Reply to Topic
I watched this once with my parents when I was a kid and thought it was the most boring thing I had ever seen. Before watching it the other night, I realized I wasn't mature enough to understand it as a kid and hoped I would enjoy it this time around.
When I started it, I feared the 3 hours and 20 minutes would have me asleep within the first 20 minutes. However, I made it through the entire movie without even the slightest heavy eyelids. Of course, watching it over two sittings helped.
The things that I think interested me were the incredible history of the time being portrayed, the beautiful cinematography, and wonderful acting by all those involved.
This film was nominated for 11 Oscars and won 5. The five wins were for technical things like cinematography, score, screen adaptation, etc. Sometimes I don't understand the Academy. 1965 was a crazy year. The Sound of Music won for Best Pic and Best Dir., deservedly so, in my humble opinion, but Julie Andrews, who had won the previous year for Mary Poppins, which made her the favorite, didn't win for Best Actress. Julie Christie won Best Actress, but not for Dr. Zhivago. Christie won for her role in John Schlesinger's social satire, Darling. Christie wasn't even nominated for Dr. Zhivago! I've seen Darling (see my review Here) and it STUNK! Also, Omar Sharif wasn't even nominated, and I thought he was terrific! But guess who won the Best Actor award that year? Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou! (anybody see it?)
Okay, anyhoo, this is an epic period piece that does a good job of showing the history of the Russian revolution through the eyes of Sharif's character. The film doesn't "take off" until Zhivago witnessess the peaceful demonstrators being slaughtered in the streets. The storyline is a little complicated if you the viewer isn't familiar with the history, and there seems to be a lot of relationships and Russian names to keep track of, but overall, the story is very powerful.
When I started it, I feared the 3 hours and 20 minutes would have me asleep within the first 20 minutes. However, I made it through the entire movie without even the slightest heavy eyelids. Of course, watching it over two sittings helped.
The things that I think interested me were the incredible history of the time being portrayed, the beautiful cinematography, and wonderful acting by all those involved.
This film was nominated for 11 Oscars and won 5. The five wins were for technical things like cinematography, score, screen adaptation, etc. Sometimes I don't understand the Academy. 1965 was a crazy year. The Sound of Music won for Best Pic and Best Dir., deservedly so, in my humble opinion, but Julie Andrews, who had won the previous year for Mary Poppins, which made her the favorite, didn't win for Best Actress. Julie Christie won Best Actress, but not for Dr. Zhivago. Christie won for her role in John Schlesinger's social satire, Darling. Christie wasn't even nominated for Dr. Zhivago! I've seen Darling (see my review Here) and it STUNK! Also, Omar Sharif wasn't even nominated, and I thought he was terrific! But guess who won the Best Actor award that year? Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou! (anybody see it?)
Okay, anyhoo, this is an epic period piece that does a good job of showing the history of the Russian revolution through the eyes of Sharif's character. The film doesn't "take off" until Zhivago witnessess the peaceful demonstrators being slaughtered in the streets. The storyline is a little complicated if you the viewer isn't familiar with the history, and there seems to be a lot of relationships and Russian names to keep track of, but overall, the story is very powerful.
__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10
