Not sure I should even use that word person as it has the male connotation to it and these days everything offends certain homo sapiens some of whom call them selves mee three or something like that. Some consider Amy Adams as beeing a massively better acting thingy than Merryl Streep. I have to agree with the author of this full article that there are many more who might be better, but in one example saying that Sigourney Weaver is better is leaving out important dertermination materials in evaluation. Whenever an acting thingy homosap is being judged on “acting ability” one is mostly limited to what they have acted in. Weaver is well known for Aliens and Dave and some other well received films but who wants to see Aliens more than once? I don’t and it’s not just because I don’t love alien or sci-fi films like others do, it’s that when I think of seeing a sci-fi film and think of seeing Weaver again, I cringe. I’m not even tototally sure why that is. Yes her acting is good, even great in that film, but it’s not good enough to make me overlook how she acts. Not that there’s something seriously wrong with it, it’s just not acting that draws me back in. Great acting includes a style that draws in everyone. Her style is limited somehow. Streep has more variety in style thus when we see her we don’t see the same person all the time, oh sorry, perthing. Streep has done so many roles where I would watch more than once.
Written by Ken Wegorowski. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved.
Call Me by Your Name (2017) fills the screen with a multitude of textural and social elements to convey the story of a brief affair between two men, Elio and Oliver, set in 1983 Italy. Art, sculptures, music, landscapes, architecture, natural sounds, fruit, meals, smoking, shimmering lakes, hikes and bicycle rides comment sometimes overtly (love songs, statues of unclothed humanity) and sometimes subtly (sensual water elements) on what is connecting Elio and Oliver. The first half of Call Me by Your Name consists of this very unhurried exposition of elements with little plot development inducing a state of peacefulness, like a relaxed vacation.
The central story eventually builds and due to the simplicity, its effectiveness depends mostly on both the handling of Elio and Oliver’s growing attraction and of their foretold separation. Elio and Oliver’s increasing interest is a slow burn, somewhat coy and motivated mainly by desire and youthful lust. The sum total of these developments are not overly emotional or stirring, but do render an honest and tender depiction of how people come together. The actual sex is frank, brief, but not graphic nor titillating. The real achievement here is the nearly tangible force that draws Elio and Oliver together, as if the statue retrieved from the sea is harkening back to more open societies working along with all the other elements to purposely will and sanction their passion.
More affecting than the romantic developments is the conclusion of their affair, which ends circumstantially – no harm is intended (if only intentions could avoid devastating the human heart). Immediately after Oliver’s departure three scenes effectively depict Elio’s distraught state – the call to mom, a father’s outpouring of empathy and love, and tears from a heart that a hearth cannot warm. To Oliver’s great credit a phone call just prior to this sad final image reveals the depth of impact their time together meant. It’s a purposeful acknowledgement to affirm that one of life’s rare and most intense gifts does outweigh, in time, the sadness of loss.
Overall Rating: B
What could have made it an A: 30 minutes shorter and more compelling romantic elements.
It appears that this film is relying heavily on computer generated imagery for all of the action scenes where the boxing occurs. Even entering the ring you can see that it’s fake. I don’t like such heavy use of computer generated scenes……
but what I think about this film really doesn’t matter though because look at the astounding high rating it gets by viewers!