via Irina:
I won't be original by saying that the film didn't come up to the
book's fans expectations, but I wasn't fully disappoined. It was
fairly entertaining, it showed places and works of art mentioned in
the book, and Tom
Hanks is Tom Hanks no matter what. Apart from a few absurd moments
due to the weak script and the hollow play
of Audrey Tautou
(too bad, I actually liked her after
"Amélie", but maybe
it's because she had to play in English here), it was agreeable. Both
Mike and another friend
who haven't read the book, liked it. So I would say, it is either for
those who didn't read the book or those who are passionate fans of it.
Well, to be honest, I don't see the problem with this movie.
It's fiction, even if based on real events. I go to movies
for entertainment, and although I could foresee some stereotypical
plot lines it was decent entertainment.
If I want facts on the real events behind the story, I go and do my
homework on the subject. Even a single book will likely give me
more background information than can be squeezed into the standard
two hour movie format. I have no sympathy for people around the
world making a huge deal out of it. To repeat myself,
it's fiction. If somebody want to raise concerns, feel
free. But don't try to impose restrictions on what is acceptable
and what is not for others to see.
Having said that, I liked
the Pathe Tuschinski a lot.
Due to work, I have not been to movies with Irina for some time now,
and it's always fun to discuss with her afterwards, especially, if
we have different opinions. :)