伤者的骑警萨姆等3人。亨利回家，伤者称是堪萨斯州贝克斯特斯普陵镇警察，而3个骑警是假的。于是亨利赶走萨姆等人。萨姆让达根监视亨利，但夜间达根袭击亨利被打死。第三天萨姆绑架了艾尔并从镇上雇了几个枪手。萨姆开枪打死艾尔，亨利愤怒还击将萨姆等人一一打死。替柯里包扎伤口发现其胳膊有囚犯烙印而被柯里开枪击倒，怀亚特开枪打死柯里。原来黑警柯里与萨姆匪徒一起合伙打劫银行，萨姆欲杀柯里灭口时，柯里抢走了钱袋……
7分。原来是巴尔扎克的原著电影，难怪看着很有质感，但电影本身却没任何精彩之处。看这片不如去读原著，真心这样觉得。
还行还行剧情不错很值得观看也很值得向别人推荐
两个半小时无尿点 cécile本人年度最佳女演员
媒体、舆论、党派…各种利益交织的巴黎，一个灵魂的堕落与幻灭
金句频出，挖苦四起，时评弹幕比主线情节精彩系列。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
