 "Fantastic - then and now." | 2009-09-13 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1B8XHBJBTTEPR |
| I loved this movie the first time I saw it many years ago. It is just as great now. Anthony Hopkins is so attractive and sexy. This movie provides another look at the amazing depth of his acting ability. The list of friends who want to borrow my copy just gets longer as more of them hear about how great it is. (Somehow they all missed it when it came out.) |
| |
 "Not as good as the other version" | 2009-08-02 |
| - Reviewed By rhubb4952 |
| This is a good movie because of its subject and the fact it is relatively well done. However, it is not as good as the BBC version, "Through The Shadowlands." Although I'm a big Anthony Hopkins fan, I think Joss Ackland played a better Lewis than did Hopkins. Strangely, I was reminded of the role Hopkins played in "The Remains of the Day," in which he played an extremely inhibited individual. Lewis, however, while guarded was not so inhibited, and I think Ackland captured the right balance better than Hopkins did. A bigger difference, I thought, was in the role of Joy, where I found Claire Bloom both more believable and appealing than the Winger version. I thought Winger's NYC accent a little overdone. Also, Winger's approach was more in-your-face than Bloom's. Some have described Winger as "challenging" and Bloom as "passive" or more "traditional." I didn't see it that way. Certainly, the initiative that Joy took in starting their relationship was not passive or traditional. She came across to me as a very intelligent, highly literate and refined woman, and I thought she would have appealed to Lewis for that reason. When she has to deal with Lewis's stodgy Oxford friends, she is able to engage in dry repartee as an equal. In the Winger version, Joy substitutes insult for clever repartee. The BBC version reaches an emotional crescendo that this version struggles to attain but does not (IMO). In the BBC version Lewis spontaneously affirms his love of Joy and embrace of her as his wife, whereas Hopkins painfully struggles to do so and finally does because the script dictates it, but I found it not fully credible. The one drawback to the BBC version is that it is technically inferior, being an earlier TV production compared to the HBO movie. |
| |
| "SHADOWLANDS/ ANTHONY HOPKINS" | 2009-06-02 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3SIVDXH5G58AD |
Excellent movie/ well-done/ award winning acting. I would recommend it to anyone interested in C.S. Lewis and his body of work. It's a real insight into the man...and the author.
Jeff Phillips |
| |
 "A movie about dying and living" | 2009-04-21 |
| - Reviewed By tftn@earthlink.net |
I'm a long time fan of C. S. Lewis. He was an Ivory tower scholar and
philosopher who wrote classic the Narnia series of children books.
Before seeing this movie I knew pretty much nothing about his personal life.
Songs or love and songs of death together have a limited market.
The C. S. Lewis works are a modern bridge of Christian faith
that have made him an important writer like Ray Bradbury.
His sci fi is pretty bad as he just has very little understanding
of real science?
In this we see the life of an Oxford top literary scholar
in a way that makes him seem not so remote. |
| |
| "Great Product" | 2008-12-30 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1ZNRBYHEGLU08 |
| The product was pretty close to the description given. The VHS itself was in awesome shape. The case was said to be in perfect condition - it was slightly worn however - which was kind of a disappointment. But overall I was pleased and happy with my purchase. |
| |
| "Well acted historical FICTION" | 2008-12-17 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1RXCODDDOWXLJ |
If one were to pick apart the film for its historical inaccuracies, one would have a field day. The film, however, is not a documentary. It is fiction using the names of real, historical people. Once you get beyond that, it is much easier to enjoy it.
The most moving theme of the story is how Lewis deals with the problem of pain as he experiences it. When he holds it at arms' length and examines it with scholarly detachment, pain is easy to understand. It is a necessary means God uses to sculpt and shape his creatures. When actually felt, it is mysterious, confusing, and apparently unnecessary. Why do the good suffer and lesser people flourish? Why does the wonderful joy of love have to be tempered with the excruciating pain of loss? While Lewis was able to speak authoritatively about the purpose of pain in his lectures, he was unable to give an answer to his wife's grieving son. All he could do was to cry along with the child.
Perhaps one could learn from the story of Job that it's best not to try to give the grieving an explanation for their pain. Like Job, the fictional Lewis could know that God had a reason but that he could not understand it.
I recommend the film as a reminder for viewers that oftentimes pain doesn't make sense. Instead of expostulating on God's reason for allowing others to suffer, it is better to sit and weep with them. |
| |
