Do people really like this movie, or do they just say they so because it's supposed to be a "classic"? I found it incredibly tedious and far-fetched (the way the characters keep running into each other in the biggest country in the world), but not a total waste, because of the ravishing Julie Christie. Any opinions about this extremely long LONG movie? Is this really a "love story," when the main character was cheating on his perfectly nice wife? I didn't think so.
2007-11-27 14:34:31 · 8 answers · asked by Stephen L 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
If Julie Christie is the only thing you "get" out of this movie, you're definitely not a film fan. You're writing off Omar Shariff, Alec Guinness, Rod Steiger (If you cast Steiger, you got Steiger, and he's obviously what they wanted.), Ralph Richardson, Rita Tushingham, Tom Courtenay, Geraldine Chaplin, Klaus Kinski (in a great bit role!), and the rest of the remarkable cast; phenomenal cinematography; a brilliant script by Robert Bolt that has to boil down an epic novel into a workable form; one of the most beautiful film scores ever written; and a genius director~David Lean.
I'm not saying anything beyond this: It's not a product of its time, so how could it be dated in any way? What of the Sixties do you see in it~protesting perhaps? I don't believe that there's any way anyone could guess when this film was made unless he or she knows exactly when certain actors and actresses were working. It stands on its own as recreating a distant time and place, mixing beauty with tragedy.
Trivia: Ingrid Pitt was an extra~interesting only if you're a Hammer film fan I suppose.
2007-11-27 15:01:56 · answer #1 · answered by MystMoonstruck 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very few people would think Dr. Zhivago one of the greatest movies ever made; Omar Shariff's blandness, Rod Steiger 's overacting and Julie Christie's false eyelashes almost throw the movie out of shape; but it does have its rewards: a beautiful cinematography, Julie Christie, Gerladine Chaplin, Tom Courtnay, and Rita Tushingham are very fine, and David Lean knows how to keep things going.
I don't think the movie is that bad.
2007-11-27 14:55:50 · answer #2 · answered by Eduardo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You thought the movie was tedious and far-fetched. My senior year in high school I had to read the book. 400 some odd pages of Russian literature.
The Russian writers generally found "love stories" to include adulterous relationships. If you do a study on Russian literature and plays, that's what the bulk of them are about. But, the literature is mostly allegorical in nature, it's figuring out what the allegory is.
2007-11-27 15:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by Acts 4:12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I admire you persistence. I have never been able to sit through the whole movie. My wife thought it was great. Whenever we watched it, for her, I would fall asleep half way through.
2007-11-28 18:02:23 · answer #4 · answered by Tin Can Sailor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When this movie was made it was a really big deal and considered a great movie.When you look at it today you wonder why, I guess it is all relative to the era it was made. Reminds me of the oldies music, some of it didn't make sense and were so silly, but they were #1 hits.
2007-11-27 14:47:24 · answer #5 · answered by curious ma 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
OMG, I hate that movie! The bastard gets it in the end though.
2007-11-27 15:10:37 · answer #6 · answered by gowpet 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you waste alot of time doing other things too.
2007-11-27 14:37:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm Sorry :(
2007-11-27 14:38:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋