VividSimon Simply Perfect

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

cloudsponge I thoroughly enjoyed this movie up until the ending. There was a fourth major character whose vital importance to the ending was ignored, a character who intruded into their menage a trois: the gynecologist/abortionist. It was extraordinarily difficult for him to make that long trip deep into the mountains. Why would he do it, and risk all? Why? Because he found an attractive 18-year-old woman who was a known goer able to keep a secret whom he wanted to make into his mistress. He bought and took away one thing Ma had that most seduced the seamstress: Ma's violin. Did the doctor also buy all the books, or maybe just the Balzacs? Without these the two boys would be less attractive, less interesting, boring even, to the dishonest little seamstress (dishonest? Whose idea was it to steal four-eyes' valise of books?). When she left the mountains at the end the seamstress' statement to Luo that her leaving was due to Balzac was not necessarily entirely true. People do not always tell everyone the truth all of the time. In her case what was she going to tell her ex-lover, that she had fallen for the sweet talk of a more worldly man? What letters she and the doctor may have exchanged, or even further meetings they may have had after the abortion we don't know. But yes, the seduction of her by the words of Balzac led to her pregnancy, and that led to her leaving.So this is the ending that should have been: A scene of her reaching town, being met in the darkness of night by the doctor and ensconced in some third-rate hovel where she would commence her temporary life as his secret mistress. Another quick scene or two showing either him or her, or both tiring of the situation and her going on to some factory in Shenzen. Then from there (different hair style and clothing) to Hong Kong. She could become a bar hostess at a Bar called Champs Elysees and, there, meet some French guy who takes her to Paris.It is beautiful irony that the money paid to Ma for his violin went to pay for the sneakers she used to walk to the doctor and her "new-and-exciting urban" life. ("Don't worry. I'll be fine in town," she said to Luo with complete confidence. Confident that there would be someone there waiting for her to make sure she was alright.).

Armand It is impossible to understand this story in his real essence. The beautiful skin of love and nice images, the acting and slices of memory are only small details of a horrible era (Chinese Communism of Mao period is more that the best thriller can presents). So, a tale about resistance, about culture like secret and vital refuge is not only interesting or touching but good "remember", too. The life in a country who considers his citizens like social dough is a cruel experience and a survive exercise. In Romania, the Communist regime was not very different but the relates about this period, his reflexion in films is mixture of frustrations and hate. Maybe, this is the normal way after a social crisis. So, the principal virtue of film is the subtle humor. The innocence of resistance, the original game, the delicate resistance against a grotesque situation. In many aspects the film is a charming miniature and it is Sijie Dai's merit to present not only a personal experience, a story of past but a slice of far reality so present in ours life, yet. Same impressive token about a subtle form of resistance is "Flying against the arrow" by Horia- Roman Patapievici.

Wingedwhitetiger Balzac and the little Chinese seamstress – Film review Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress is a film based on the cultural revolution of the 1970's. Two boys are sent to the country to be re-educated under Chairman Mao. The main focus of the movie is the adventures that the boys undergo while there. While they are there, Luo, one of the boys, falls in love with a local girl there, a seamstress. There is also a suitcase, belonging to one of the other boys, four-eyes, that is rumoured to hold in it secret books, illegal ones. The boys steal it, and with the help of their favourite author, Balzac, the little Chinese seamstress is changed forever from the simple girl she was.The movie itself leaves something to be desired. Although the plot of the book is simple enough, the adaptation for the movie has not been done well, and some crucial parts have been removed or replaced. There have been some major changes in the movie, and while this is to be expected of any movie adaptation, they do not suit the movie or the book, and make holes in the film.The characters, Ma (Ye Liu) and Luo (Kun Chen) are generally what you would expect them to be from the book. Their appearance is much the same, but they look too much alike to be able to tell them apart easily, especially with the cutting of one person to another. The Seamstress (Xun Zhou) has been done well, and is portrayed well. There is some difference from the book, but this is to be expected as it is an adaptation. The actors themselves have done quite well, and have settled into character much like the book, with the minor characters doing well at setting the scene for the main plot to take place. There were many minor roles, and all of them have done well in making the movie seem real and more life-like The scenery is fantastic. It has been beautifully captured by the camera, and the set of the movie has been chosen well. It fits in perfectly with the book, and is breathtaking to watch. The shots and angles used in the movie are also very well done. They accentuate the specific feeling in a particular scene to make it seem as if you are actually there. There is also very good lighting and sounds used in the movie, that are able to, again, emphasise a particular scene in the film that is of great importance. The sets are also very life-like, with the highlights being the little details that have been put into the sets, the feeling that it has been filmed during the 1970's is very much there. But the way that the camera has been able to capture it has been the most commendable achievement. It has been done in such a way that it is able to show the viewer what life was like, the details, and also to heighten a specific point in the movie.The plot of the movie, however, is not very well done at all. The storyline is jumpy and confusing, and leaves viewers still trying to work out what has happened long after an event has passed. The plot is extremely disorganised, and the adaptation has not worked out well. People would have to read the book before seeing the movie to work out which parts fitted where and what was happening. There is utter chaos when organising the scene where Ma has jumped ahead to the future. When he is reminiscing about how the little seamstress had left a while earlier (from what can be pieced together) it is very confusing trying to work out whether he is in the present or the past.The director of the movie (Sijie Dai) is also the writer of the book, so a better movie would be expected then this. But he has put the pieces of the movie together in such a way that, even though the scenes by themselves are brilliant, the movie is jumpy and hard to understand. The subtitles running too quickly didn't help. There are too many characters introduced at the same time, and eventually it gets far too complicated to understand the first time. One can only get their head around this movie if they have either read the book prior to watching the movie, or they have seen it more then once. Either way, there is too much effort required trying to understand the plot then is really necessary.The movie is shot well, with excellent scenes and camera angles used to create a great tone in the movie. The actors have done well with adapting to the parts, and the characters are not unlike the book. But the plot line is a real let-down, with the scenes being poorly placed, making the movie jumpy and unrealistic. The director has done poorly on this movie, which is confusing in itself, considering he wrote the book as well as making the movie. Maybe he should just stick to writing. Although, for those who have read the book, he isn't too good at that either. Overall, not a movie that is worth paying $4 to go and rent, and certainly not worth the time to try and understand.

noralee "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (Xiao cai feng)" raises the awkward situation of commenting on a semi-autobiographical story which was originally written, then adapted and directed by the person who lived it in the same, beautiful locations where the events that inspired Sijie Dai took place. How much is fiction and how much is docu-drama? And I haven't read the book so I don't know how much he changed. The basics of the story would seem like a 1940's sci fi allegory of a totalitarian, anti-intellectual society if the Cultural Revolution under the here ubiquitously revered ruler Mao Tse Tung hadn't actually happened, with its anti-literate class-based revenge of kicking the children of the perceived elite out of the cities to rural areas for re-education at rigorous manual labor. In outline, his story is like a real life "Fahrenheit 451" and "the Little Seamstress," the teen ager, played charmingly by Xun Zhou, who gets caught up in a triangle between the out-of-towners, like "Ninotchka." She, startlingly, has far more ambition than the loyal peasant girl in "The Road Home."So it's hard to tell if the strong condescension in the tone to the local peasantry is what the two young men finally learn to overcome or is somewhat shown to be just as endemic in the Communist Party as is seen at the end they were suppressing the beauty of local traditions almost as much as intellectual influences. Because the premise that transforming aesthetics can only come from outside influences through movies, fashion and Western literature and music just seems anthropologically naive as they poke fun at and trick the locals. We do see that the peasants appreciate story telling, sewing and songs - but only of the most earthy kind until the re-educated sneak in their experiences, disguised as homages to Lenin or Mao. For example, with the almost universality of stringed instruments in human culture, it's hard to believe that peasants would be that skeptical when first exposed to a violin. The film is at its strongest, and loveliest, when it sticks to the personal relationships that result from contacts with the locals, as human nature is more powerful than ideology and youth is simply irrepressible and non-Orwellian. The romantic triangle plays out beautifully and gently demonstrates male instincts for Pygmalion control, irrespective of politics. The story affirms the Law of Unintended Consequences, heavily symbolized at the end with the coming of a dam on the river that will have the same effect on these towns as the TVA had on now forgotten communities in Appalachia. This tender and poignant nostalgia is a chronological and thematic prequel to the less optimistic "The World (Shijie)" in showing the impact of globalization on China and its people.