Two questions:
-
Suzume-san — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 12:45 PM)
My daughter was at a production of
Jesus Christ Superstar
(the theatre musical, I mean, of course, not the film) at which the people sitting in front of her were shocked at the ending and tried to cover their children's eyes so they shouldn't see. What, the hero
dies?
We weren't expecting that! -
robstackley — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 04:12 PM)
That's incredible, Suzumeas if the 39 lashes were like looking at Cancun travel videos! I wonder what they tell the kids they're celebrating at Easter!
In full disclosure, though, I freely admit that I had to turn away during the 39 lashes in "Passion of the Christ"double-guilt there! -
Mister_Milich — 10 years ago(March 20, 2016 04:13 PM)
I agree, kekoajadecastle. It's much like The Usual Suspects. The timeline is more or less intact, but what exactly happened and how and why are dictated at the will of the narrator.
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(April 10, 2016 10:00 AM)
Two questions:
From whose perspective are we being told the main narrative of the film?
Are you familiar with the concept of the Unreliable Narrator?
A more important question:
Who is naive enough to watch a movie like this expecting it to be a history lesson? -
Kojiro_Vance — 9 years ago(June 10, 2016 04:29 PM)
The Bridge on the River Kwai isn't historically accurate either. And that movie is also a masterpiece.
It's a story, NOT a documentary. It's fiction, set to an historical background.
Can you believe some people? Some people dislike this movie because it didn't happen. Jesus, people, don't be so serious.
It's like those idiots that say: 'I don't watch Star Wars. Because it's not real'.
But hey, those people can always watch PEARL HARBOR. That story did happen.
I'm just on my way up to Clavius. -
Bob Pr. — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 05:24 PM)
I've just returned from seeing the 3 hour (director's cut) version of this and liked it immensely (far more than the version I saw when it first came out).
It impelled me to immediately visit Wikipedia as soon as I got home to learn more about the truth of Mozart's & Salieri's life.
While "Amadeus" is NOT historically accurate about the relationship between those 2 central characters, IMO it IS quite psychologically accurate about the various (sometimes fictional) relationships it does depict (& I'm a retired clinical psychologist).
I thought it was so immensely entertaining that I gave it a 10 star rating.
As someone has previously pointed out, it doesn't pretend to be a documentary or historically accurate; it's the FILM version of a PLAY. But it is interesting enough that it'll propel me to read several books on Mozart's life and maybe more about Salieri's, too.
Not TOO shabby a result, eh? -
utahman1971 — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 12:56 AM)
It pisses me off that people are so critical and want a perfect movie but not only perfect but real accurate as in reality done in real life kind of movie, and if it is nothing at all accurate or what would happen in real life at all, they just waste all of us our time hating the movies that we enjoy. They must have nothing else better to do and bored as hell to be jerks about awesome and great movies. So what if these people hate the damn movie. If we enjoy it, it is hell of a lot more important than a jerk saying crap about it.
This site is so screwed up on ratings it is pathetic to use this site to find out if a movie is good enough to go see. People now a days are so flipping rude and critical about movies, that you can't trust what anyone says on this site any more. In fact, anything on the internet anymore.
Rated R Horror movies are better, no matter the argument. -
schwester_straw — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 03:25 PM)
I am one of those people that hated the film for its inacurracies. So maybe I can shed some light on the matter.
The problem are not historical inaccuracies - like wrong costumes or wigs - the problem is that the movie depicts real people and their lives. We are talking about peole who really existed, who lived, who left a legacy to the world. Even if these people are dead, that doesn't mean you can tell a completely wrong story about them just so you can drive home your point about genius and hard work. The movie not only tells a story that has nothing to do with the real lives of Mozart and Salieri, but it shortchanges them both in its depiction. Salieri seems like a mediocre composer who let himself be dominated by jelousy and Mozart seems like an irresponsible manchild. And if you know anything about their lives before you watch the movie it is impossible to not notice the 'inaccuracies'. It drove me personally crazy how absolutely wrong they depicted these great composers and I just could not for the live of me enjoy the movie because of it.
If you want to write a movie about the difference between hard work and genius and how it can affect people and their relationships to one another why not change the names since the movie has nothing to do with reality. The n nobody would have a problem with it and it could be judged soley for its script, cinematography
Because judged on just these criteria it is a good movie. Certainly not the best ever but nontheless a good movie. -
zvelf-1 — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 06:51 PM)
Good points, schwester, but what I think most people overlook is that first, the title that appears on the screen isn't just "Amadeus" referring to Mozart's name (which might imply a biography), but "Peter Shaffer's Amadeus," which explicitly indicates this is not a biography but an author's usage of a real life person in a fictitious work. Second, the movie is a black comedy. It nods to this right off the bat as Vincent Schiavelli and his companion dig into Salieri's dessert while he is committing suicide. This tone already belies historical veracity. Third, it is unfortunate that many people take this movie as historical truth, but that's not actually the filmmakers' fault. What Milos Forman and Peter Shaffer are doing belongs to a long literary tradition. Shakespeare used Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and many kings of England in his very fictitious plays. Nobody reads them for factual history and nobody complains that they aren't historically accurate and many are praised as among the greatest work in literature.
-
wwestar — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:32 AM)
Yeah! It's so historically inaccurate, like some people had American accents and some people didn't when everyone knows that the whole of Austria would of had American accents!!!!! And some of the actors were actually British pretending to be American/Austrians.