Any New Yorkers seen it yet? Is it as good as they say?
― M.V., Wednesday, 5 December 2007 23:48 (seventeen years ago)
the book's really good (i've only read the english translation), beautifully written and probably different from what you'd expect of that genre. very dream-like.
― Rubyredd, Thursday, 6 December 2007 01:34 (seventeen years ago)
The book's very good indeed.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 6 December 2007 02:42 (seventeen years ago)
it's ok
― cutty, Thursday, 6 December 2007 03:07 (seventeen years ago)
i have not read the book but i can see how referential and respectful it is of the source material, some very poetic sequences, many beautiful women
― cutty, Thursday, 6 December 2007 03:08 (seventeen years ago)
i just ordered this book for someone as a xmas present. i didn't realise it had been made into a movie.
― Rubyredd, Thursday, 6 December 2007 03:23 (seventeen years ago)
i really liked the book, and the movie too. it totally got me.
― s1ocki, Thursday, 6 December 2007 16:09 (seventeen years ago)
i think i kind of loved this movie... kinda feel that it's gonna be backlash city any second now tho.
― s1ocki, Sunday, 9 December 2007 08:25 (seventeen years ago)
there was a funny schnabel article in the nyt where he was interviewed at his studio and huffed about people who don't get that he's a painter, not a director. which i guess is a fun thing to say on the verge of being nominated for every movie award in the world. i still wanna see this though. i liked before night falls. and basquiat, at least for jeffrey wright.
― tipsy mothra, Sunday, 9 December 2007 08:35 (seventeen years ago)
God way to walk right into that stereotype, Schnabel.
It's not the film's fault, but the title really makes me want to steer clear of this. It reminds me too much of Barney's B/W short film on The Simpsons.
― Cosmo Vitelli, Sunday, 9 December 2007 10:16 (seventeen years ago)
well made overall but too much kitsch. lovers of "eternal sunshine" style and emotions will love it. i pretty much did, but with disapprovals..
― Zeno, Sunday, 16 December 2007 01:20 (seventeen years ago)
E S A R I N
― jaymc, Thursday, 27 December 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago)
too much kitsch and simplisity in this movie to cross the border between good (which it is) to great (which is what most critics think).
so,why is this movie so overrated?
― Zeno, Monday, 11 February 2008 23:41 (seventeen years ago)
you mean why is it so accurately rated.
― s1ocki, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 04:48 (seventeen years ago)
not really:prize winning at cannes festival and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/diving_bell_and_the_butterfly/
― Zeno, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 04:50 (seventeen years ago)
yes it is accurately rated. if you disagree be more specific than it is good not great and "too much simplicity."
― s1ocki, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 04:53 (seventeen years ago)
maybe the big POV thing and the "arty" atmospheric photography made the crirics rave, but the "power of imagination/art" thing is overused and banal.
― Zeno, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 04:56 (seventeen years ago)
for example,the title's simplistic symbols and the way the character explain us the meaning of it during the movie... thank you for that.
― Zeno, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 05:00 (seventeen years ago)
...or the icebergs falling apart and rebuilded again at the end...
― Zeno, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 05:03 (seventeen years ago)
slocki otm. This film was fantastic. I guess I liked the *imagination* sequences the least and the realism the most, but moreover I just thought it was deeply affecting and made striking use of film as a medium.
― Hurting 2, Monday, 18 February 2008 06:33 (seventeen years ago)