benwkwu

I totally agree with one of the viewers that this film try to attempt a lot but just got really messy. It at certain moment in the first two hour runs unnecessarily slow, goes nowhere but leads to be boring.

Those actors and actresses can act good but unfortunately due to the leading and directing of the director, their acting sometimes becomes too stiff and artificial. The director has also specially linked this film to the One Child policy, this is a typical trick of those Chinese art house film directors/producers to draw eyes from western audience during those so call world famous film festivals. If you check all those award winner Chinese films, almost all of them has linked to politic elements.

The only part which I do enjoy watching it is actually the normal movie part (the part without all those slow boring art house film elements). That is the last part of the film (the last 45 minutes), the film suddenly changes into a normal movie, no stiff acting and no nonsense plot, and we see redemption, forgiveness, friendship emotion, joy and hope.

Well, I really don't understand why there are so many people giving high score to this movie. I assume that the production costs of this movie is not cheap, because it has hired quite some famous actor and actress. However the result is not great at all. This is actually a rather boring movie. I don't think the story plot is something extraordinarily worthing to watch. In my opinion every director, actor, shop owner or even everyone in this world has his/her own history to commit and make a success in their career. I simply don't find specially interesting to know why and how Hitchcock has decided and made the movie Psycho.

Also when I see how they have made the outlook of Hopkins and that he has to talk by moving his mouth to try to talk like Hitchcock, it simply looks so terrible and make this movie far to artificial. The only cast which they have chosen for looking alike the real person is taking James D'Arcy playing the role of Anthony Perkins. The scene which he (D'Arcy) being interviewed by Hitchcock is really amazing. Although in the reality James D'Arcy is more handsome than Perkins but in that scene he someway somehow he really look alike him. It deserves my 4 stars to this movie.

This is really a horrible version of Emma which I have ever seen. The leading actress, the leading actor and those main supporting actress and actors are all look rather ordinary, it simply cannot bring out the charms of the original story. We do not need eye candy or supper handsome beauty but for such kind of romantic movie it certainly needs actresses and actors with a better pleasant look. The acting of these actress and actor are terrible too. I simply don't know where and why they have casted these two. The acting is wooden and not natural at all. Even I can act better than them. The direction/production of the movie is also bad. OK although in the book Emma has done things not all right but down deep in her heart, she is someway somehow a kind hearted lady, but in this movie Emma is presented like a mean girl. The 1996 version is not top and not perfect, but when compared with this one, it is far much better.