I can't believe so few on this site are interested in this amazing movie!
I pray they just haven't seen this thread yet, otherwise it's really embarrassing.
I can't believe so few on this site are interested in this amazing movie!
I pray they just haven't seen this thread yet, otherwise it's really embarrassing.
First time I have spotted the thread. It looks excellent. Farrell and Harris = win for me.
The Way Back is not getting good early reviews.... It's a love it or hate it film, which won't sit well with the Academy. It doesn't look like it's getting nominated for Best Picture now....
I regret to say that having finally seen Peter Weir's The Way Back, I now understand why it took so long to find a distributor. It's a high-calibre outdoor survival drama in a gloomy, sloggy vein. It has a rote and rudimentary quality that, for me, places it apart from everything in the Weir canon. It's not in the realm of Gallipoli or Picnic and Hanging Rock or Master and Commander. It's better than Green Card or The Truman Show, but that's not saying much. I know one thing -- I won't see it again.....A critic friend said that film "seems to last almost as long as the actual trek did." I don't feel that way. The Way Back is not a boring film. It is, however, a "why did they make this film again?" film. It seems as if Weir was just able to get it done and not much else. He and his team deserve approval for having made the effort, but I don't know how anyone can see this thing and then do cartwheels in the lobby. It's just okay, and at times a bit tedious. I didn't mean that. I meant trying.
After nearly a seven-year absence, director Peter Weir makes his long-awaited return with "The Way Back," an impressive but not especially immersive true story of four POWs who escaped the Siberian Gulags and crossed the Himalayas on foot to freedom. Acquired by Newmarket Films immediately before its Telluride Film Festival debut, this arduous travelogue focuses on the macro (stunning, David Lean-like landscapes) and the micro (countless closeups of blistered flesh) to the virtual exclusion of compelling characters. While the name cast should aid overseas prospects, American auds won't be going out of their way to experience this long, dry slog.
"The Way Back," which had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival, is a harrowing epic that will not be an easy sell, but it finds Weir again working at the top of his game.As a technical achievement, the film -- which ranges from the gulags of Siberia to the Gobi Desert -- is astonishing, but it also showcases powerful themes that make it unexpectedly moving and resonant.
From another forum I go to:
Quote:
I saw this last night at a local film festival. It left me a bit cold. But I did enjoy certain parts of it. First - the acting.
Jim Sturgess - I admire his eagerness of trying to do this particular role. He gets a E for effort in my book. However, I feel that he was consistently struggling with the role. A lot of it feels forced. Then again, the character is a little bit cliched.. There are plenty of solid scenes throughout, but it is not enough. He is the main lead of the film and he cannot carry it. Perhaps he was miscast?
Colin Farrel - SPOILER ALERT: His character leaves the group a little bit after the first half of the film. I felt like this overall diminished what little importance his character had and dashed all chances of being recognized for his work. His character starts out as a violent guy, but he begins to lighten up in the film. As soon as he becomes the film's much needed comedic relief, he leaves, feeling a lot to be desired. This film is based on a true story, but a lot of liberties were taken. His character left mid arc. Why couldn't they take the liberty to have him in for the whole ride? But I digress. Farrel did a good job, but his character, in the grand scheme of the film, did not amount to much.
Ed Harris - I love this man. While he's one of the lesser supporting characters in the screenplay, Harris has a excellent subtly to him. He draws you in without being overbearing or flashy. He doesn't have any big scenes and yet, he's the best of the cast. To elaborate would spoil some of the bigger plot twists in the film, but I will say this: his slow to start patriarchal relationship with Irena (Saoirse Ronan) leads to some of the most moving scenes I have seen in film this year.
Saoirse Ronan - Which leads me to Ronan. She's great! She takes the film by storm and becomes the beating heart of the story. It's another subtle (my favorite word!) turn in the film. She plays a orphan they find when they travel through the woods. Like Harris, this role is not flashy at all. She makes the most of every scene and delivers greatly. I can't say more without spoiling it. I know many people knew that she was talented since Atonement, but I felt this role showed a new whole range for her and I'm excited to see what she does next.
As for the techs, I can say that I thoroughly adored the creative cinematography (as always done exquisitely from Russel Boyd) and the meticulously detailed art direction and set design. I barely noticed the score until near the end.
My big problem with the film is the screenplay. For starters, it spoils too much in the beginning. We do not need to know how many people survived the long walk from Serbia to India, thank you very much! With such a unknown story as this one, telling us what happened before we see it happen kills a lot of tension watching the film. It didn't kill all of it, though, because I totally cried in several spots when certain characters left or died. Another problem I have with the film is (at times) it can feel too Hollywood-esque or cliched. The dialogue in the beginning leaves little to subtext, for instance. The story will have this brilliant funeral scene and follow it up with a character eating a snake and commenting on how it "tastes just like chicken." These forced humor cliches took me out of the film. It tries to balance artistry with entertainment and it just doesn't work. Finally, the ending. The film ends too early, but then extends itself to include the final leg of the main character's trip, even when all the tension in the film is killed. For all that walking, they cross the Himalayas in about a minute. Which is absurd when you consider that the characters were arguing about how difficult it would be a hour earlier to cross them. It's like the screenwriter got self conscious of how much the film is about characters walking and breathing hard, but felt that he needed to end the story and justify the main character, so he threw in this entire scene that makes crossing these mountains look pretty easy. It didn't feel right.
I saw this movie tonight - just a great film with simple storytelling and amazing cinematography. Everyone shines in this film, especially Ed Harris, Colin Farrel, that blond girl, and the dude from the Beatles musical movie.
Out of all the Peter Weir movies I've seen, I would rate them like this from best to worst:
1. Witness
2. The Way Back
3. The Mosquito Coast
4. Picnic at Hanging Rock
5. Dead Poet's Society
6. The Truman Show
7. Master and Commander
8. The Year of Living Dangerously
9. Green Card
I haven't seen Gallipoli, Fearless, or The Last Wave.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Peter Weir's - The Way Back (Trailer Up)
It looks excellent. Farrell and Harris = win for me.
It's a love it or hate it film, which won't sit well with the Academy. It doesn't look like it's getting nominated for Best Picture now....
Hybrid Mode
