To put it mildly, this is a frivolous love story at best. It's just that the characters have names, surnames, heads and faces.
The love dispute between George Sand and Chopin, who is right and who is right, is there a clear conclusion?
It doesn't seem to have any history. This film is even more used to add fuel to vinegar, and it is completely "joking". But there is no judgment, just describe the process of their acquaintance and love.
If you think about it, it's also interesting, the same joke composer, Mozart and Salieri's jokes can appear so majestic and sighing. And the love story about Chopin is so witty, easy, and even frivolous.
George Sand is portrayed as a passionate, unrestrained and bold image.
Too enthusiastic and unrestrained.
The first time the two met, George Sand climbed in through the balcony window. Chopin was concentrating on playing the piano at this time, and when he suddenly stopped and noticed the woman in the room, he was naturally taken aback. So much so that the questioning seemed to be tongue-tied.
Chopin: Who are you? How did you get in?
Sand: I'm your slave! You have summoned me here with your music!
And the look on his face was so intoxicating that it almost made me faint.
Taking back the above right-wing point of view, in fact, Judy Davis's deep gaze full of confidence and wisdom is still quite charming. Perhaps this is especially true for a character as frail as Chopin? These two have absolutely complementary personalities.
Look at George Sand's declaration of love, and probably know why she can conquer him:
I really don't believe you are ill! You just need strength! Take mine! I have too much of it!
I don't have any proper virtue. I only love. But I love entirely, exclusively, and steadfastly.
Is it straight-forward enough to be emotionally charged?
Despite this, I still feel that this film is relatively weak in terms of plot settings, such as the most crucial question: why did he turn from initial disgust to her? The movie really doesn't understand why. Well, let's just assume that artists are all fast-moving types. If you look at it with a relaxed attitude, this is still a very pleasant film.
Produced in 1990, it is one of Hugh Grant's very early films, and I'm afraid I've only seen Maurice (1987) before. Xiu Grant, who was in his prime at that time, was indeed Chopin's best choice. He was handsome and well-deserved, hehe. The fly in the ointment is his fake Polish-accented English. Of course, this is really unpleasant for moviegoers (like me) who just want to see Hugh Grant selling handsomely.
In addition to the two mentioned above, there is also Julian Sands in the cast. This Liszt is still worth watching. It gives the impression that this movie not only provides Hugh Grant with delicious food, but also buy one get one free with Julian Sands. Hehe,
and Emma Thompson, she's a veteran in her role.
Needless to say, the music is basically all Chopin's works, and occasionally there is a Liszt arrangement, and it seems that there is also a Beethoven.
What is more praiseworthy is the style of the film: British humor and harmony. It is simply a story of a group of stupid people who are happy and enemies, but it makes people feel comfortable and happy to watch. Reminds me of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
View more about Impromptu reviews
