Jos . (jsd35)

Much better than I expected, although it contains gratuitous display of sex activity that seems to pepper Michael WInterbottom's films - and in this case the act in question isn't even justified on any alledged committment to biography in the film, since, according to the individuals concerned it didn't happen. SInce the film is shot in a style that declares it to be an historical account I find this sort of thing quite annoying.

Judging it entirely on it's style, however, it is generally very effective indeed.

Is it terrible? Of course it is. No-one would really expect otherwise would they? The script and acting are just how anyone would imagine:sequoia like. But there is some level of entertainment to be had here. And there are times to give the cinematography credit - the opening shots of Alaska work well enough, for instance. Watch it, if you want totally dumb entertainment that you can cringe at. Otherwise give it the wide berth it deserves.

Brilliant acheivement. Few ofther films capture the feel of Dickensian London so well, and none have dared what this film does - to tell a love story from the view points of both parties. Wrapped in social commentary, the film relates the love between Mr Clennam and Amy Dorrit, in a story arcing two films: the first from Clennam's view and the second from Amy Dorrit's view. Fantastic, riveting, and rewarding.

One of my all time favourites, this is a movie that has not only influenced a lot of people to take an interest in Cambodia, but has been used in parts of the world as a teaching aid to illustrate the aftermath of civil war. Although I've given it 5 stars here, it does have one fault that still grates on me (one that is quite well known now, I guess): The ever-controversial song at the end. I agree with the producer, David Puttnam, that the film needs something at the end to lift the audience from the weight of the events, and the song (which was #1 around the world at the time of Pran's escape) may have played well amongst preview audiences, but its message is wholly inappropriate. Leaving that aside, the film's understated manner gives one of the greatest visualisations of a dictatorial regime from our recent history. And, even though it's now more than 20 years since I saw this in a theatre, the film still reduces me to tears whenever I see it. Sam Waterson's portrayal of Schanberg is incredible, and the film gains merit for not flinching from showing him in quite a poor light. But how many of us would have emerged cleanly from that situation? That Schanberg was more concerned that the truth be told than that he was seen as a hero (which he certainly wasn't) is a credit to him, because I have to admit, I sympathise a lot with Al Rockoff who believes that a fair amount of responsibility rests on Schanberg's shoulders. Many people now know that the person playing Dith Pran was a Cambodian refugee who also endured a similar experiences under the Khmer Rouge, and it must have been painful for him to revisit his experiences. This is a moving story that never descends into hopelessness, and I'd love to see the original edit of this with the footage of the Vietnamese involvement and Schanberg's breakdown. Ah well, maybe sometime it'll happen.