lizzfizz
Nothing happens, the film doesn't do anything daring or try to innovate, and i couldn't wait to get out of the theater. what a waste of money and of my time.
grantss
War-torn Virginia, 1864. A wounded Union soldier is found by a local girl and finds shelter at a girls' school. Their intention is to nurse him back to health and then send him on his way but over time the relationship becomes more complicated.Directed by Sofia Coppola, not bad, but not that good either. The original movie, released in 1971, was directed by Don Siegel and starred Clint Eastwood as the Union solider. While not brilliant, it was reasonably engaging and had a clever, powerful twist at the end.This, the 2017 version, is not overly engaging, feeling quite dry, a purely linear telling of events. The plot isn't exactly the same as the 1971 movie, effectively adding another act beyond the conclusion of Sigel's movie. The added-on portion is fairly interesting, but the conclusion doesn't pack the same punch that Siegel's movie did.
slickasallgetout-1
I don't watch new movies often bc I have a baby and am exhausted. But I thought I'd treat myself tonight on HBO Now. Oh my God! What a waste of my time! No character development AT ALL. Why did Colin Farrel leave Dublin? Was he a gardener? Why is Kirsten Dunst fluent in French and wants to get as far away from the school as possible? Why is Elle Fanning such a fluzy? What happened to Nikole Kidman's previous life? This was all such crap. I should've turned it off-but was waiting for the answers to my questions. Then all of a sudden, it was over. Didn't even include cool music soundtrack that Coppola usually pairs. Sucked donkey balls!
