Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Ben Cross'.
Found 2 results
-
*** SPOILERS FOLLOW *** The only thing I'd ever seen about "Chariots of Fire" is the opening song, the run along the beach (both of which take place at the very beginning of the film), and parodies thereof - it was hard not to be roused by the classic combination, worn out though it may be. I didn't realize the film took place in 1924; I thought it was a World War II movie - I know virtually nothing about it, so I'm looking forward to it very much. Okay, 25-minutes in, I'm a "wee bit" worried that this is going to be a "message movie" (the message of brotherhood), but I'm banking on the Best Picture win to ensure it isn't nauseating - anything that beats out "Raiders of the Lost Ark" must be great, right? Right? So far it's shaping up to be a classic human drama - Christian vs. Jew, for lack of a more elegant phrase. I'd say this is around the time of "feel-good" movies, but "Ordinary People" won the award the year before, so that theory is instantly dispelled. When Scotland was racing France in the quarter-mile, the maggot who pushed Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) off the track, never got another camera shot (I rewound the film to check (*)). Yes, Harold Abrahams' (Ben Cross) clutching of the paper when Liddell got back up to chase down his unethical foe was quite touching - go ahead, call me a softie. (*) Oh yes he did! About twenty minutes later, when he gave Abrahams (not Liddell) an "eat shit" look in the locker room. My only question at this point is that Liddell seems to be a middle-distance runner, whereas Abrahams seems to be an all-out sprinter, so how can they compete against each other? Or, is that not where the film is heading? Whoa! A middle-distance runner beat Abrahams in a sprint the first time they meet? Abrahams has every right to be upset - wow, I wasn't expecting that. That girl (the actress) telling him he was acting like a child, and that he was "marvelous" has absolutely *no clue* what it's like to be an athlete who loses. Seeing the transportation from various countries coming towards this 1924 Olympics - countries had to have *money*, serious money, to just *get to the games*. Forget hosting; I'm talking about just getting there - it's remarkable, coming over by slow boat, slightly post-WWI. The Olympics are high-dollar entertainment, especially now, and that's why poor countries just simply cannot compete (unless, of course, they're genetically superior athletes, such as Kenyan marathoners (forgive the stereotype, but it's true)). This makes me realize that the Olympics was, is, and probably always will be, games for the rich, or at least for countries who are so proud that they pour money into making a good showing. In a way it's quite sad; in a way, it's harsh reality. "The Skaters' Waltz" shows up here numerous times. Did you know that this is *not* by Johann Strauss I? No, it's by the relatively unknown French composer, Émile Waldteufel - isn't that amazing? Ask most classical music aficionados this question, and they'll have no idea what the answer is.The piece is called "The Ice Skaters" (<<Les Patineurs Valse>>) and was composed in 1882, fully fifty years after the heyday of Strauss I (I keep saying "Strauss I" because he also had a son who was "Strauss II." In case you think I'm some Classical Music know-it-all who knew this ... I, too, thought it was composed by Johann Strauss I. There's a lot - a *lot* - about this movie that drags, to the point where I'm surprised it won the Academy Award, but the moment of tension during the start of the 100-meter finals was palpable - the way they dragged out the beginning.really gave everything a "nervous' feeling. I wonder how many people realize that Director Hugh Hudson paid homage - and I mean *direct* homage* - to "Ocean's 11" at the very end of "Chariots of Fire." It was every bit as remarkable (and every bit as obvious) as Martin Scorsese paying homage to "The Great Train Robbery" at the very end of "Goodfellas." This was not quite a much of a "message" movie as I feared it would be, but there was certainly that aspect to it, and quite frankly, that's probably what won it the Best Picture award. "Chariots of Fire" was a very good movie, and I'm willing to say it was a great movie, but it was absolutely *not* the Best Picture of the year - for starters, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was better in every way except for pensive introspection. For those who disagree, I consider "Raiders" to be a classic in the same vein as "The Wizard of Oz," "Star Wars," and "Gone with the Wind" - in other words, it wasn't just "Best Picture" material, but it was one of the greatest motion pictures ever made - an absolute legendary classic which could rightfully be on anyone's Top 10 list. "Das Boot" was better, too, but that's at least debatable. Still, I'm really glad I saw "Chariots of Fire," because I was both entertained and intellectually enriched from the experience - it's worth seeing, and it's something even more than that. Here is the actual video of Eric Liddell winning the 400 meter race. -
This is a difficult, 1:45, indie-minded historical drama with very little to like about it. With such elite names as Josef Breuer, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, how do you go wrong telling about their intersection? The answer is: In a lot of ways. This movie is ponderous, disjoint, clearly made to "feel" intelligent (for the NPR crowd?), but there's absolutely no greatness to be found, either in the script, or in the acting. Please, consider this a call for disagreement. I watched this film over several days, and I'll be the first to admit that I might be missing something, but all I smell is D-U-L-L. I have written up to here so far while having watched 1:12 of the film, and having :45 to go. I cannot imagine the last 45 minutes saving this grotesque little obligation, but who knows? With (Academy Award Winning) Ben Cross co-starring in it, I wouldn't think "When Nietzsche Wept" was part of a doctorate program (the production values seem much too costly for such a thing), so somewhere, someone considered this a worthy piece of art. (I have resisted, with all my might, looking at any reviews for "When Nietzsche Wept" until now, and will continue to do so until the end of the film - easier said than done, knowing you might be totally wrong.) If the dialogue between Breuer and Nietzsche (or, for that matter, Breuer and Freud) was authentic, that would explain this needless, poorly written script, but we have no proof that it is, at least none that I know of. "When Nietzsche Wept" is a film that seems like it was made by doctoral students with textbook talent, but without real-life talent, and there's just nothing to take away from it. I learned precious little about these characters, and - sadly - precious little about their relationships with one another. If I couldn't extract that from the film, what was there to extract? Sometimes I wonder if hyper-educated people feel a sort of "need" to watch every film like this they can get their hands on because they might "miss something important" if they don't. Well, I can save you the trouble: the only thing you'll learn from this is that Breuer was Freud's friend and mentor, and that Breuer also knew Nietzsche - this all took place in Vienna in 1882, along with a somewhat gratuitous reenactment of Nietzsche's "God is dead" lecture to a near-empty classroom. Those little tidbits are worth knowing, and I've just saved you the trouble of watching the film. Would someone else please watch "When Nietzsche Wept" and tell me if I've gone astray? Because now it's time for me to walk out onto a limb, and say that I suspect critics didn't like this movie, for a multitude of reasons. Cheers, Rocks
