Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Emily Watson's Natalia is absolutely the most loving and romantic lead character I have ever seen on a screen. She is the queen of this film beyond all doubt. Or, is she transmuted to the king? The internecine weaving of the chess games and the families' struggles for control, power, and victory is stunning. Just as the chess masters in the film do, the director is playing many simultaneous games with our mind at once, but all weave into either major or minor patterns. The period, the costumes, and imagery of early 20th century Italy's lake district is captured magnificently. Not a single square of space is wasted.

So many brilliant scenes abound, I cannot recount them all. I recommend budgeting enough time to watch this movie twice, possibly a week apart, because you can't possibly capture all the poetry within a 64-square yet multi-dimensional framework in one setting. 

I did not read Nabakov's book, but to try an analogy of my own, what I am reading reminds of me of another romantically triumphant poetry-as-game movie, Barry Levinson's The Natural. It totally jettisoned the downbeat ending of Bernard Malamud's fatalistic book in favor of a romantic impressionism that was uniquely American. Well, the director did that one better by seamlessly meshing Russian and Italian morals and mores as a backdrop to enlightenment. The true story here is that games are zero-sum; there is a winner and a loser, unless both contestants draw. But, in life, and especially in the context of our immortal souls, we are only limited by those constraints and life's conventions to the extent we let others break our spirit. 

Pure love, as personified by Emily Watson's Natalia, can transcend and allow all of us to be enhanced by its gifts simultaneously. Only the barriers erected by our fears can cut us off from it.

This is a magnificent movie (10/10).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
positive
Snälla berätta för mig känslan av följande recension: Emily Watsons Natalia är absolut den mest kärleksfulla och romantiska huvudroll jag någonsin sett på en skärm. Hon är filmens drottning utan tvivel. Eller är hon transmuterad till kungen? Det är fantastiskt att väva schackpartierna och familjernas kamp för kontroll, makt och seger. Precis som schackmästarna i filmen spelar regissören många samtidiga spel med vårt sinne på en gång, men alla väver in sig i antingen större eller mindre mönster. Perioden, dräkterna, och bildspråket i början av 1900-talet Italiens sjödistrikt fångas magnifikt. Inte en enda kvadrat av utrymme slösas bort. Det finns så många lysande scener att jag inte kan berätta allt. Jag rekommenderar budgetering tillräckligt med tid för att titta på filmen två gånger, möjligen en vecka ifrån varandra, eftersom du omöjligt kan fånga all poesi inom en 64-kvadrat men ändå flerdimensionell ram i en miljö. Jag läste inte Nabakovs bok, men för att försöka en egen analogi, påminner det jag läser om mig om en annan romantiskt triumferande poesi-som-spelfilm, Barry Levinsons Den naturliga. Det ledde till att Bernard Malamuds fatalistiska bok slutade med en romantisk impressionism som var unikt amerikansk. Direktören gjorde det bättre genom att sömlöst blanda ryska och italienska moralnormer och sedvänjor som en bakgrund till upplysning. Den sanna historien här är att spel är nollsumma; det finns en vinnare och en förlorare, om inte båda tävlande drar. Men i livet, och särskilt i samband med våra odödliga själar, är vi endast begränsade av dessa begränsningar och livets konventioner i den utsträckning vi låter andra bryta vår ande. Ren kärlek, personifierad av Emily Watsons Natalia, kan överskrida och låta oss alla bli stärkta av dess gåvor samtidigt. Bara de barriärer som våra rädslor skapar kan avskärma oss från det. Detta är en magnifik film (10/10). ALTERNATIV: - negativ - positiv
Please tell me the feeling of the following review: Emily Watson's Natalia is by far the most loving and romantic lead I've ever seen on a screen. She's the queen of the film without a doubt. Or is she transmuted to the king? It's amazing to weave the chess games and the families' struggle for control, power and victory. Just like the chess masters in the film, the director plays many simultaneous games with our mind at once, but all weave into either larger or smaller patterns. The period, costumes, and imagery of the early 20th century Italy's lake district are captured magnificently. Not a single square of space is wasted. There are so many brilliant scenes I can't tell you everything. I recommend budgeting enough time to watch the film twice, possibly a week apart, because you can't possibly capture all poetry within a 64-square yet multidimensional framework in an environment. I didn't read Nabakov's book, but to try his own analogy, what I read about me reminds me of another romantically triumphant poetry-as-game film, Barry Levinson's The Natural. As a result, Bernard Malamud's fatalistic book ended with a romantic impressionism that was uniquely American. The director made it better by seamlessly mixing Russian and Italian moral standards and customs as a background to enlightenment. The true story here is that games are zero; there is a winner and a loser, unless both contestants draw. But in life, and especially in connection with our immortal souls, we are only limited by these limitations and the conventions of life to the extent that we allow others to break our spirit. Pure love, personified by Emily Watson's Natalia, can transcend and allow us all to be strengthened by its gifts at the same time. Only the barriers our fears create can shield us from it. This is a magnificent film (10/10). ALTERNATIVE: - negative - positive
positiv
positive