Cold Mountain Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 6719.37 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x304 | 1477.04 MiB | hidivx | |
|
480x202 | 682.36 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Find your way home
Find the strength. Find the courage. No matter what it takes... find the way home.
Jude Law plays a leading role as Inman, a wounded confederate soldier who is on a perilous journey home to his mountain community, hoping to reunite with his prewar sweetheart, Ada, played by Nicole Kidman.
| Ethan Suplee | Pangle |
| Renée Zellweger | Ruby Thewes |
| Nicole Kidman | Ada Monroe |
| Jude Law | Inman |
| James Gammon | Esco Swanger |
| Ray Winstone | Teague |
| Brendan Gleeson | Stobrod Thewes |
| Donald Sutherland | Reverend Monroe |
| Philip Seymour Hoffman | Reverend Veasey |
| Natalie Portman | Sara |
| Giovanni Ribisi | Junior |
| Kathy Baker | Sally Swanger |
| Eileen Atkins | Maddy |
| Jack White | Georgia |
| Charlie Hunnam | Bosie |
| Anthony Minghella |
7.30 out of 10 (28336 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Don't believe the hype.
posted on 16 Aug 2009*Spoiler* Nominated for several academy awards, and set against the Civil War, Cold Mountain brings three highly-lauded actors to the screen under the meticulous direction of Anthony Minghella (Talented Mr. Ripley). Just before the outbreak of war, Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) moves to a quiet, North Carolina mountain village with her father, a minister. Catching the eye of W.P. Inman (Jude Law), a quiet young man with no family, we witness the infantile simplicity of budding love in the 19th Century. Only speaking a few words to each other, the war begins and Inman is whisked off to the battlefield. Having come from aristocracy, Monroe is completely and wholly unprepared for life when her father suddenly passes away. Without her parents (her mother is gone before the story begins), she begins a love-struck descent into poverty and starvation, as she lacks the ability to accomplish the simplest of tasks. Unable to even cook for herself, she is essentially a fully ambulatory invalid without the intellect to negotiate anything beyond beggary. As the audience packs their bags for a guilt trip of sympathy, Inman is experiencing true hell on earth. No one who has ever seen combat can deny the physical and mental rigors of war; and however resilient and loyal to his fellow man, Inman is obsessed with returning to his true love, with whom he has spent mere moments. The film trudges through sappy letters, personal reflection, and pathetic displays of worthlessness on the part of Ada. Enter Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger). The Tomboy comes to the rescue, and adds a light-hearted, comedic relief to the nearly morose existence of Monroe. As Ruby helps till the ground, prepare meals for themselves, and maintain the estate, only then does a bit of life reenter Ada's being. With relatively interesting subplots of desertion and survival, Cold Mountain is saved by solid acting (if the performances were truly reflective of the characters of Frazier's novel) and talented direction and camerawork. However, the main storyline nearly elicits nausea. Rated R for violence and sexuality, I give the film a C.
cold mountain is as cold as it's title
posted on 14 Aug 2009this is a film that should be seen ,however there are some details that are very disapointing for a film of this stature. firstly kidmans character when down and out tries to pawn her fathers pocket watch, something that would only be done out of desperation, but later is seen wearing three gold braclets. also the laces and trims used appeared to be modern except for a few that were orignal which made the modern ones stand out. also the last costume kidman wears looks as if she belongs on the calvin klien run way. very distracting.
Natalie Portman
posted on 10 Aug 2009Omg I just saw this movie a couple days ago with my friend and we both agree that Natalie Portmans performance in "Cold Mountain" Is so very worthy of a Golden Globe Nomination..she is so gifted in the art of acting it's amazing..I still can't get over how ...amazing she was in the movie..it was one of the very few parts of the movie that actually MOVED me and made me want to cry..and I dont cry at movies :P
Good but...
posted on 10 Aug 2009I must admit, after watching the trailers, I wanted to despise this movie.
It seemed a
heap of melodrama with some utterly stupid dialogue (what was Ruby saying about the
weather again? Come on...) intended only to win Oscars for Miramax. And while it had
all the trademarks of Minghella, the overt symbolism and sheer epic-ness seemed to
work for it. Certainly the performances by Jude Law and Renee Zellweger will not go
unnoticed come the Oscars - Jude is quite touching as a man of few words with his
emotions all stirring beneath his face, and Renee is a barrel of energy and intensity who
can put on the brakes when she has to. Both create very unique performances, which
cannot, unfortunately, be said of Nicole Kidman. Brilliant in the Hours, here she returns
to her trademark ticks and stock emotions, which are normally quite nice, but certainly
don't match up with the other more subtle and intriguing people that surround her. As
well, her accent is pretty awful, even for Hollywood-impersonates-the-South standards,
and she is FAR too old for the role this time. Really surprising is Natalie Portman in her
small role, getting back to acting after her horrendous turns in Star Wars.
In five
minutes of screen time she shows more layering and creates more understanding for a
character than she has in the last five years of her career. Perhaps she should have been
given a chance at Ada, although Miramax must have desired a huge star in the lead,
regardless of how ill-suited she is for it. Overall, probably Minghella's best movie to
date, with possible Oscars for Cinematography, Actor, and Supporting Actress, but if
this gets Director and Picture over ROTK, it'll be a crime.
7.5/10
As beautiful a movie as I've ever seen
posted on 06 Aug 2009I can't remember ever seeing such dynamically beautiful scenery. It absolutely took my breath away. Quite honestly I never cared much for Nicole Kidman before I saw her in this movie. She was absolutely stunning. This is the first movie that I ever remember seeing Renee Zellweger in. I fell head, over hills, in love with her character, Ruby. I'm from the south, and am quite familiar with southern accents, and this is one of the few movies I've seen where the accents of everyone included were done with perfection, especially Ruby. As a rule I'm not a big fan of movies involving romance, but this movie had a very poignant twist to the romance involved. It ended with such profundity, that this 59 year old mans eyes filled with tears. I can't think of enough good words to describe what an absolutely wonderful movie this was.A little bit of trivia. The revolver that Inman was using in the beginning of the movie was a pretty unique weapon. It was a Le Mat, nine shot 44, 42, or 44 caliber revolver, which also had another short 18 gauge barrel in the center of the cylinder. It was essentially confederate weapon, but by the end of the war it was, like a lot of other weapons, in the hands of both sides.If you don't see this movie you're missing a very enjoyable experience.
Disappointing
posted on 29 Jul 2009The only reason I didn't walk out after 30 minutes is that my girl-friend seemed to like it. In retrospect, walking out would have been the rational thing to do. Very little in this film works. It's atrocious that most of the cast have no idea how to pull off a Southern accent. Law in particular, despite his valiant attempt at pretending to be Tom Hanks, was an utter failure. Don't go see this movie, it's a waste of your time.
Epic film-making of the highest caliber
posted on 29 Jul 2009As the dust clears and the rumor mills are finally silenced, it is time to acknowledge Anthony Minghella's Cold Mountain in a separate light from the tiresome and repeated scandals that surrounded its production. The film finally surfaces on both sides of the Atlantic conveniently in time for Oscar consideration, and the nods of recognition from the Academy must surely follow will be richly deserved. This is a wonderful movie, executed to perfection in both performance and direction and a fine example of epic film-making of the highest caliber.The narrative tells the story of a man known simply as Inman, played by Jude Law, who deserts his position at the front of the American Civil War in order to return to Nicole Kidman's Ada, his true love who stayed behind. The story splits its concern between the two characters as Inman continues his odyssey across war torn America and Ada undergoes a transformation of her own. Both Law and Kidman are excellent in their roles but the real revelation here is Renee Zellweger, whose performance breathes new life into the movie whenever it shows signs of flagging.It is a good job that the central figures do perform to the highest of their ability because the film is so packed with talent, any weak showing would be quickly overshadowed. It is hard to recall in recent times a movie that employs so many actors at the top of their game, even when playing cameo roles. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Giovanni Ribisi and especially Natalie Portman all threaten to steal the scenes they share with a bewildered but single minded Inman.Complaints are few and minor, with the only major misjudgment occurring in an ill conceived and distastefully executed whore house scene. Some viewers may also find it hard to empathise with a romantic pairing that is given so little screen time to develop, and it is true that Inman and Ada develop very strong feelings in a short space of time. It is as Inman's hand that the explanation for this is found though as he clutches a photograph of Ada throughout. When war changes the world perspective around him, one image and one glimpse is all the motivation he needs.Cold Mountain is a riveting film that remains brutally true to its source material, and though this does make for a rather relentlessly bleak experience, it is refreshing to witness a director fully in control of his craft. Minghella has produced one of the best films of the year, an achievement that deserves to be assessed apart from its accompanying gossip.
A better-than-usual Miramax picture.
posted on 15 Jul 2009But let's not get too carried away. *Cold Mountain* emerges as a profoundly unadventurous film. It's devoid of ambiguities . . . an unforgivable thing, given the setting of the Civil War, and the subject, which is the desertion of a Confederate soldier (Jude Law) who forsakes
"the Cause" in order to return home to his wallflower Southern belle
(Nicole Kidman). This movie was based on a "prize-winning" novel by Charles Frazier. The story could withstand some improvement. For instance, let's make things interesting by having Jude Law be a UNION soldier. Let's challenge that multiplex audience just a bit. Because after all, the
"moral problem" of this picture as it now stands -- e.g., the hero's placing of higher importance on his love-life over his country -- has been solved far in advance. OF COURSE any sensible fellow would desert the evil Confederate Army in order to get back to luminous Nicole. Nicole is a worthier cause than States Rights . . . but is she worthier than Abolition?
Ah . . . now the scene would begin to cloud, a bit. And the Home Guard
(who patrol the local area looking for deserters and otherwise "assisting"
those who remain home), represented by an unrecognizable Ray Winstone and several other heavies, provides the audience with straw men hissable enough to leave no doubt as to the justice of Law's desertion. Or, if we must insist on keeping Law as a Confederate, why not make the Home Guard a bunch of nice old guys, rather than Winstone's murderous mercenary who also has a pecuniary interest in Kidman's property? Or, even further, why not have the women at home remain fiercely patriotic, who would consider a deserter a gutless coward? Then Law would actually have to WOO Kidman, a task he otherwise gets to avoid in this movie (apparently, his suffering baby-blues are sufficient to make the lady weak in the knees, without the demonstration of any other virtues).But to ask for any of these possibilities is to ask too much from the likes of Miramax studio, and the wise viewer will regretfully put such considerations aside and cast about for other things to enjoy. The fundamental emptiness of *Cold Mountain* gets redeemed by a number of things, starting with Anthony Minghella's expert direction, particularly with regards to the difficult time structure in the first half. The picture is graced with astounding cinematography all the way through, but especially near the beginning during the siege of Petersburg: the gigantic pit caused by a large underground explosion, and the resultant "turkey shoot" by the Confederates after the Federals stupidly rush in, is smeared over with a dank, sulfurous haze, making the scene look like something from Hell itself.
(The movie is otherwise gorgeous as hell.) And finally, a large cast of well-known faces contributes, rather than distracts: Philip Seymour Hoffman gets another opportunity to give a flashy performance; Brendan Gleeson, Kathy Baker, and Ray Winstone (despite the phoniness of his part) all provide strong support. But praise is especially deserving to two young actresses: Natalie Portman as a widow with a sick baby whom Law encounters on his trek home; and the wonderful Renee Zellweger as a sort of prototypical white-trash tomboy named Ruby. Portman surprisingly, and magnificently, aces the crucial cameo part of the desperate widow . . . and Zellweger steals the entire movie out from under everybody's feet. (Kidman knows it, and doesn't even bother to challenge Zellweger for supremacy in their scenes together.) Once Ruby is -- finally -- introduced (it takes almost an hour), the rest of the movie is basically a waiting game: we wait for the next scene with Zellweger, and become indefatigably bored with the dour young man trudging homeward. In fact, we didn't realize how bored we were with *Cold Mountain* until she shows up. It's the serio-comic performance of the year, and the "Academy" should feel free to give her a long overdue Oscar for it. She makes this otherwise dutifully anti-war picture (and hence, rightfully unpopular picture, given our current circumstances) well worth seeing.
Should be "Boring Mountain"
posted on 15 Jul 2009Come on folks, give me a break. This movie is about as interesting aswatching a nose bleed. Minghella fails miserably. Why can't we useAmerican actors for a subject matter only a true American can fullyunderstand and connect with. Like Mel Gibson in "We Were Soldiers",Nicole Kidman and Jude Law not credible. Additionally if I had to watchRene Zellwegger overact with that rediculously contrived character forone more scene I thought I'd puke! Everyone constantly trying to outact each other in every scene (absent Jude Law). There were also way toomany big name cameos and well known faces; it became so distracting.Probably the best way to get Saddaam Hussein to begin confessing wouldbe to tie him up and force him to watch this movie over and over again. Oh, addtionally it was so obvious that the movie was not filmed in theU.S.. Next to Glory and Gone With the Wind, will anyone ever make atruly great Civil War film? Oscar?
Doesn't meet up to hype
posted on 09 Jul 2009This movie does not have a well-developed, well-written plot. True, the actors did a great job with what they were given, but the story line was weak and was fleshed out by violence and very explicit sex. Do not take children to see this movie or you may be answering more questions than you are ready to. Being a civil-war era buff, I was very disappointed in this movie. It had so much potential and was sensationalized just to get the rating of R (and in some cases could have been X).
Fine film
posted on 03 Jul 2009Many, many comments here. Some good, many bad. Zellweger steals the show.
All the drama and intensity of this civil war odyssey aside wherein returning Odysseus too falls in the wasteland, Renee is simply wonderful.
Her perkiness reminds me of an early Shirley Maclaine with the refreshing honesty and simplicity without dumbing it up. Some fine contrasts between the social classes wherein Belles were raised to be Belles and farm girls were raised to be tough. The mindlessness and dehumanizing aspects of war are also clearly made, especially relevant in today's context [one hopes that this film will be shown at the White House...and understood there!].
Fine performances from Kidman and Jude, Hoffman and Sutherland...indeed, all give their best. The corruption of the local Homeguard is often overlooked and it was a fine point to make. The outstanding message seems to be that there was not a hell of a lot of romance in killing each other during the Civil War. Hopefully, this message will be understood as being just as relevant today as it was then.
Absolutely Spectacular!
posted on 25 Jun 2009This film is absolutely spectacular. The acting is wonderful. The scenery is beautiful.Kidman deserves an Oscar nomination for her performance as does Zellweger.I have seen many films that have plots revolving around the Civil War. This one is far the best.
Renee Zellweger "stole the show"?
posted on 19 Jun 2009I just saw this film over the weekend. It is quite good! There is some amazing imagery here, and the opening battle scene was very well done. Very gritty and muddy. To bad there weren't more battle scenes, but this is not that kind of film. What we have is a loose re-telling of "The Odyssey" set in the Civil War. The long journey to returned to a loved one and overcoming the obstacles to get there are right out of The Odyssey. Even the sirens are in this story. This is a classic formula for good storytelling. The protagonist (played by Jude Law) has a literal journey in this film, but he failed in having his inner journey. The character is rather flat and doesn't change much. It is implied that he is changed, but I just felt Jude Law didn't portray that change well.Here's where I will demonstrate unpopular opinion...Renee Zellweger. Everyone raves about her performance and how she "stole the show", how great she is, her best performance, bla, bla, bla. I completely disagree. Sure, she stole the show, but it was with a completely campy, over-the-top, almost cartoon performance. The characters in this film were so believable, except for the character of Ruby. They might as well have had Ruby played by Daffy Duck; it would have had the same effect. This movie is steeped in realism, but Renee takes the audience out of that realism and puts them into another movie. The character was a nice contrast to all of the low-key characters, and was necessary for some comic relief, but a better actor should have been used. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance is a better example of doing a colorful and comedic performance without being out of place. Rene Zellweger was acting in a completely different movie than everyone else. You think that the director would have noticed and had her tone her performance down a bit. That being said, the rest of the supporting cast is outstanding (unfortunately, the leads are rather flat). Phillip Seymour Hoffman, as I mentioned before, and Natalie Portman are the ones who "stole the show" and Renee Zellweger should be happy she was not in any scenes with either of those actors because they are a completely different caliber of actors than she, and it would be very apparent that she doesn't know what screen acting is. Her style would be better suited for stage performances, because that kind of acting is necessary for that environment.Gee, I guess I don't much like Renee Zellwegger. I never realized that until now. All in all, I still think Cold Mountain was an excellent film with some amazing cinematography. The visuals alone are enough to see this film.
A Return to Classica
posted on 19 Jun 2009Probably one of the more pronounced impressions of this film is its dusty and nostalgic feeling for old classics. It has all the right ingredients - a small farm town, a southern belle, her farmhand lover, a war, villains and deceivers everywhere, and your immortal tragedy. But in order to bake a cake it takes more than just ingredients, it also takes exquisite chefs.
And who better for such a job than Jude Law, Renee Zellweger, Nicole Kidman, Donald Sutherland, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Natalie Portman.I found the most difficult part of the movie to digest in terms of plot to be the short-lived courtship of Ada Monroe (Kidman) and Inman (Jude Law).
Once you can accept that their almost nonexistent relationship has had an enormous effect on them both, the movie seems to movie along without further questioning. The plot is very simple. It is the Civil War and Inman is a confederate officer gone off to war. Ada agrees to wait for him but months and then years pass. To help her survive, Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger) comes to help her on the farm. The two become close friends during dark times. The only thing keeping Inman going out on the battlefield is the letters he receives from Ada. When she tells him to come back to her he obeys, but the journey home proves harder than he ever could have imagined.I have wondered how true to life some of the elements of this story are.
More men died in the Civil War than all the other wars combined. That alone should give some indication of how gruesome life was at that time. But for those that lived on or who sat at home and waited, praying for their loved ones to return, what was it like for them? This movie tries to give some indication of that existence. The horrors it shows I can only hope weren't real but in my gut believe they could have been much worse. This movie seemed to depict how two young people were trying not to fall in love and yet despite themselves did so completely. Outside influence symbolized by the war is so determined to break them apart in their struggle towards one another. When all else appears to have to gone to hell, these two individuals cling tightly to what they believe and pray they have left - each other.
You have got to be kidding
posted on 07 Jun 2009You have got to be kidding 8 Golden Globe nominations? I thought for nearly 50% of the movie it was wandering around. I agree with the reviewers the movie has strong performances only by supporting cast not anywhere else. In some ways a freind commented that it was "The Talented Mr. Ripley does the Civil War." Just boring and never goes anywhere. Sorry, the Miramax folks will probably promote the thing for awards but those who vote know nothing about movies. A totally lost effort and by the way definately not represantative of any historical facts of the Civil War. Deserving of most of the review it is receiving from knowing reviewers.
Are you Kidding me? Oscar Nominate this? Please.
posted on 07 Jun 2009Are you seriously kidding me? This movie got Oscar nominated for what? After watching this I thought someone was pulling my leg. Lets start off with some facts. This is a civil war movie filmed in Europe. Totally inexcusable. The location was enough to make this movie doomed. But no instead we get a LONG drawn out movie where Jude Law "Inman" dies at the end after watching him live through every sort of situation imaginable he gets into a talking duel with Cold Mountains "Billy the Kid" and slowly dies. Come on! How cliche is this? Not only was the end of the movie pathetic it was anti climatic. What a waste of an opportunity. You had all the makings of a good movie and all the necessary characters early on, instead the script calls to kill everyone off slowly throughout the movie. The art of good script writing is dead. To many movies like this. Yes war is bad and people die, why not show us the smart ones who live through it and how they did it.Now lets not get me wrong Jude Law does a good job trying to be southern but I can't get over he is from England! The producer of this movie needs his head examined filming a Civil War movie in Europe with an English lead actor. Nichole Kidman does a good job but she just remains way to clean compared to the supporting cast and it stands out, she looks out of place even when they try to "dirty" her. Things like this and the completely depressing pathetic ending not to mention the overly long movie run time make this just not a very good film.Movies with bad endings are always easy to spot. They never get much public support. The reason is simple people DO NOT like to be depressed. That is why I was so hesitant about Cold Mountain. I kept hearing Oscar Nomination but no big push by the public for it. Some things never change. Maybe one day these producers and directors will learn that people really do enjoy good, smart movies about redemption, hope and happiness. Not sappy tragedies. There is a reason Shakespeare is only brought up in literature class and Cold Mountain was named "Cold Mountain". Sometimes its obvious, what a waste of time.
Too Much Hype Not Enough Substance (Spoilers)
posted on 05 Jun 2009Typically I like movies like this, but at the end it felt just flat. I had already guessed, as soon as Law's character is killed, that in the one night of sex Kidman and Law had that she would be pregnant and end up with a child. I was just kind of surprised after having Law's character live that long that he would be killed off. Law gets blown up, shot in the neck, trapped in a chain gang (of which every single one in the chain except him gets killed), and travels thousands of miles just to clean-up, shave, have sex, and get shot buy some nobody character? That was a real downer. He should have stayed in the cabin with Natalie Portman it was probably safer.
The story was, in my humble opinion, flawed with much potential, but they went a little too far away from reality I think and the finale was kind of anti-climatic for the above-mentioned reasons.Thankfully, the scenery during the thousands of miles of walking was diverse and a visually stunning of sections of the country that haven't been on film in ages. The civil war combat scenes were highly graphic and displayed the real horrors of war well. The music to the movie wasn't the same old rehash that you hear in most movies today, so that was refreshing too.Renée Zellweger and the rest of the supporting cast is what helped me enjoy this movie and get through the whole movie. Donald Sutherland, Jack White, Brendan Gleeson, Philip Hoffman, and Ethan Suplee, to name a few. The characters are bright, colorful, and well garbed for the period to the best of my knowledge. This is a film that you can watch on DVD. I am sure some of the scenes are prettiest on the big screen, but a wide screen version on a 25" TV or better will probably work just as well.No one's going to fault you if you don't watch this movie, but you will run into a lot of people who have seen it. Its your choice, to view or not to view.
Worse than you realize
posted on 22 May 2009Beware of SpoilersFor the sake of all that is holy, please do not leave the theater convincing yourself that this is a good movie. You've already sold your soul to "Seabiscuit", now let me try to talk you away from the ledge before you plummet into the abyss:Plot? See the trailer. Simple setup: Gigolo Joe is a Confederate soldier who deserts the smoldering trenches to return to his idyllic paradise hometown, the namesake of the film, where he can find peace and (more importantly) Nicole Kidman. Sounds like one helluva setup, right? Moving a character from A to B allows for all kinds of exciting encounters and the opportunity for hilarity to ensue.The first major flaw of this movie lies in an obvious place: the two lead actors. Jude Law is unoffensive in this role, but nowhere near remarkable. On the other hand, Nicole Kidman is simply not right for her part. There wasn't a single moment in this movie where I could tolerate her. Actually, have her exchange roles with Natalie Portman and you have the makings of Hollywood "magic".Why do I have a problem with our two star-crossed lovers? Because I never care about them. Not once did I feel any tangible connection to their "love". They barely knew each other when he went off to war: they had shared a few words and a single session of passionate necking. And this isnt a vendetta I have against Kidman, she made me care about the romance in "Moulin Rouge!", its just paper thin at it is. "Oh, but even though they knew each other only briefly, they loved one another". Fine, but don't just tell me this, convince me.Now for the duplicitous dilemma at the core of this mess: the movie tries to be a mix of "O Brother Where Art Thou" and "The Matrix:Reloaded"...what do you get when mixing elements from a great movie and an awful one (in that order)? A mediocre movie leaning heavily towards travesty.Why "O Brother"? It is a journey full of ambiguous and yet blatant "Odyssey" references that attempts Coen-caliber humor. "Reloaded"? Because of the spiel that the Yoda lady goes on about everything having a predestined purpose, a special providence. So I'm supposed to be moved that Sky Captain's purpose was to return to his beloved, plant his seed, and die in the act of cleansing his town? How profound.Actually it could've all been profound, but the filmmakers decided it would be better to spend time with Kidman and Zellwegger learning how to plant corn than focus on the one character that I could've actually given a damn about: Cold Mountain. Minghella would've been would've been wise to have better established the corruption of Cold Mountain by Teague and his posse after most of the men leave for war. Instead this corruption and its physical effect on the town is only hinted at, and Teague's band of misfits become static foes on the prowl for deserters. In the end it is the town that is saved, not the blossoming love they've been building up. The tragedy I could feel for the is the destruction of immaculate, unadulterated Cold Mountain. Instead I'm told to long for the fulfillment of Joaquin Phoenix's lustful desires.I hate Renee Zellweger. Her accent is terrible. Phillip Seymour Hoffman isn't anything more than entertaining. Come to think of it, Donald Sutherland gives the best performance of the cast after the Native American fellow and Jack White.There are many moments in this movie that I enjoy... the sequence with Natalie Portman is one of the strongest and Ethan Suplee is always a plus, but please, please do not convince yourself that this is an acceptable movie by any account: just because something has all the makings of greatness, it doesn't mean it can achieve it.
I really enjoyed this...
posted on 22 May 2009I know a lot of users have posted in the forums that this was a 'terrible' film. And some of my friends would agree with them.I, however, truly enjoyed the film. It was one of the few "Civil War Era" films, that I have seen, where slavery wasn't the main storyline. This was a nice change to me.The acting was good, IMO. And I truly enjoyed Zellweger's performance. She, I felt, made the film. Although I've read much about people that felt Kidman's role was terrible, I didn't feel that way. I rather enjoyed the entire film.If you're in the mood for a good love story, this may just be the thing.
Ultra Feminism Gone Sadistic To Their Own
posted on 22 Aug 2009From the very moment the film starts, there is a sense that every character, particularly male, beyond Kidmann and (eventually) Zellweger is just 'passing thru' with the ultimate intention of enforcing the 'rise to maturity' of a difective female role in a fairytale landscape for which the rigors of 19th century rural farm life is only secondary to the 'wonderful character archetypes' that are espoused solely by females.Females are strong. Females are never wrong. Females are innocent but never criticized for being useless (even by their own) in a real world sense. Females are 'socially shy' and never held accountable for being slow to respond to the kindness of others.Try that as a male in film and you are instantly deemed lazy and chauvinistic.As a Ada Monroe, Kidmann is elevated to a pedestal beyond all interaction as much as persecution.Because, lest we ever forget, most of all the females in this film are mad at males for being 'all about' their problems of war and hardship.Like owning slaves and running massive 'farms' for near zero cost of labor isn't a key element of any civil war story.As if there were no 'true period women' who cheered their warring soldiers off to battle with the same innocence of arrogance as their menfolk leaving with the thought that they would return for the harvest.All of which comes down to revealing 'Cold Mountain' to be, in fact, a historical revisionist farce that never puts females in a position where being a society girl means being trained to run a household with a sharp tongue and ready understanding of finances, logistics and food.Where being a 'country girl' never means feeling shy and inept in a world where women who run households have reading and clique society to enforce their own disinterest in your skills, no matter how much you act like a boy.Where a man cannot bed a woman (let alone a black woman) and be considered anything but a low scoundrel.But a woman who says she marries you 3 times is not a slut for having your child off an unwed union and a dead husband.Indeed, males can only succeed to the brink of necessary reproductive annihilation in this black widow epic by being 'all broke up inside' about the war that (as far as the viewer can tell) they have hardly experienced.That only by displaying their passivist submission can they reenter a female dominated world.All of which the story would have you believe is a 'necessary weakness' which allows the females to survive after the necessary minimum of love-as-sex for impregnation.After which their lives and female child is conveniently no longer polluted by the 'weaker male' surviving a gunfight as a trained soldier 'who won't kill, first'. Never mind he's just done so 4-5 times.And so it goes. From coy demands for equality to domineering exclusivity. From criticism of misogyny to condoned misanthropy. A social agenda for America laid out in a film.And yet the ultimate insult is still to the women. For in the end, the range of roles they play always comes down to what they must do to by-artifice replace the male roles around them.Rather than reinforce and make-real unto themselves, their own.Don't think this is a love story folks. Between the start-stop violence as bookends to episodic endorsements of all the female perfectionist roles. And the utterly uninvolved separation of character psychology from true story motive as an emotionless passion.It comes closer to being a story about constant robbery of the dignity of humanity between those who share of common circumstance is no more than a casual nod. As through the same setpiece scenes and yet two utterly different filmatic purposes, they are simply passing thru.KPl.