john-ruffle
Joined Jan 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings89
john-ruffle's rating
Reviews25
john-ruffle's rating
I nearly skipped this film, it has almost universally bad reviews, but my 12 year old son and his friend really wanted to see it, we made a family outing of it, with me fearing the worst! I was very pleasantly surprised, and found the film a serious attempt to address a spirituality that is not widely understood in the west. Maybe this is one reason why the film has been panned. I then looked at audience reviews a little closer, and I realise that most of those who disliked it - no, HATED it - were already fans of the cartoon versions. It falls into place; having never seen any other versions I was coming to the film fresh. What I did recognise was the Dala Lama in the little boy Avator, and this lent the film authenticity.
As a Christian, it may seem strange that I am endorsing a film that is rooted in eastern mysticism. First of all, it is a worthy attempt at a challenging subject, and I found the performances - while approached with simplicity - quite in keeping with the mystical nature of the material. The second point is that it has a non-violence theme, and sends the message 5that some things in the realm of the spirit should not be manipulated by humans.
The musical score fitted the action seamlessly - so much so, I hope it gets an Oscar nomination; at one point, there is total silence as our heroes walk on ice... the silence is deafening and very dramatic.
The most mystical part of this production is WHY so many people have failed to connect with the film. The one down-side I have to agree with is that they really did not try with the 3D. But even this did not spoil the film for me. Yes, I will pay good money to see the sequel!
As a Christian, it may seem strange that I am endorsing a film that is rooted in eastern mysticism. First of all, it is a worthy attempt at a challenging subject, and I found the performances - while approached with simplicity - quite in keeping with the mystical nature of the material. The second point is that it has a non-violence theme, and sends the message 5that some things in the realm of the spirit should not be manipulated by humans.
The musical score fitted the action seamlessly - so much so, I hope it gets an Oscar nomination; at one point, there is total silence as our heroes walk on ice... the silence is deafening and very dramatic.
The most mystical part of this production is WHY so many people have failed to connect with the film. The one down-side I have to agree with is that they really did not try with the 3D. But even this did not spoil the film for me. Yes, I will pay good money to see the sequel!
This film, produced by Gainsborough Studios in London, (which was based in Islington, north London), was actually almost beyond reasonable doubt, made at Lime Grove Studios in Shepherd's Bush. This may help if any film buffs are interested in trying to recognise locations. (I live very close to where these old studios used to be, so you could say I have a vested interest!) "During World War II, the tall factory chimney on the (Islington) site was considered dangerous in the event of bombing, and Gainsborough Studios were evacuated to Lime Grove for the duration of the war." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gainsborough_Pictures
Back to the film however. This is a very important British film that should be watched be everyone with any interest at all in 20th Century British history and/or cultural influences. What makes this film special is that it was made and released actually during World War II, and it has an immediacy and impact that a retrospective war film simply cannot have. It is, therefore a historical document of great value. It is also a great film. Not simple "good", but "great". The plotting is good, the acting is good... but in particular, watch for the superb "montage" sequences that typify British cinema of the era, both dramatic works and documentary.
Fortunataely, the Daily Mail gave a DVD of the film away free in early 2009, so getting hold of a copy should not be too hard for folks in reach of a British charity shop. I don't know if the DVD is region-restricted, so readers in other parts of the world may have greater difficulty getting a copy if this.
The domestic sibling rivalry in the first act of the picture is particularly telling, and the banter reveals not ancient customs, but rather, reveals just how little has changed in teenage attitudes in over 65 years - an entire generation and a half ago! Look for the elder daughter painting her toe-nails. Attitudes toward the opposite sex also don't seem dated at all, despite the so-called (and largely very regrettable) "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and beyond.
Histroical dramas are such a popular genre today. However, they all have to re-create the past from a matrix formed from present perceptions. However well executed, they can never entirely reach beyond the auteurs' perceptions of the past. This film, however, is indeed a genuine time capsule. Yes, it was a contribution to the war effort, and so some would relegate it to propaganda. But look beyond that. These WERE the times they lived in! As has been noted by another writer, the reference to the "United Nations" in the film, several years before the creation of the "United Nations" cannot possibly be a historical "mistake" (If you want to find out HOW this reference ended up in the dialogue, read the "trivea" comments!) For those in USA and other parts of the world, from the boiling hot 1920s Morris "Bulnose" Oxford open tourer to the railway arches and dance halls... this WAS how we lived in Britain in that age!
Back to the film however. This is a very important British film that should be watched be everyone with any interest at all in 20th Century British history and/or cultural influences. What makes this film special is that it was made and released actually during World War II, and it has an immediacy and impact that a retrospective war film simply cannot have. It is, therefore a historical document of great value. It is also a great film. Not simple "good", but "great". The plotting is good, the acting is good... but in particular, watch for the superb "montage" sequences that typify British cinema of the era, both dramatic works and documentary.
Fortunataely, the Daily Mail gave a DVD of the film away free in early 2009, so getting hold of a copy should not be too hard for folks in reach of a British charity shop. I don't know if the DVD is region-restricted, so readers in other parts of the world may have greater difficulty getting a copy if this.
The domestic sibling rivalry in the first act of the picture is particularly telling, and the banter reveals not ancient customs, but rather, reveals just how little has changed in teenage attitudes in over 65 years - an entire generation and a half ago! Look for the elder daughter painting her toe-nails. Attitudes toward the opposite sex also don't seem dated at all, despite the so-called (and largely very regrettable) "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and beyond.
Histroical dramas are such a popular genre today. However, they all have to re-create the past from a matrix formed from present perceptions. However well executed, they can never entirely reach beyond the auteurs' perceptions of the past. This film, however, is indeed a genuine time capsule. Yes, it was a contribution to the war effort, and so some would relegate it to propaganda. But look beyond that. These WERE the times they lived in! As has been noted by another writer, the reference to the "United Nations" in the film, several years before the creation of the "United Nations" cannot possibly be a historical "mistake" (If you want to find out HOW this reference ended up in the dialogue, read the "trivea" comments!) For those in USA and other parts of the world, from the boiling hot 1920s Morris "Bulnose" Oxford open tourer to the railway arches and dance halls... this WAS how we lived in Britain in that age!
James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.
The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.
But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.
I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.
William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.
Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.
The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.
But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.
I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.
William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.
Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.