- Roomy trunk. Including a tube, a suitcase, a dead dog and a bag of clothes. - That's what the commercial said.
Prodigies, in addition to reflecting the cinematic aesthetics of the late 90s / early zeros (here for someone plus, for whom minus), has a “spirit” of lightness and optimism. It is also noteworthy that the position of the main actors is far from cloudless.
To make it easier to understand what their situation is, this is what the main characters are dealing with: a creative crisis, expressed in the fact that they cannot finish the book, and the planned length of the work has already been exceeded every ten times; the prospect of divorce; some episodes of seizures; failures in publishing for five years; problems in the family that led to marginalization.
Not to say that they are desperate. On the contrary, they behave too calmly, although not carelessly. Such a display of characters does not seem common in non-comedic fiction. Perhaps this is because suffering characters find more resonance with viewers or readers than characters who easily endure life’s adversity. This is especially evident in the works in which we are talking about artists. But in this case, Michael Chabon, the author of the book based on the film, director Curtis Hanson and screenwriter Steve Clovis managed to show people who have a character, a sense of humor and a wonderful view of things. It is impossible not to mention the main roles. Michael Douglas, Tobey Maguire and Robert Downey Jr. show excellent harmony, show equally good play.
It would be a crime not to mention the soundtrack. The title theme, written specifically for the film by Bob Dylan, fitting to the mood of songs by Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, it's all present. The only thing you want to find fault with is excessive diversity, against which the original soundtrack of Christopher Young can be lost.
Alas, the neglected film “Wunderkinds” is a good way to get a dose of optimism, enjoy the acting and quality shooting, or, at worst, just listen to music.
It’s a very boring and incomprehensible movie, especially when you look at other things. There are a lot of stars known in the past (from the guy from Basic Instinct to the famous Spider-Man in the past and the guy from the Firefly, also known as the space shale... oh yes, there is also the Iron Man filmed and the main guy from the feature film Fargo), in the past and a little more in the future (all the same is the past for us). Basically, there are already faded stars, films with which can no longer collect not only the box office, but also in general criticism of some balanced and valuable.
In general, at some point in the middle of the film, I realized that I was not watching it ... so I started over (so much the current news agenda bothered me much more in the media than watching an ordinary film).
Maybe I should be kinder. Oh, sycophancy just in case: I love you America, but not your predilection for your sins. In this film, there are many sins from verbiage to the usual, traditional in the understanding of our fornication. Okay, now I will read another article on the Internet and start watching the movie again... well, there is no process.
_
Oh, life is good in America, where you can openly criticize the government almost indefinitely. I want to go there to criticize them in every way, including the KP. This is an official green card request. But what is our film about?
Some man is suffering for no reason. He is either a writer, or a writer, or a pamper of fate, who does not know where and why he swims through life. Another guy is our teacher, the kind that teaches without straining, in high, apparently. His life at an end, we can say, a person in this period of time is already relaxed, does not rush anywhere too much, he does not care about everything, including the opinion of others and moral principles. Maybe that's the kind of person he is. Maybe I am such a person... definitely such a person or no longer a person at all.
The peculiarity of our film is that the main character talks as if with us, behind-the-scenes, explaining certain life situations of him and others. This is usually true for all writers, as well as the writer.
Basically, our hero evokes a corrupting feeling. Well, maybe all of us have these feelings. Don't be afraid. There are no perfect people. They say that Jesus was / is, but this is rather an exception ... he is not quite a man, but rather God was in a human vessel.
Yes, if you don’t really get distracted, the film becomes more interesting, although in some cases the brain shuts down and starts thinking about something else... you have to rewind some of the dialogues. If the movie was more interesting, it wouldn’t be.
Maybe the film in general is about the intelligentsia at the outset of life, when it is no longer so urgently in need of goals and ideals, while they do not need to work especially, and then their thoughts are filled with all sorts of things and sin often. The same can be applied to cultural figures and even politicians. They all learn with age that they are doing something that is not meaningless, and therefore the fire and desire to do the same disappear with age. And this despondency they begin to wash down with something hot and prodigal, as our hero does, thereby wanting to maintain at least some life fire.
It took half a day to watch the movie, so during my last attempt, I was able to shower and wash in the washer. But the victory for us, at least a movie, watched (this is actually about the future).
I, as the main character of the film, communicate with you behind-the-scenes in the review... the hero wants to finish a quick book that seems to have been unable to finish for several years... and I cannot write a review for several hours.
_
So, in my usual manner, I have published a review so that I don’t get lost and until I can (unchecked) finish something else. It occurred to me that the film is somewhat remotely reminiscent of The Green Book, not in terms of the theme of racism, but in terms of the fact that cinema travels and there are two main travelers ... and one learns and changes under the influence of the other and vice versa.
In general, writers are such personalities, such people are wonderful, sometimes eccentric, sometimes eccentric (I myself write, as you see, I wonder)... they are always interesting, you want to watch ... before it was, as it seems, even a whole direction of recreation and entertainment of different, unusual - to be near the writer or even to live with him in the same hut.
It is known that a creative person, because creative, that can not otherwise. In all branches of art, those who want to understand whether they should achieve something or not, first of all they teach, if you can not create, do not create. This is the first step in the author system. Talent, the ability to create, the quality of creation, success – all this manifests itself or does not manifest itself later.
The writing crisis is one of my favorite and, damn it, one of my most interesting topics. This is especially interesting for readers. After all, we, reading books, time after time ask ourselves the question how the author did this, what effort it cost him, what labor, what motivated him, what gave him strength, how he was so able? These are questions for those who create. And works about the writer's crisis, lift the veil of this mystery.
Involuntarily, you respect those writers who give you the opportunity to learn how and how a writer lives, how he writes, what he feels. On the other hand, it happens that a book about the writer’s crisis is the last successful in the writer’s creative career. But the author still continues to create, because he can not otherwise.
When I read in the entertaining facts about the film that the scenes in it are shot in the same sequence in which they are presented on the screen, I immediately realized what this effect of a clear storyline. As they used to joke years ago, “Not a single break!” As I understand, the editing determines the rhythm of the film, the clearer and more beautiful this rhythm is maintained, the better the editing. “Wonder boy” has an Oscar nomination for best editing, but there is no award, apparently, because the Academy realized that there was no special work of the editor, he just glued the scenes shot after each other. And the soft rhythm of the film is the work of the plot, the director, the actors.
Actors are handsome. Only I do not like to talk about actors, especially in films made from books, even if I did not read the book on which the film was made, I still unwittingly think that I would read the book, I would not imagine the hero as the director showed, because it is difficult, even impossible, because everyone has their own idea and perception. So I don’t know how much Douglas got into the title character of the book, but he played great! And, apparently, the main character of the book was still James Lear, whether he got into the book image even more question. But all this does not matter, comparing a book and a film is a thankless occupation, especially a book that I have not read with the film I have seen.
What can I say in conclusion? It's a beautiful movie! As one reviewer pointed out in his title, “film is a book” is exhaustively understandable. This film is a quality, sustained, with references, a real film. And this is a book - a plot, a hero, problems, rhythm. Balm on the soul for lovers of movies and books.
Confused and some kind of plague movie. Something similar to “Adaptation” of Spike Jones – it was even mentioned in the film, only came out two years later.
No plot, no morality, no plot. The actors are fooled, as if coming up with a plot step by step - in a similar way, the main character and his publisher concocted Vernon's life in the film.
This film, like Grady's lost book, cannot be said what it is about. As with the epic of the professor, it seems that the film itself decided to play with its actors - like "Cosmic Child" by Hegel.
Only one thought remained stable - that the writing industry is also a kind of Hollywood - a dream factory, a combination of feelings, a factor of mentality. And those to whom we breathily present the laurels of the beacons of spirituality - writers - are in fact ordinary dealers of moods.
Curtis Hanson's black comedy (and slightly melodrama), filmed in 2000, I think will appeal to fans of Haruki Murakami.
One of the features of the style of the Japanese writer, for which he is loved all over the world, is jazz. The hero glides in a surreal dance through life, touching it lightly and often watching himself from the sidelines.
Grady Tripp, a writer and leading lecturer at a university in Pittsburgh, is having a hard time. The book is not written, the wife is gone, the beloved dog is dead. And the mistress (local rector) is pregnant with him.
And where a normal person will tear his hair and in every way twitch and fuss, more and more immersed in the confusion of his life, the hero of Michael Douglas decided to look at life philosophically. Therefore, he steadfastly accepts the loss of the only manuscript of the book he has written for the past three years. And the lies of James Lear, his weird student, who's gonna set him up. And even his dismissal.
But like Murakami, the Zenzie hero is rewarded with peace and even a part of well-being.
Good movie. I especially liked the disclosure of the writer’s creative kitchen – to invent their names and biographies to people who have seen them.
An ever-unwritten novel, a dead dog, a tuba, a Marilyn jacket, and many other interesting things.
To begin with, the film is just wonderful, beautiful and damn funny, with subtle humor and irony. As someone familiar with the original source, Michael Chabon’s book “Wunderkinds,” I think the script is very well adapted. There are some gaps and inaccuracies compared to the book, but this does not spoil the film, rather the opposite.
This film is about the problems of people of art - writers: geniuses and prodigies in their field. Professor Grady Tripp is the main character, he is quite a successful author, but his success has long faded, due to the delay in writing a new novel (or rather, with its completion) and the realization that perhaps he is not as talented as he used to think. His best friend, and also his publisher, Terry Crabtree, who has been waiting for a new manuscript from a friend for a year, but alas, receives only endless promises. Terry is generally my favorite character and not so much because of Robert Downey Jr., whom I adore, but because of his behavior and worldview, besides, he is a very funny and interesting person. And in this wonderful company there is a gloomy, always thoughtful, but very talented student - James Lear (Toby Maguire 100% embodied this character). The one who is not of this world is James. His habit of inventing everything and everything is simply amazing, he combines childish spontaneity, naivety in combination with disappointment in the world and a sense of frailty of everything that happens for his years. But Terry and Grady bring color and madness into his life, which is good for him. It is also worth noting the beautiful half of the film: Sarah Gaskell, Hannah Green and Ula, without them everything would be less interesting. Each of them is interesting, honest and, in some ways, even desperate woman.
All the crazy adventures of the heroes make you laugh, empathize, and think. It is a pity that the film did not include the moments with the boa consort, because Mr. Grossman very pleased me in the book. Apparently, they decided that one dead animal in the trunk would be enough.
From watching, I received indescribable pleasure. This film is special, like it simply does not exist, at the same time, it looks easy and does not make you miss for a second, and this is exactly what you need and appreciate.
I've been bored with no-action movies. No excitement. Movies where events are similar to the events of our everyday life. Maybe that's what makes you watch them with more attention than any, most exciting chase. I hope you understand what I mean. Because I don't really understand myself.
One unusual person said that this film is for those who desperately lack the adaptation of the book “The Catcher in the Rye”. This man is much more successful in describing the film than I am. Because yes, it's about throwing young souls. Trying to help others when you desperately need help.
- What are we doing here?
We're going home a long way.
This is a movie about a talented writer who is horrified to know that he was talented only once, and now he has dried up and rolled into small things. A talented young man who hates his life so much that he invents another where his father works in a mannequin factory and his mother went to Catholic school. Life is worse, but better than the present.
This is a movie about easy ways out of difficult situations. You can't ask for the jacket back if it's wearing a pregnant woman with the beautiful name of Ula. Even if this jacket was worn by Marilyn Monroe and it costs a lot of money. It is important to understand that the only beautiful thing to take from a bad book is to admire how it flies along the riverbank.
This film is characterized by unflappable humor and the belief that a person and a writer can make the right choice.
- What a huge trunk! It fits a tube, a suitcase, a dead dog and a folding bag.
This is what is usually written in advertising.
Dirty snow on the road, rain, dusk. Some outsiders who don’t let you be alone with your problems. The constant need to help someone - and this also does not allow you to be alone with your problems. The desire to destroy the little dark gulag that anyone can create for himself.
And there are also very accurate words that can describe your mood after this film.
"It's like a fucking violin!"
To be honest, my impressions about this film are very contradictory. Of course, the film is very, very good (which I will talk about a little later), but the required impression on me did not make. Throughout the film, I was expecting something I never expected.
Naturally, I chose this film because of the amazing cast: Michael Douglas, Robert Downey Jr., Toby McGuire and Katie Holmes. Although, the latter made no impression on me. I was surprised by Toby McGuire. He is known to the general public as Spider-Man, but here he appears in a completely different way. More intellectual, whatever. I really liked the role of Michael Douglas. He plays amazingly, he got into the role well, I think. And, of course, my beloved Robert Downey Jr. - a kind of pleasant seasoning - his role is far from the main one, but at the same time his every appearance is a furror. Its publisher is the most vivid, charismatic and funny character in this film.
The plot of the film is also quite good, but I am a little upset by the key of the narrative. I think it could have been revived somehow. Because “Wunderkinds”, in my opinion, turned out too long, despite the fact that the plot should not let the viewer get bored. But that’s how it works.
The obvious plus of the film is soundtracks. That's a separate credit. Good music, in the right places, in the theme - it sets the tone for the scenes.
So, "Wunderkinds" is a good movie. It won’t be my favorite movie, but I don’t regret watching it. And I advise you.
7 out of 10
A wonderful film, with a twist, looks easy, you will not regret the time spent. Honestly, I decided to watch because of Tobey Maguire and he did not disappoint me, on the contrary, pleasantly surprised and proved that he is not “Spider-Man”, because many still perceive him that way, and they are very in vain.
A movie about life, about the relationships of different people and about the student and his mentor, Michael Douglas brilliantly coped with this role. I don’t know him very much as an actor, but after this film I wanted to see his other work. Also of the actors pleased Robert Downey Jr., although the role is small, but he perfectly fit into the atmosphere of the movie.
Original, exciting and, in my opinion, very interesting film with its own philosophy, such films have never seen. Non-commercial and low-budget films are often quite interesting. This movie is just like that. I highly recommend watching.
I'll start at the end. You are at the typewriter (no, already at the computer), the final chapters of your novel called 'Life'. Although why the final - after all, everything is just beginning: a beloved woman, a long-awaited child. You took so long to do this. . .
Professor Grady Tripp, who had a lot of problems. His wife left him, his married mistress Dean Sarah Gaskell admits that she is expecting a child, a young student Hannah Green fell in love with him. In addition, its editor, Terry, demands to hand over the book, which Tripp has been writing for seven years and does not know how to finish (well, the plot finds us on 2612 pages of this narrative). And Grady takes part in the life of a talented student James Lear with great potential, but it is still unclear who will teach whom life.
All this porridge in an incomprehensible way cooked in the boiler, at the output of an incomparable, ingenious product, where everything is in its place and there is nothing to complain about, and do not want to. Tripp, who is high all the time, Lear, who has never said a word of truth, Cratbree, who is obsessed with the idea of showing the world another masterpiece - here they are - those who commit eccentric, and sometimes not quite adequate actions, think differently, do not observe generally accepted norms and decencies, while possessing a certain share of talent - in general, those who do not look like ordinary average Americans. And so they are ' Wunderkinds' ("wonder" - wonderful, amazing). And it turns out that the teacher for whom you are actually studying here is the Writer who does not believe that you can write down (with a light hand & #39; admirers & #39; his talent), his publisher is the one who will believe in you after reading only the first lines of your novel, and you yourself are not at all what you want to seem. And all this hodgepodge of a dead blind dog, a transvestite in a red coat, a raid on ' a pharmacopy of Cratbry' a basement with expired library books, a jacket ' Marilyn Monroe', obsessed with reading the rector, the incredible beauty and hopelessness of the flight of the manuscript ' Netlenki' over the river from the open door of the car - nothing but the desire to show that it is something - even simpler for you, even if it is one day at once. And you end up sitting at a typewriter (no, at a computer), writing the final chapters of your novel called 'Life'. Although why the final - after all, everything is just beginning: a beloved woman, a long-awaited child. You took so long to do this. . .
Thank you to the creators of this film, albeit past the box office viewer. The film is not for everyone in the sense that sitting in a movie theater with popcorn in a hug is impossible to understand its meaning. Look at the people you care about.
This definition is the first thing that comes to mind when trying to write a review of this wonderful film.
I do not know whether there is any sense in the fact that the film begins with reading, and ends with writing, but after watching I had an irresistible desire to speak out, to write about the impressions that I received while enjoying this picture.
I immediately emphasize that this film is unique in its kind, I can not even say what else it could be like. Probably here played a role in the presentation of the story and the story itself. Michael Chabon's novel is perfectly realized on screen by Curtis Hanson. The cozy atmosphere, complemented by an excellent soundtrack already in the 10th minute absorbs you and does not let go anywhere until the final credits. If you thought that the film is full of some comic or unpredictable moments, then you were wrong - there are of course a couple of episodes that are very funny and surprised me, but this is not what this picture takes. “What then?” is a logical question. Honestly, I don't know. When you start watching a movie, you can’t stop. Just as Michael Douglas’ character, Professor Grady, couldn’t finish writing his new book, I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen throughout the film. The magic of cinema is the only explanation.
Writing about acting is not always interesting, and sometimes you get by with on-duty phrases such as “a great game that does not cause any claims”, but here such “painful language” will not pass. Let's start with the older generation. Michael Douglas – certainly the main character of this “filmbook”, embodied his hero in a way that absolutely no one could do. Only Douglas is able to make a seemingly new image of the writer, something amazing. We all like to watch some interesting characters who have a wonderful character and lead a lifestyle that is not characteristic of the majority of the population, but often it is too “hung” or simply unnatural. So, here this fate bypassed the side of the main character. Michael Douglas has always been able to find a balance between reality and the side of creativity that is commonly called fantasy. The best teacher-mentor performance I've ever seen. Bravo! Frances McDormand in the role of Sarah, looked very realistic and despite her very extraordinary appearance caused only positive emotions. Tobey Maguire, despite the fact that many people do not take him seriously at all as an actor or constantly hang on him the mask of Spider-Man, increasingly amazes me with the versatility of his acting talent. If you've seen him in at least a couple of other movies where he's not wearing his red and blue suit, you'll have a much easier time understanding me. The image of the boy prodigy Toby succeeded in all 100. Initially, his character is not remarkable, but after 10-15 minutes after the beginning of the film, you will realize that it is not so simple. And if you run ahead, you will be even more surprised at what is behind this cunning young man. In general, the hero of Tobey Maguire turned out to be very interesting and, most importantly, lively, not template. After all, it often happens that prodigies are depicted as the last morons who annoy with their narrow-mindedness. Thank goodness Toby was able to give his hero bright colors, which as a result made his character very peculiar and interesting. Robert Downey Jr., whom everyone (including me) knows mostly from his latest films, was able to surprise me this time around. Something, and the role of the extraordinary editor Terry Crabtree, who is always drawn to some strange sex adventures, at least was unexpected. In this film, while maintaining the image of a hot-button guy, Robert was able to demonstrate previously unfamiliar facets of his acting talent. I think many will be curious to look at such a strange role of "Ironman". About Katie Holmes is hard to say (little screen time), but she looked quite decent against the background of other actors.
Summary
This is an exciting film I have never seen before. I advise everyone who wants to see something original, ideological and at the same time, not too stressful. A film for the soul, for the mood. Love to read in warmth and comfort - watch this film, you will be no less pleased.
10 out of 10