Michael Fassbender
- Thread starter Swanky
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
This review proves my point.. This is just not a story that plays well with everyone. I totally respect what he has to say,but he simply looks biased towards the genre and this kind of story in particular. Also,I don't understand how he's judging the performances.. He has basically expressed his thoughts about Vikander's and Weisz's characters.
I didn't know the part about all of the voiceover reading of letters, tho. Bring it on! Reminds me of Legends of the Fall and I love me some Legends of the Fall. I can only hope that this movie, like LOTF, will also approach 3 hours in length and take up an entire afternoon when they show it on TNT. (Richard Roeper said it was slow and plodding, so that's promising. 
)
Roeper is also a man, he may just not get it. Especially if he's going around using the word "soapy" as pejorative.
) Roeper is also a man, he may just not get it. Especially if he's going around using the word "soapy" as pejorative.
I really, really did, though it's tough to talk about why or address some of these criticisms without spoilers. I'm looking forward to when everyone's seen it and we can share our own opinions and not just reviews
This. I totally expect other reviews like that.. It's not some kind of objective criticism,honestly. And I've noticed the same attitude (in some cases) towards Room and Brooklyn.I didn't know the part about all of the voiceover reading of letters, tho. Bring it on! Reminds me of Legends of the Fall and I love me some Legends of the Fall. I can only hope that this movie, like LOTF, will also approach 3 hours in length and take up an entire afternoon when they show it on TNT. (Richard Roeper said it was slow and plodding, so that's promising.
Roeper is also a man, he may just not get it. Especially if he's going around using the word "soapy" as pejorative.
You're criticizing Cianfrance's work based on one person's opinion,when the possible problems that I think other critics may have with the script simply come from the source material and its narrative dynamics (as the review posted by mollie proves).
I understand now. I was criticizing Cianfrance's work in this movie based on my own opinion after having watched the movie a few weeks ago. I was agreeing with that person's opinion and also laughing at the lifetime comparison, though I dont think the movie is a lifetime-esque movie
By the way, most of these "negative" reviews talk about the brilliant acting and cinematography but a lagging script all of which I agree with.
This thing that actors need engagements to be nominated is hilarious,honestly. But I've given up.. And don't worry.. Vikander has won an Oscar and Fassbender has been nominated some months ago.. I doubt they feel the need to nominate them again this year.
I've read other people comparing the first part to Malick. I guess it's for the pace,landscape and cinematography.
I've read some mixed "reviews" and the performances are always praised. I'm sure they've done an amazing work. I expect some complaints about some plot points being too predictable,which is not the director's fault because that is the story. I've not read the book but I'm sure that some things can be treated differently and with more nuance using a different medium.
That "review" has been already posted by carmen.. And these obscure blogs are irrelevant,even if some of them are added to R&T.
Eh..
Apparently,we have the critical response..
Btw, done with PF. I'm going to Venice now and it's too cool for me, no way people can ruin this moment of mine.. then summer will be over and I'll be back to work on some projects I'm really focusing on in these last months.
This place can be cool but I found better ways also to talk to the nice persons I found here and so I'm done with this for now. Not interested in these games anymore, I find them uber boring, repetitive, annoying and I'm sure they offend my/our intelligence. There's much more than this forum for me.. That's it. At the beginning I thought it was cool but this is not really exchanging opinions, this is just engaging fights or desperately attempting to..
And I've better things to focus on in my life, starting with Michael Fassbender, the real one, nor the one we may discuss about: the one we see in interviews, irl, in movies, in shows, in pics..; the one who has a brain, a heart, a family, a girlfriend, some faults, some vices, some virtues, etc etc.
I've been thinking about it for a while but I thought to wait until Venice and then leave; the fact is that since some days I've decided I can't wait anymore. I can't wait to wake up without notifications from the previous night's "war" and I can't wait to wake up seeing some pics of fassbender (with or without Alicia, even better with, I've nothing against love, I love love, I like them both and I like the fact he is love, it means he's happy!) without tons of nasty comments about his girlfriend. I can't wait to wake up seeing notifications and messages only from people I really care about (and I really care about some of you!
)This game is not fun anymore, I don't feel like sharing my personal thoughts about the premiere and the movie in this place, cos it will be a 100% personal experience I want to share just with my friends (and some of you really are, so you can write me on other social media please! [emoji173]️) and I don't need snarky comments anymore. It's not because I want to live in my own fantasy world, but for the opposite reason: I really live in a real world, out of this place, and I have a real passion for cinema I'd love to share with people. I just don't think this is the serious place to do it. Not anymore. Not now at least.
So good luck, brace yourselves: we're gonna have very bad, bad, good and very good reviews of TLBO and of all Michael's next projects too, as always. There's nothing we can do, apart from liking/disliking him and his movies, which is personal.
Personally, I can't wait to see the movie, Michael, Alicia (which I like separately and together as actors, human beings, couple, whatever) and Derek Cianfrance. I'm sure I'm gonna enjoy my experience and I'm gonna love the movie at least as much as I loved the book, and I loved it very much.
[emoji173]️
And you, Morgane, please write me soon, ask the other girls (PQ, aprilmayjune, Selayang... Etc!) where and how to find me if you want. Same for all the other friends here
I'm just done with this negativity, time is precious: I've tried this forum but as much as you may contribute, it's too sad for my tastes..I'm not going to delete my account, just the app... I don't have any will to do this anymore for now, fantasy world is not for me, it was fun when I was a kid, not anymore.
I think I have better places to happily/peacefully enjoy my passions and meet people.
yay!Bye guys see ya! [emoji57]
Last edited:
Another review. For an actress that has only a few scenes, everyone is praising Rachel's performance
https://t.co/yplZod1rhN
‘The Light Between Oceans’: Soap gets in your teary eyes
“We’re not doing anything wrong.” – Alicia Vikander’s Isabel to Michael Fassbender’s Tom, just as they’re about to do something really, really wrong.
In the history of movies, any time anyone says “We’re not doing anything wrong,” everyone in the audience is pretty much always thinking, “Oh yes you are!”
This is one of the core problems with “The Light Between Oceans,” a gorgeous but plodding and borderline ludicrous period-piece weeper. We’re supposed to feel for Isabel and Tom and the plight they find themselves in — but THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT SITUATION, and what they’ve done isn’t just criminal, it’s cruel.
We’ll talk more about that mess in a moment.
Based on the popular novel from 2012 by M.L. Stedman and adapted and directed by the gifted Derek Cianfrance (“Blue Valentine,” “The Place Beyond the Pines”), “The Light Between Oceans” is one of those movies announcing from the get-go you’re in for some serious melodrama. At times it seems to be aiming for the Guinness Book of Records in the categories of Most Sweeping Overhead Shots of an Ocean, as well as Most Scenes Involving Voice-Over Narration of Handwritten Letters.
We open in Australia in 1918, as World War One (then known as the Great War) was coming to a close.
Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a four-year combat veteran who appears numb and broken. Tom applies for the job of lighthouse keeper on Janus Rock, a remote post some 100 miles from the nearest town. That’ll suit him just fine.
Ah, but living in that town is one Isabel (Vikander), a beautiful and sweet and plucky gal who lost two brothers to the war and is biding her time in her parents’ home, just waiting for a Fassbender-looking guy to sweep her off her feet. (Though she’s the one who makes most of the moves early in their courtship.)
After just one semi-date, Tom and Isabel are goners. He goes back to the lighthouse, and they commence with a pen-pal romance. Before you can say, “Cue the Happiness Montage,” Tom and Isabel are married, and Isabel is with child.
We can’t delve much further into the review without some SPOILER ALERTS, so there you have it.
Isabel suffers a miscarriage, and then another. The tragedies are compounded because she’s isolated on the unforgiving Janus Rock with just her husband. (The previous lighthouse keeper went mad after his wife passed away.)
And then a dinghy washes up, and inside the dinghy there is a dead man and a baby girl who is very much alive.
Tom says they must report this to the authorities. Isabel, who has just suffered her second miscarriage, says: What if we bury the dead man, and we pretend this girl is ours?
And that’s when she tells her husband, “We’re not doing anything wrong.”
I suppose it’s possible everyone, including Isabel’s parents, will buy into the notion this quite large baby was actually born to Isabel in the lighthouse with only Tom to provide assistance. (You’d think after the first miscarriage, when Isabel was pregnant a second time there might have been some talk about her staying with her parents, in a town, with a doctor, rather than remaining with Tom on a stormy island hours from civilization.)
And I suppose the coincidences that begin to pile up in the second half of the movie could take place — at least two of them awfully convenient in terms of triggering some big-time melodrama.
But it’s a stretch.
Fassbender can be a mesmerizing screen presence — but he also can be something of a stiff, and that’s the case here. Even when his Tom is experiencing some moments of joy, he has the smile of someone who’s been told to “JUST SMILE FOR ONCE!”
Vikander is tasked with making us feel sympathetic for Isabel, even after Isabel flies off the rails. It’s the kind of role actors love, filled with opportunities for the character to be movie-star charming, and then adorably maternal, and then shattering the windows with the strength of her grief. It’s fine work — but when you’re convincing your husband to bury that dead guy and to go along with a perhaps lifelong ruse pretending you gave birth to a baby whose mother believes her child is dead, well. Sorry Isabel. Not a fan.
The best performance in the film comes from Rachel Weisz as Hannah, the daughter of the wealthy and fabulously named Septimus Potts (Bryan Brown), who had disowned her after she married a German. (Leon Ford is wonderful in a small part as Hannah’s husband.) It’s possible Hannah is that little girl’s real mother, and Weisz does a memorable job of capturing perhaps the most complex and definitely the most sympathetic character in the film.
Writer-director Cianfrance has crafted a great-looking film with prestige project written all over it, from the cast that includes Oscar winners Vikander and Weisz, and two-time Oscar nominee Fassbender; the luminous cinematography by Adam Arkapaw; and the score from Alexander Desplat, the ridiculously prolific composer (“The King’s Speech,” “Argo,” “The Danish Girl,” etc., etc.)
I’m just not sure anyone could have turned this soap opera material into anything other than a sweeping, credibility-stretching, overwrought … soap opera.
“The Light Between Oceans”
Two stars
DreamWorks Pictures presents a film written and directed by Derek Cianfrance, based on the novel by M.L. Stedman. Running time: 130 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for thematic material and some sexual content). Opens Friday at local theaters.
https://t.co/yplZod1rhN
‘The Light Between Oceans’: Soap gets in your teary eyes
“We’re not doing anything wrong.” – Alicia Vikander’s Isabel to Michael Fassbender’s Tom, just as they’re about to do something really, really wrong.
In the history of movies, any time anyone says “We’re not doing anything wrong,” everyone in the audience is pretty much always thinking, “Oh yes you are!”
This is one of the core problems with “The Light Between Oceans,” a gorgeous but plodding and borderline ludicrous period-piece weeper. We’re supposed to feel for Isabel and Tom and the plight they find themselves in — but THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT SITUATION, and what they’ve done isn’t just criminal, it’s cruel.
We’ll talk more about that mess in a moment.
Based on the popular novel from 2012 by M.L. Stedman and adapted and directed by the gifted Derek Cianfrance (“Blue Valentine,” “The Place Beyond the Pines”), “The Light Between Oceans” is one of those movies announcing from the get-go you’re in for some serious melodrama. At times it seems to be aiming for the Guinness Book of Records in the categories of Most Sweeping Overhead Shots of an Ocean, as well as Most Scenes Involving Voice-Over Narration of Handwritten Letters.
We open in Australia in 1918, as World War One (then known as the Great War) was coming to a close.
Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a four-year combat veteran who appears numb and broken. Tom applies for the job of lighthouse keeper on Janus Rock, a remote post some 100 miles from the nearest town. That’ll suit him just fine.
Ah, but living in that town is one Isabel (Vikander), a beautiful and sweet and plucky gal who lost two brothers to the war and is biding her time in her parents’ home, just waiting for a Fassbender-looking guy to sweep her off her feet. (Though she’s the one who makes most of the moves early in their courtship.)
After just one semi-date, Tom and Isabel are goners. He goes back to the lighthouse, and they commence with a pen-pal romance. Before you can say, “Cue the Happiness Montage,” Tom and Isabel are married, and Isabel is with child.
We can’t delve much further into the review without some SPOILER ALERTS, so there you have it.
Isabel suffers a miscarriage, and then another. The tragedies are compounded because she’s isolated on the unforgiving Janus Rock with just her husband. (The previous lighthouse keeper went mad after his wife passed away.)
And then a dinghy washes up, and inside the dinghy there is a dead man and a baby girl who is very much alive.
Tom says they must report this to the authorities. Isabel, who has just suffered her second miscarriage, says: What if we bury the dead man, and we pretend this girl is ours?
And that’s when she tells her husband, “We’re not doing anything wrong.”
I suppose it’s possible everyone, including Isabel’s parents, will buy into the notion this quite large baby was actually born to Isabel in the lighthouse with only Tom to provide assistance. (You’d think after the first miscarriage, when Isabel was pregnant a second time there might have been some talk about her staying with her parents, in a town, with a doctor, rather than remaining with Tom on a stormy island hours from civilization.)
And I suppose the coincidences that begin to pile up in the second half of the movie could take place — at least two of them awfully convenient in terms of triggering some big-time melodrama.
But it’s a stretch.
Fassbender can be a mesmerizing screen presence — but he also can be something of a stiff, and that’s the case here. Even when his Tom is experiencing some moments of joy, he has the smile of someone who’s been told to “JUST SMILE FOR ONCE!”
Vikander is tasked with making us feel sympathetic for Isabel, even after Isabel flies off the rails. It’s the kind of role actors love, filled with opportunities for the character to be movie-star charming, and then adorably maternal, and then shattering the windows with the strength of her grief. It’s fine work — but when you’re convincing your husband to bury that dead guy and to go along with a perhaps lifelong ruse pretending you gave birth to a baby whose mother believes her child is dead, well. Sorry Isabel. Not a fan.
The best performance in the film comes from Rachel Weisz as Hannah, the daughter of the wealthy and fabulously named Septimus Potts (Bryan Brown), who had disowned her after she married a German. (Leon Ford is wonderful in a small part as Hannah’s husband.) It’s possible Hannah is that little girl’s real mother, and Weisz does a memorable job of capturing perhaps the most complex and definitely the most sympathetic character in the film.
Writer-director Cianfrance has crafted a great-looking film with prestige project written all over it, from the cast that includes Oscar winners Vikander and Weisz, and two-time Oscar nominee Fassbender; the luminous cinematography by Adam Arkapaw; and the score from Alexander Desplat, the ridiculously prolific composer (“The King’s Speech,” “Argo,” “The Danish Girl,” etc., etc.)
I’m just not sure anyone could have turned this soap opera material into anything other than a sweeping, credibility-stretching, overwrought … soap opera.
“The Light Between Oceans”
Two stars
DreamWorks Pictures presents a film written and directed by Derek Cianfrance, based on the novel by M.L. Stedman. Running time: 130 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for thematic material and some sexual content). Opens Friday at local theaters.
This thing that actors need engagements to be nominated is hilarious,honestly. But I've given up.. And don't worry.. Vikander has won an Oscar and Fassbender has been nominated some months ago.. I doubt they feel the need to nominate them again this year.
I've read other people comparing the first part to Malick. I guess it's for the pace,landscape and cinematography.
I've read some mixed "reviews" and the performances are always praised. I'm sure they've done an amazing work. I expect some complaints about some plot points being too predictable,which is not the director's fault because that is the story. I've not read the book but I'm sure that some things can be treated differently and with more nuance using a different medium.
That "review" has been already posted by carmen.. And these obscure blogs are irrelevant,even if some of them are added to R&T.
Eh..
Apparently,we have the critical response..
I wasn't aware. And how is it obscure if it is 1. was posted already and 2. about the movie?
Last edited by a moderator:
^^ Not enough Weisz in the movie for my liking! Her part of either cut out in the script or editing because I do remember the birth mother's part being more substantial in the book. I could be mistaken though.
Well,you've posted another review posted by mollie. There's no need to post the same things.
This is another little blog,which is kind of irrelevant in the end,but it was added to RT. I wonder why nobody has posted this review..
Last edited by a moderator:
I really, really did, though it's tough to talk about why or address some of these criticisms without spoilers. I'm looking forward to when everyone's seen it and we can share our own opinions and not just reviews
Spare a thought for those of us who have to wait another 2 months to see it....[emoji20]
oh, no! i'd totally forgotten. that sucks...
