That's true of the vast majority of movies though. Including many, many very good ones. I don't think the movie is brilliant or anything, but to hold that against it doesn't seem all that useful to me.
Brutal and fascinating.
I'm going to attempt to invoke the same film god Ang Lee spoke to, and ask that none of these actors ever be allowed to act again.
I'm still waiting for the sequel in which each of the wives slowly eviscerates and disembowels their respective scum spouses - and hell, they can even have a go with the others too.
After 3 years, my thoughts on the film have changed very little. It is still cinematically beautiful, with its understated symbolism and honest (though somewhat lacking) evocation of wartime Britain. It is also still emotionally shallow and unengaging, with sympathies being forced rather than earned, and leaving motives unsatisfyingly unexplored (as well as an unyielding fixation on Knightley's shoulder blades).
I oddly enjoyed this.
The funniest film I have seen in awhile.
I love the concept, but the actors ruin it for me. I never seen an actor with a more punchable face than Chris Messina.
The conventional ending can be overlooked by the surprisingly clever and ironic portrayal of Victorian society and sparkling dialogue.
Americans as the conquering heroes? Iranians as an uncivilised mob? Well, I never!
An intriguing psycho-sexual drama that could have benefited from a less self-indulgent jerk for a protagonist (who incidentally deserved far better than he deserved in the end).
A touch sentimental, but necessary for impact. Cumming is a revelation, as per usual.
A time I wish that it was possible to give negative star ratings...
A chronicle of the journey into old age - sparse, remote, and sparkling with a wise and glacial beauty (much like its setting indeed.) The slightly rougher precursor to Amour.
The lighter, more optimistic cousin of Paradies: Liebe.
Ouch, in the best way possible.
Has Nolan's dialogue-writing skills degenerated completely? Coupled with a tenuous plot, unidimensional characterization, and at least a half hour of redundant films, this is easily the weakest in the trilogy.
A good performance by Mark Duplass, but fell frustratingly into the category of "heterocentric-white-people-problems", in which the male is permitted to be of average attractiveness if he is smart and self-deprecating, while females must be thin and beautiful (personalities need not apply).
Just re-watched this today after quite awhile, and seem to have grown less fond of it. Perhaps I've been spoiled by Suchet's brilliant Poirot, but Finney's interpretation now strikes me as dumbfoundingly awful.
Elegantly constructed and carefully manoeuvred, Polanski once again proves himself a master of the modern thriller.
An appropriately visceral and defiant adaptation of a Shakespeare gem. Fiennes and Butler are adequate, but it is Redgrave who reminds us that the bard must be performed to be believed - and goodness, does she ever.
Easily the most tediously superficial film I've seen in awhile.
Just re-watched this again in a long time, which only served to re-confirm my absolute love/hate feelings towards this episode. Most of the time, I wish it didn't exist.
I truly don't know whether to give this film 1 star or 5 stars...
A brilliant wee slice of existential truth :)
The introduction to this film was clearly the best part; the rest unfortunately suffered like a rat in a meat-grinder.
A pity this was so terrible; the city of Oxford does not deserve this monstrocity.
Only the brilliant cast and costumes/cinematography make me glance twice at this otherwise rather dull film. True, it was based on actual events in history, but so were many other films who instead managed to elevate themselves to a cinematic status not quite achieved by "The Young Victoria".
Fabulous, tongue planted firmly in cheek horror comedy.