Amadeus
Friday, 27. June 2008, 19:25:08
Not remembering one fig of this movie anymore, I'm just going to copy-paste a couple of comments I made when I'd actually just seen it:
It was a good movie, beyond any doubt, but brilliant? Hardly.
The way he worked the grief of his father into his music would have been interesting if the father got about five times as much screentime as he did. As it was, the potentially most interesting character-relationship of the movie got three short scenes and some vague hints to a less-than-perfect childhood. The Don Giovanni-effect of the father’s death got about as much screentime as, if not more than, the relationship with his father did in total. That’s not good moviemaking. If the buildup takes five minutes the payoff can’t take ten. If you want a ten-minute payoff, put the work into a thirty minute buildup. Otherwise you’re stuck with an audience that’s not justifiably interested in the event to care about the payoff in the first place.
His dragged-out death-scene was good, but, they foreshadowed it so heavily that at the time it finally came around the “yay, this scene is good”-feeling was just barely stronger than the “yeah, I get it, in fact I got it thirty minutes of movie ago; he’s going to die from writing the requiem, get on with it will you?”-feeling. Which is less than ideal. But it worked, sure. One of the movie’s better parts.
The only parts of this movie that were truly awesome was those of Salieri’s frame-story. I also liked how the movie made the story into a chessgame between Salieri and God, and how sneakily God won it. Sadly, all that was told almost to my satisfaction in the frame-story - I didn’t really need most of the actual movie.
I’m coming off as very critical, I’m sorry, the movie was clearly good. But I felt it was a solid cry from great, so I’m confused as to what makes people love it so.
Then again I didn’t get Blade Runner either. I guess I’m just stupid.
The most interesting parts of the movie were in its middle, which doesn’t make for anything resembling perfection in the experience of watching it. Additionally, they foreshadow Mozart’s death so heavily that when it finally occurs, I’m left with the “what? That was it?”-feeling more than anything else. Sallieri was the one thing about this movie I felt could be described as more than a step above mere “good”, and when I say I’d give it a weakish 8/10 he’s probably responsible for 2 of those points alone. Well, the script was also well above “good”, I’ll admit, and my that I mean that the entire way the plot of the movie was built was a very clever way of making the story seem interesting. It fell a little short of really blowing me away, though - probably through the limitations of actual events having to be portrayed, I think.
It was a good movie, beyond any doubt, but brilliant? Hardly.
The way he worked the grief of his father into his music would have been interesting if the father got about five times as much screentime as he did. As it was, the potentially most interesting character-relationship of the movie got three short scenes and some vague hints to a less-than-perfect childhood. The Don Giovanni-effect of the father’s death got about as much screentime as, if not more than, the relationship with his father did in total. That’s not good moviemaking. If the buildup takes five minutes the payoff can’t take ten. If you want a ten-minute payoff, put the work into a thirty minute buildup. Otherwise you’re stuck with an audience that’s not justifiably interested in the event to care about the payoff in the first place.
His dragged-out death-scene was good, but, they foreshadowed it so heavily that at the time it finally came around the “yay, this scene is good”-feeling was just barely stronger than the “yeah, I get it, in fact I got it thirty minutes of movie ago; he’s going to die from writing the requiem, get on with it will you?”-feeling. Which is less than ideal. But it worked, sure. One of the movie’s better parts.
The only parts of this movie that were truly awesome was those of Salieri’s frame-story. I also liked how the movie made the story into a chessgame between Salieri and God, and how sneakily God won it. Sadly, all that was told almost to my satisfaction in the frame-story - I didn’t really need most of the actual movie.
I’m coming off as very critical, I’m sorry, the movie was clearly good. But I felt it was a solid cry from great, so I’m confused as to what makes people love it so.
Then again I didn’t get Blade Runner either. I guess I’m just stupid.
The most interesting parts of the movie were in its middle, which doesn’t make for anything resembling perfection in the experience of watching it. Additionally, they foreshadow Mozart’s death so heavily that when it finally occurs, I’m left with the “what? That was it?”-feeling more than anything else. Sallieri was the one thing about this movie I felt could be described as more than a step above mere “good”, and when I say I’d give it a weakish 8/10 he’s probably responsible for 2 of those points alone. Well, the script was also well above “good”, I’ll admit, and my that I mean that the entire way the plot of the movie was built was a very clever way of making the story seem interesting. It fell a little short of really blowing me away, though - probably through the limitations of actual events having to be portrayed, I think.
