Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by pablo, May 21, 2012.
Warning! NSFW! A little...
This one's got Emmy Award Winner vibes. If it is as good as I think it's going to be, it would have been an Oscar contender.
This is a story of two remarkable Americans. Hemingway is well known.
Gelhorn isn't as well known. I hope this movie presents her well. As someone who started his working life as a naive newspaper reporter, she was among my heroes.
Her experience of the pain and horror of the Spanish Civil War and WWII was profound, particularly as an American reporter whose father and maternal grandfather were Jewish.
As a reaction to the fascist nations, she would forever be a leftist. But contrary to what is sometimes written about her, she covered the Soviet Union attack on Finland in 1939 emphasizing that Finland was not the aggressor, influencing American public opinion about that war. She had no fondness for the Soviets.
She continued her work as a reporter covering the Vietnam War, the Six-Day War in the Middle East and the civil wars in Central America for Atlantic Monthly. At 81 (!) she went to Panama to cover the U.S. invasion as a freelance reporter. At 89, ill and almost completely blind, she also committed suicide.
What I think is most interesting about her was her continuing career covering wars while despising war.
I'm not sure I can take anything with Lars Ulrich in an acting role seriously but I'll give it a shot.
"Also"? In addtion to what?
So what did everyone think?
We turned it off after about 40 insufferable minutes. Stereotyped unlikeable characters, predictable, yet oddly unmotivated plot twists, tired territory already overtrod many times before. Boring as hell. Standard smug, obnoxious, egotistical Hemingway. Awestruck cipher Gellhorn who spends most her time smiling obsequiously at Hemingway and trying to act impressed by his idiotic bravado. This thing's a mess. Way below HBO standard quality.
Kidman seems lost here with nothing to do but follow Hemingway around. She has no center, no motivation, no character to speak of. Yet the camera spends a ton of time on her as if she did have some compelling traits. None that I could see. Besides her ass.
An awkward and clumsy heavy-handed historical set piece with wooden and flat self-conscious characterizations. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls. It definitely don't toll for these.
Well, after watching the epic 5 minute trailer, I don't really need to watch the whole movie. It's like Cliff-Notes for tv!
Yeah, it's kind of a Classics Illustrated history lesson for low-information couch potatoes starring Nicole Kidman as generic actbot Gellhorn.
Tedious exposition abounds. "This is John Dos Pasos! He is one of our greatest writers!" "Oh, not as brilliant as you, Ernest!" "Well Gellhorn here has a review that says she's more brilliant than me!" "Aren't we all brilliant, and rich, and attractive! And have nothing better to do than chase other peoples' wars and drink prodigiously and have epic sex!"
Yes, it's that bad.
I should have said Hemingway committed suicide.
It was terribly disappointing on many levels. Contrary to what I posted above, it should not even get an Emmy mention IMHO.
The Martha Gellhorn Wikipedia entry gives you more information and a better sense of the woman.
Also, a biography Gellhorn: A Twentieth-Century Life is available at Amazon (also a Kindle book).
And the story of Hemingway's life is more effective entertainment in the A&E Biography DVD Ernest Hemingway: Wrestling with Life.
Well, the film wasn't spectacular but I thought it was entertaining
enough. Her hotness, Nicole Kidman, was exquisite, as usual.
I'll give it 3.5/5.
Are you giving 2.5 of that 3.5 for the effective artistic presentation of Kidman's hotness?