classicsoncall I can't tell you how many movies I've seen in which the principal characters wind up in bed together at the drop of a hat after just meeting each other. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) by far had the most direct and uniquely creative approach - he asked women he was interested in to take off their clothes. And they did! Just like that. It's not a technique I've ever tried but I have my doubts that it's as simple as that. Maybe for Harvey Weinstein but look where it got him. The 'lightness' of the title was referenced a number of times in the picture and it referred to the way Tomas approached life and relationships with the opposite sex. To him, there was a 'lightness' that permeated his actions and thinking, never carrying things out to their ultimate conclusion. Whereas Tereza (Juliette Binoche) represented just the opposite, one might say the 'heavy' approach to dealing with potential romantic partners. That is, it had to mean something, and her recognition of Tomas's infidelity caused her much psychic harm - "But how can someone love without being in love?" This may be the age old question in the male/female dynamic, explored in this film as the married couple attempt to reconcile their relationship while in the midst of a corresponding affair with Tomas's worldly mistress Sabina (Lena Olin).Set against the backdrop of the Prague Spring of 1968, the political element didn't seem to be entirely necessary in the telling of the relationship story. However it did provide a measure of conflict for Tomas who was called upon to retract an earlier published piece taking the Soviet Communist regime to task for the way it dehumanized people and placed them under the thumb of an overreaching government. Notwithstanding the title of the picture, the film's resolution is anything but light in the sense that it spelled doom for the principal characters. It's perhaps the story's dramatic irony that Tomas and Tereza finally found their true happiness outside the confines of the city where they could be as free as possible to pursue life on their own terms, if only for a short while.

writers_reign By all accounts - many of them here, on IMDb - this went down well on its initial release possibly because of the similar blend of politics and great loves to that we had already seen in Dr. Zhivago, another movie in which Russia was the third angle of the eternal triangle. Like Zhivago this was also based on a well-known novel albeit one I haven't read so I can comment only on the film. This may be only the second film featuring Daniel Day Lewis that I have actually seen albeit he appears to flavour of every alternate month and the delight of the Academic-Pseud axis. I found no evidence of why this should be so in There Will Be Blood and nor do I here. I see an actor who is competent, knows how to hit his marks and deliver dialogue but anything more than this eludes me. Juliette Binoche is, as usual with her, outstanding, and Lena Olin manages to hold her own. Apart from that ...

acquiesce_7 The Unbearable Lightness of Being is an amazing novel. Therefore one would expect its film adaptation to be at least decent. But no!!! This is just too bad! I admit that I already had an opinion of what the characters should be like. I visualised Teresa as a young, ethereal beauty, with fragile charm which would be enough to make a committed bachelor feel like he needs to take her under his arms and protect her. Albeit, Juliette Binoche acts like a caricature, seems almost mentally challenged at times and fails to portray an amiable character. On the other hand Tomas is a charming mature man of a pensive nature that never fails to smile to and flirt with women. What did we get? A flamboyant womanizer, yet one more caricature, that shared nothing with Tomas and made this film comical and flat. And why the silly accents? Either make a Czech film or an English film. I found this offensive if I am honest. I have not seen any other Kaufman films, but I very much doubt that I will after this traumatic experience. This film is a poor adaptation and even as a stand-alone makes not much sense, being long and slow but without exploring space or time!

preppy-3 Takes place in 1968. Something about a Czech man named Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) who (somehow) has a VERY active sex life with numerous women. Then some revolution occurs...or something. Frankly I was so utterly bored I could have cared less.I caught this up a theatre with a friend in 1988 (she's female, I'm male). Neither one us read the book and had no idea what the movie was about. We just knew it had gotten raves from critics. Both of us are intelligent with college degrees and have no problem with a talky movie. Well this movie was virtually all talk. Sadly none of it was interesting! For starters it was badly cast. It was almost funny to see all these women eagerly undressing and jumping into bed with Tomas. Day-Lewis is (to be blunt) ugly here and gives a dull and lifeless performance. The women in his life are given next to no personality of depth. They're just there to be used. The story droned on and on and on and ON! My mind kept wandering while trying to figure out what the hell was going on. Towards the last hour or so I was fighting to stay awake. My friend agreed. We walked out of the movie tearing it to ribbons pointing out the lousy acting and incomprehensible story line. I tried watching it again recently and gave up after 45 minutes. Again--the acting sucked and the story went NOwhere! Skip this one. Even Day-Lewis didn't like it.