I know.
I know I'm supposed to have these great emotions well up at the end.
But when the characters are utterly boring and two-dimensional (not to mention written into history, obliterating any suspense) it's not my responsibility to make up feelings about them. That's the filmmaker's job -- one she seems to have overlooked.
I felt absolutely nothing for either one of them. They come together for no reason, stay together for no reason, are separated for no reason (unless we're to believe Brown is either gay or just that much of a jerk, or both ... too bad this character is just a throw-away). So when the inevitable end comes, I feel nothing whatsoever, in what is supposed to be the climactic scene. Or... actually what I felt was embarrassed for poor Abbie, acting her heart out, for such a lifeless story.
Further, it may interest the filmmakers to know that their film proves that while there may be a written language called English, there is no such spoken language. When spoken, there is British, and there is American (and I am neither). So there's that, but certainly for no other reason than this was a film about poetry, it should have been subtitled. Poems are equally a visual experience, as aural.
I am completely at a loss to determine why this film receives high marks from so many reviewers.
Regarding historical accuracy, I'm told: (1) Abbie and Keats were probably not that intimate, or she would have caught TB from him (2) Abbie probably would not have understood much of Keats' poetry (3) Abbie didn't spend the rest of her life pining for Keats, but married and had three children (4) Brown was probably not hostile towards Abbie's feelings for Keats. That said, although I tend to be harsher than most on accuracy, I don't think any of those things crosses the line.
I know I'm supposed to have these great emotions well up at the end.
But when the characters are utterly boring and two-dimensional (not to mention written into history, obliterating any suspense) it's not my responsibility to make up feelings about them. That's the filmmaker's job -- one she seems to have overlooked.
I felt absolutely nothing for either one of them. They come together for no reason, stay together for no reason, are separated for no reason (unless we're to believe Brown is either gay or just that much of a jerk, or both ... too bad this character is just a throw-away). So when the inevitable end comes, I feel nothing whatsoever, in what is supposed to be the climactic scene. Or... actually what I felt was embarrassed for poor Abbie, acting her heart out, for such a lifeless story.
Further, it may interest the filmmakers to know that their film proves that while there may be a written language called English, there is no such spoken language. When spoken, there is British, and there is American (and I am neither). So there's that, but certainly for no other reason than this was a film about poetry, it should have been subtitled. Poems are equally a visual experience, as aural.
I am completely at a loss to determine why this film receives high marks from so many reviewers.
Regarding historical accuracy, I'm told: (1) Abbie and Keats were probably not that intimate, or she would have caught TB from him (2) Abbie probably would not have understood much of Keats' poetry (3) Abbie didn't spend the rest of her life pining for Keats, but married and had three children (4) Brown was probably not hostile towards Abbie's feelings for Keats. That said, although I tend to be harsher than most on accuracy, I don't think any of those things crosses the line.