UKC

Just seen it. Very good. Worth a watch.

I thought it rather average. Far below his best but better than a lot of recent stuff.

Worth a watch if you don't mind it being rather hollow in treatment of the main character.

In reply to Phil1919: I wasn't sure whether the story would have held my interest if it weren't for Cate Blanchett's performance. I thought she was magnificent.

In reply to Phil1919: He had to pack a lot in.

In reply to Phil1919: Just seen Capt Phillips. Very average after all the hype. The soundtrack in the cinema was deafening and distorted with all the background noise too distracting. Not an enjoyable experience. I will not be going to that cineam again!

In reply to psychomansam:

I thought that by the end of the film, it had no longer really treated her in such a "hollow" fashion. The flashbacks, filling in the details of what had happened, really fleshed her so that having found her utterly odious at the start, I began to feel real sympathy for her.
It is an interesting film insofar as none of the characters is without flaw (even Ginger and Auggie). This theme is worth a ponder. There's a decent thread discussing this, on the imdb.com messageboards about the film. Where I did think it was a bit "off" was in its rather sexist message, which seemed to be that all these women need is a good man. That may not really be the message of the film though - it might just be part of the characterisation.

But on the whole, by the end of the film I considered it to have been a richer experience than what I'd been expecting at the start, which was a frothy bittersweet comedy-drama piece of fluff (which would have been fine in itself!)

In reply to Sean Kelly:

My background noise to "Prisoners" last week (excellent film btw) was the 1976 F1 season, because they split my local cinema up in to smaller screens and only put thin dividing walls in, and "Rush" was on next door.....

In reply to Blue Straggler: 'having found her utterly odious at the start, I began to feel real sympathy for her'

Well, well. I thought the story of the flashbacks was that at first they presented her as an innocent and unknowing victim, then she was revealed at the end as having known enough detailed information to denounce her husband to the FBI a la Vicky Pryce. Not to mention reducing her son to drug addiction. She was indeed fleshed out as the film went on, but not necessarily in a sympathetic manner.

I thought it one of Allen's very best films. Sally Hawkins from Happy Go Lucky was again excellent.

In reply to Phil1919:

Good to hear that you enjoyed it as I'm hoping to see it next week.

In reply to Sean Kelly:
> (In reply to Phil1919) Just seen Capt Phillips. Very average after all the hype.

I read the book and while it was okay I was surprised to see the story made into a film that was getting, as you say, hyped.
This link may interest you after watching the film.
http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/

In reply to drmarten: No it doesn't surprise me at all, as the Americans never let the truth get in the way of a good story. They rewrote D-day after all!

In reply to John2:

Your points are valid, but there is an earlier backstory which we are not shown and which I suppose I am guilty of imagining for myself.
We only really know about her life AFTER meeting Hal. Up till then she was a promising "golden girl" student looking toward a future in anthropology.
In the earlier flashbacks she seemed to me to either have no knowledge of her husband's dealings, or to be coping with them via plausible self-denial.
In the present day, she does in fact make a genuine effort to "start at the bottom" - although reluctant, she does in fact take the receptionist job, and seems to grow into it after an incompetent start. She is trying her best to better herself. Sadly, "her best" isn't quite good enough...and yes she lies to the Peter Sarsgaard character (but his own flaws run VERY deep anyway...)

I suppose that when I say I began to feel sympathy for her, I mean "relative to the other characters who seem at first to be painted as so much better, morally, than she is, but who as the film goes on, reveal themselves to have some rather negative character aspects"

In short, Woody is saying that everyone is rotten so why should we only pick on the most obviously rotten ones

Even the son was a bit of a prick - the scene where he is sucking up to Jasmine and Hal about how Hal's visit to his uni enabled him to suck up to everyone at uni. I thought he needed a slap right then and there