watched it because i heard Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement) likes David Lean and i couldn't believe how bad it was!
i hope the guy's other movies are better than this, otherwise it's also sad his name sounds like Lynch. i mean... to confuse those two, sad. :D
[deleted]
[deleted]
hipechik:
Re: "Wow. You're an idiot." And your reply:
"No, the idiot is the person that can't disagree with someone without explaining his point of view with any depth."
Neither YOU nor GABRIEL explained YOUR point of view about the movie with any depth.
GABRIEL's inarticulate/incomprehensible comments only refer to another person who likes the director and some confusion over the first name of the director.
YOU did not offer one comment, or otherwise discuss this movie, and failed to explain your point of view with any depth.
Guess what? By your own definition, "You're an idiot!" And so is Gabriel!
Doctor Zhivago is possibly one of the best movies ever......Joe Wright is right.....and Dr Zhivago is his best movie.
share[deleted]
The movie is considered a masterpiece by most. It all depends on the type of film you enjoy. If you're not into epic dramas, you obviously won't like this film. But, I'm among the people who think it's one of the greatest movies ever made.
share[deleted]
I'd say his finest work is "Lawrence of Arabia" but "Doctor Zhivago" isn't that bad at all. To confuse David Lynch with David Lean would actually be a monstrosity, I could never put that second level director Lynch over someone such as Lean. "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Bridge to River Kwai" surpasses anything Lynch has ever done and ever will do and that is placing things lightly. I do find "Blue Velvet" and "Elephant Man" decent films but come on, in all honesty they can't stand up against "Lawrence of Arabia"
______________________________________
"Thank God I'm an atheist"- Luis Buñuel
It is a wonderful movie, all an experience!!
shareI'd like to make a minor point - just one of "perspective" from someone my age (a "boomer"). This movie was made/released during the so called "Cold War".
To Americans my age Russia was a closed off society that we learned so little about - except "they" had nukes and wanted to destroy us.We knew who the leaders were and we knew their politics. We had NO idea what the average Russian was like. We had news reel footage from the western side of the Iron Curtain. Most images of Russian woman were barrel chested, manly looking & world weary. This movie, although not set in "modern" Russia,tapped into many Americans (I can only speak for my friends/family) imaginations. Rather than seeing block after block of cement gray apartment buildings, stores with empty shelves etc., we were treated to the "European" side of Russia - architecture, music and literature, people with passion, people that looked like you and I - yes, they were not Russian actors and in reality were from among you and I, but you get my point. Someone my age is bound to have feelings and emotions still attached to a movie like this as we remember the overall experience of seeing the movie the first time - its more than just the movie itself. I really don't know how historically accurate this movie is, never thought about it. For me,the time I saw it on "the big screen" in my local theatre, the movie tore a hole in the Iron Curtain and gave me a view into a place and the people living there that was hidden from me/us all my short life. I wanted more ! If I was a teenager again today and watched this for the first time I would more than likely be critical of it too. But, to me at my age, whenever I read that its going to be on TV I make a point to watch it - so many memories attached to "back in the day". I always hoped that some day the Curtain would come down and we would get to see and hear the people of Russia speak - not Pravda or the Soviet News channel TASS. Of course none of this has anything to do with an objective critique of this movie but it was just a thought on why some either like or dislike this movie and others.
it certainly did not suck.
while i didn't live thru the russian revolution, i was born in wwii, before hitler died, so i feel a connection to those tyrants of the first half of the 20th century. i well remember listening to the death of stalin (not too mention qe ii's father) over the kitchen table radio (you _do_ remember the radio).
im'54's review, that of a "boomer" (my little sister is a boomer), was spot on. i've posted (in a few minutes -- 9 pm EDT) a review of sorts on my blog: http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/ in reply to my friend "Ed" (who is very real), and worried about the dangers to "freedom" in the current world.
when i saw the scene, just the other night, with a prisoner on the train, played by Klaus Kinski, i was struck at what pasternak was trying to say. maybe it's time to read the book again, and praise lean for delivering what is likely the whole point of the story: who here is really free?!!
your are absolutely right and i thank you for making that point as it brings back to mind the complete sense of awe i had in glimpsing a view of russia that was not what it was being portrayed as in the newspapers of the time. I was so in love with that beauty. I saw it in washington, d.c. on an absolutely sweltering day, (that was the second time i believe) but being summer made it even better.
shareIronman makes a really good point. It's hard today to realize what the effect of this movie was like then re: peoples' attitude toward Russia, which was thought of only as the Big Enemy, and a Stalinist fortress.
This movie had a huge impact on all that. Fashions styled from the movie swept the country, for instance. "War and Peace" came out about the same time, but it was from an earlier historic period, seemed remote, and was much less romantically affecting.
it was very sweeping.
A bird in hand makes hard to blow nose-Confucius
While I agree that Lawrence of Arabia is indeed David Lean's masterpiece, but I love Doctor Zhivago, and I think I'm going to make a point of watching it annually on Labour Day. I do think, however, that you shouldn't ignore Lean's earlier films, especially his work with Noel Coward. Both Brief Encounter and In Which We Serve are marvelous movies, and Blithe Spirit is an utter delight. His film of Great Expectations is the best interpretation of Dickens ever filmed, and his film of Summertime with Katharine Hepburn and Rozanno Brazzi is lovely and romantic as well.
The person who posted that Doctor Zhivago "sucks" doesn't appreciate the passion of the story and the manner in which Lean was able to tell an intimate story against the larger scope of the epic. In Zhivago, of course, it's the Russian Revolution, while in Lawrence it's the remarkable desert setting. Don't forget the Irish Rebellion and Bloody Sunday background of Ryan's Daughter, either.
David Lean is Britain's premiere film director!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's considered a classic by film critics and most audiences. Its historical aspects certainly leave a lot to be desired, but the British POWs hardly constitute the general consensus of opinion on it. Since when has historicity determined a film's quality?
In any case, their beef should be with Pierre Boulle, who wrote the novel, rather than Lean and Co. But Boulle never claimed he was telling the true story, nor did he base Nicholson on Phillip Toosey.
"I have no window to another man's conscience. I condemn no one."
RIP Paul Scofield
While David Lean is a great artist, and movies like "Bridge On The River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia" are fantastic, "Doctor Zhivago" is convulted, boring and ultimatly silly. I wouldn't call the movie a piece of crap, but it certainly isn't a masterpiece like many believe. Too many storylines are treated, specially at the beginning of the movie, that serve no real purpose for the plot, and end up making the film too long, forcing the screenplay to not show the viewer things like how Zhivago and Lara fell in love. Also, because there are so many stories, things happen suddenly and without real build-up. That is just shoddy storytelling. Zhivago as a character is played by Shariff as an uninteresting mild-mannered man. He is just simply boring, and the viewer can't help but to keep a distance from him, and wonder why this beautiful women keep wanting to hump him. The characters also do things for stupid reasons. So stupid in fact that they become something a human being would never do. Refusing help from someone just because they hate him? This guy, who, by the way, sure, is a bad person, but entered into a relationship with Lara with her consent, and who Doctor Zhivago really doesn't have a reason to hate (they had talked one time before the end scenes), is offering them a way to save their lives, be together. But no. They hate him. Oh, Lord.
Yeah, I can see why people think it's a classic. Big, epic war scenes. A love story that goes all over the place. Based on a novel. All star cast. But if you just look at it, you'll see that it's boring, and just really, really, silly. "Lawrence of Arabia" is a classic. This is not.
I haven't the foggiest why you're replying to me, but I was referring to Bridge on the River Kwai as being a classic.
"Go and do something sensible, like shooting yourself! But don't be an artist!"
loved your post ossioj, very true.
perhaps i shuold try other lean's films then.
Yes, I think Gabriel might handle some other David Lean films better. "Bridge" has no women in it, which he'd undoubtedly be more comfortable with.
What did Strelnikov say to Yuri in the traincar? His poems were "personal, bourgeois and self-indulgent". Quite true, actually. They reflected the human condition. The Russian Revolution tried to expunge humanity from society, a monstrously futile notion that ultimately resulted in the collapse & disappearance of the Soviet Union.
Last night I saw "Doctor Zhivago" for the first time in a few years, on the big screen at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. It was, as always, simply a great movie. I realized that I've come to appreciate parts of this film that I did not when younger. I think that life experiences do affect taste in audiences, and this is true not just in movies but in other art forms as well.
Kwai had the nurse and the Siamese bearers, although they weren't major characters.
One of the hallmarks of my style is subtext... and mise-en-SEEN!
The Siamese bearers in Kwai are about the only fault I find in this film. Casting those gorgeous little barefooted girls lugging the commando's gear through the jungle is simply ludicrous. Apparently Lean was trying to introduce an element of sex appeal into this otherwise male drama but it just doesn't make sense, the porters would actually have been husky guys.
shareI thought the scenes with the nurse were annoying and rather out-of-place too. Reportedly Spiegel forced the female characters on Lean for the reasons you cite, although I remember reading the porters were in Carl Foreman's early draft script.
One of the hallmarks of my style is subtext... and mise-en-SEEN!
ossioj...
You make some interesting points about the story line(s) of the movie, one in which even at the end we would have many unanswered questions, suggesting not that it was too long a movie, but unnecessarily shortened. However, to call it boring and silly is to miss what makes this a great film and to "look at it" as you want us to instead of merely letting it wash over you without worrying about whatever flaws it may have. This is essentially an autobiographical love story about a Russian poet who is passionate, yet reserved, and a keen observer. Lean is a great director not because of his appeal to critics, but because of the appeal of his pictures to audiences who enjoy a movie based on their overall impression of it, something that Lean works religiously to achieve. Every scene intends to convey a distinct impression in the minds of the movie goers, something which doesn't happen when one is already in a critiquing mode trying to unravel a story line or trying to determine whether or not the performances are first rate.
On the subject of being a "classic", there is much to say but where such a forum gives little opportunity to explore. In the world of artistry, it is more often the "art world", to use a term often seen in the controversial aspects of such judgments, that seem to determine what is and what isn't good art, which include such things as urinals hanging in museums dedicated to displaying it.
James
"But if you just look at it, you'll see that it's boring, and just really, really, silly. "Lawrence of Arabia" is a classic. This is not."
That's YOUR OPINION, you self-important jerk!
Maybe i'm being too demanding, but I could not take the movie as seriously as i'd want to, since all the characters seemed too much not russian (not even eastern europeans, being the exception Pascha)...the acting was great and the landscapes were gorgeous, but some of them did not resemble Russia...and by the way, even though the freezing temperatures, I dont think that they are always that covered.
Despite this being a cool decent movie, I still prefer the 2002 mini-series...
young people dont make mitakes, they research through new things and besides, brains are overrated!
I hate Zhivago too. I also hate Kwai.
I think the first half of Laurence is quite good.
In 100 years peope will still be telling themselves pretty movies are good and/or important. And they'll still be wrong.
Are you Dave Jenkins, by any chance?
"Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran!"
You hate Kwai ? My first reaction was "there is no point in even reading your posts". However,now that I think about it, I really would like to hear your reasons. I'm also curious as to your age. Not to be nosey or to make any point about "maturity" etc., just, if you are under 25 years of age, I'd like to get an idea what the youth of today are thinking (?).
Care to indulge me ?
I was never very happy with the movie--although the photography is beautiful. Finally after all these years I read the book. Yep, the movie does suck!
share..."the movie does suck"..
and doesn't some of that "life" on the screen suck too???? Davey and Boris are trying to open up your eyes tej...;-)....
The movie is not in the class of Bridge on the River Kwai or Lawrence of Arabia. The book is much better than the book. However, the movie is pretty decent. I think that you are being too harsh with the movie.
shareI'm actually pretty astonished people still bother to argue in favour of this sentimental, chocolate-boxy piece of fluff. The film dishonours both the book and its historical basis. Mind you, it's not nearly as wretched as Ryan's Daughter. Both films were dumped on by the critics at the time and rightly so.
shareThe book is also very sentimental, I read the book before seeing the movie. The book is much better with more history to it and shows aspects of his life that are missing in the movie. This includes the letter he gets and the ending of the doctor. However, the film does not dishonor the book. I agree with you that Ryan's Daughter was bad, but I disagree with you about this movie. Well, we can agree to disagree and move on. You will then say that any other sentimental piece like Casablanca was terrible (that is not accurate historically and is cheesy).
shareRyan's Daughter rules.
Let us drink, gentlemen, till we roll under the table in vomit and oblivion!