williamfjack-619-266033

Okay, every film of "Three Sisters" works from the same script, so it's other things that make the difference. I've seen this play about 9 times, have watched several video performances, and this is bar none the best. The acting stands out -- Each character is perfect for me -- exactly what I figure Chekov had in mind. One comparison as an example. The scene with the doctor and the spinning top. Laurence Olivier treats it as a Shakespearean soliloquy, but in this performance, the doctor nails the role. Just one of many examples. The sets and costumes are also great, and just as they should be. I wish that all screen renditions of classics were this good.

This film awes me more each time that I watch it -- The movie is so powerful, so understated, so deftly executed, unlike the blockbusters that populate Netflix and Amazon Prime. Colin Firth and Kenneth Branagh are at their best (which means "better than most best's"), as are Miranda Richardson, Jim Carter, and Patrick Malahide. (Those last two actors also appear together in "The Singing Detective," another favorite.)

I take polite exception to the comments of a few reviewers. Sure, knowing the County of Yorkshire certainly could add to a person's appreciation of the film, but it's not the only criterion to be sure, and lacking it doesn't mean you lose out. I love and appreciate Ivan Turgenev's "A Month in the Country" without having been on the Islaev country estate, and I love and appreciate "Seven Samurai" even though I spent only one hour in Japan (and never got out of the airport's international area). Having familiarity with a film's or book's location is a nice boost, but not having it doesn't prevent one from appreciating just as fully the offerings in the book or film. After all, great authors and directors depict settings in ways that those who've never been there may feel that they have. - An appreciative Minnesota USA William.