Saw this yesterday and thought it was an exceptionally good film....I don't know what people complaining about accents and acting are watching, but it isn't Cold Mountain. And as far as i'm concerned, they can hand Rene the Best Supporting Actress oscar to her right now...she was flawless and stole every scene she was in - and I don't even really like her usually.

My only complaint would be that they slightly hollywood-ized the ending, but not too much. a solid effort that was remarkably faithful to the book.

I saw this over the weekend and thought it was just beautifully done. An extremely classy, elegant, impressive achievement. Everyone in my party (six of us) thought it was excellent. Wonderful acting (especially Renee Zellweger) all around. Cinematography was crisp, awe-inspiring and the natural colors of the landscape were just a joy to behold. I thought the back-and-forth story frame, along with flashbacks, was done quite well. And I did not have a problem with the southern accents, like many folks have previously stated. The story is so involving, that the accents just don't seem to interfere with the picture. Hell, if you're gonna complain about lack of authenticity, then why didn't the film's creators do something about the condition of the cast's teeth: perfectly white and straight. No way would someone living during that turbulent time have choppers that looked like those of this cast. But it's also a Hollywood movie, for God's sake. So some things (teeth and accents) can be overlooked in the name of Hollywood and entertainment. After all, it's not a documentary.

All in all, a superior entertainment. As much as I would like to see "LOTR: ROTK" win Best Picture, I think I would understand if the Academy chose to award it to "Cold Mountain" instead. It would actually surprise me if "Cold Mountain" didn't win the Oscar.

I give this movie a :thumbsup:

People who are judging this movie by the trailer are doing theirselves a big disfavor. This movie is not another English Patient.

I'm not a fan of Nicole Kidman, but I think she fit the part perfectly. I equally dislike Renee Zellwegger, but I thought she did a great job in this movie. Her role may not be worthy of Best Supporting Actress, but she did do a great job.

You know, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I have to wonder why you level such venom at Chicago. Personally, everyone I know, including myself, loved it. Should it have won best picture? Certainly not. The Pianist should have won it, but as we've seen time and time again, the academy doesn't always make the best choice. Is that any reason to smash the movie itself? I don't understand how Chicago was made for members of the academy and not for the general public...it's the exact opposite of Cold Mountain or The English Patient, which I might agree was made mostly for members of the academy. The film was high energy, had good songs and good performances, and was competently directed. And hey, it had far better editing than Moulin Rouge (which I also love but wished they understood better editing techniques). Of all the movies in the world, I cannot imagine why Chicago, or even The English Patient, would deserve so much hatred.

Now, with the rant aside, about Cold Mountain. I liked The English Patient well enough, think Anthony Minghella is an above-average director, and love the cast. I was all set for it. Then I saw the trailers. And then I heard the mixed reviews. I will probably go and see it eventually, just to form my own opinion, but it's no longer on my "must-see" list. Also, the posters for it make it look like an action film. I know it's got some vicious battle sequences, but the core of the film isn't action. Yet the posters have Nicole Kidman looking like she's about to unload a can of whoopass on somebody. That doesn't really affect my thoughts on the movie, or the thoughts I will have once I see it, but it does rub me the wrong way.

Also, I don't mind Miramax's award-whoring, because it actually means they'll greenlight and give tremendous support to films that other studios may not make. Like it or not, winning all those oscars give Miramax the clout to take some chances. Now, if only they'd stop butchering foreign films, but that's another story.

Well, maybe I should finish the book and see the movie one more time knowing what to expect. I recall not thinking much of Gangs of New York when I saw it in the theater last year, but growing to think that it should have won Best Picture after repeat viewings. (Best Picture of those nominated, IMO, Adaptation was the best movie last year.)
While I see this movie getting some noms for acting, I think that if it fails to perform better in a financial sense it might meet with the same fate as GONY.

Dang, this movie must not be doing so well if no ones had a recent viewing to post about in the past two days.

This board isn't its audience, that's for sure. The showing I went to was nearly sold out however and the median age of the audience probably in their 40s, that's who this movie is aimed at.

I'm not getting the venom at Chicago either, me, my wife and my folks all loved this. It was fun and funny, with some drama and wonderful music. I stopped caring about the Oscars years ago, I don't care if a movie does win, or doesn't. The voters are obviously on crack, and have been for years. I watch movies, not award winners.

And I think I'm leaning more and more towards seeing Cold Mountain the more I read this thread too.

I watched the whole movie, and overall, the accents are HORRIBLE, moreso in the main characters than in the supporting characters (Sutherland and White had decent ones, comparatively).

Renee Zellweger's character was overacted. Jeez, if all you have to do to make a southern accent is yell and try to sound like Forrest Gump with even more of a touch of retard, then yeah, she's a shoo-in for an Oscar.

Overall, this movie left me cold. I was disappointed with the acting, accents, and cheesy dialogue. The one thing I really did appreciate was the cinematography. Other than that, I wouldn't even place it above movies like Alex and Emma for best of the year.

I saw it last night and thought it was FANTASTIC. Great performances all around, i didn't think it was slow at all for 2.5 hrs. All production values were good, too.

One negative, and i guess it could be the reason some of the people that hated it, is that the actors are all famous, and Australian, British, etc. I wouldn't say their accents were horrible, it's just that most viewers are going into the movie knowing how jude law, nicole kidman, charley hunnam (sp?) speak. Minghella couldn't have made a better film unless he got unknown actors, and if he did that, he probably couldn't have gotten the film made.

For what its worth, I have grown to dislike Renee Z. over the past couple years, but her performance in Cold Mountain was exceptional. I would be surprised if she didn't win an Oscar for it.

Yeah, Renee's performance was really interesting to me. I have to admit I'm not fond of her particularly -- her Jerry Maguire performance is probably the only one that's really emotionally engaged me -- but from a technical perspective, she's done some pretty amazing work in the past 3-4 years between Bridget Jones' Diary, Chicago and now this. Shown a lot of range. Her take on Ruby wasn't at all like I'd pictured the charater from the book, and at first it was almost like a parody of a hillbilly, but I really grew to like it and it worked very well for the film. I think this might be her year too for a supporting actress Oscar.

Renee Zellweger is really great here. But the movie as a whole left me really wanting more. I didn't buy the romance. I thought there were so many cameos it was detrimental to the story. This was a movie about the Civil War. Where were the black people?

I think I saw 3 of African descent...

Liked it, but didn't love it. As is so often said, the book was better. Zellweger was good, but a bit over the top. Kidman and Law were competent, but they never disappeared into their characters--you were always aware that you were watching Movie Stars.

It never really acquired the emotional momentum it should have. Even the ending, which should have been a real tear jerker, fell a little flat.

I was very hesitant about going to see this - I'll admit the trailers aren't very appealling, particularly for Renee's performance. Well, I gave in and am happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised. **** out *****. Great Cast, Great Cinematography.

The movie did start out a little slow, but picked up some steam and moved along nicely until the conclusion. I thought this was an amazing cast, with great performances by Zellweger, Portman, Gleeson and Hoffman. Baker, Law and Kidman were also solid. Zellweger came across badly in the previews, but I was very impressed by her performance and won't be surprised to see her bring home some hardware for a job well done. She was very amusing, as was Hoffman. Portman's little role and her performance were welcome. Gleeson is good in anything you put him in. Ribisi was his usual goofy, off-the-wall self. Nice to see Cillian Murphy and Jack White, too. I was surprised to see Charlie Hunman from Undeclared as Teague's albino.

Nicole Kidman does look gorgeous in the snow - love her w/ the long, blonde hair.

This film was beautifully shot - comparable to Master and Commander.

Yeah, the accents weren't great, and inconsistent at best, but after a while I didn't even notice them anymore.

Again, I was a doubter and this film made a believer out of me - maybe I will go rent the English Patient sometime this winter.

:up: to Minghella

I was going to write a review, but this pretty much sums up what I have to say, so I am just going to piggy back on javanut's comment. The only thing I will add is that it really can't be overstated just how much I didn't buy the romance. I got nothing off those two at all. It really amplified just how cold this movie left me, Renee aside.

Word. I think it's a very respectable film, but I certainly think there are more enjoyable/better things to see.

Cold Mountain did seem to ignore the issue of slavery. It seemed like more of a war between the North and South, between a strong federal government and state rights, respectively. I didn't necessarily think this was a bad move. After all, it wasn't just because of slavery that caused the Union to go to war against the Confederates.

I finally saw this. It was beautifully shot and well acted, but it left me cold as well. As my wife sat there sobbing away I just looked down at my watch. I was completely emotionally disingaged from this film. It's like everyone who has a speaking line has something terrible happen to them in the next scene. I just stopped caring after a while. I guess that's how the book is as well and there really isn't much Minghalla can do about that. Still you don't digest a book in one sitting, and as a film, it was just too much.

BTW I think one of the main reasons ROTK has the inside Oscar track is that it's maybe the only front runner that doesn't have a major downer feeling to it.

Maybe not as depressing, but ROTK is plenty high on the melancholia scale; there is no 'fairy tale' a.k.a. "Happily Ever After" ending. I also don't happen to think that the Academy always goes for the 'happiest' film, or that they should. A film's seriousness alone doesn't give it any particular merit.

I am planning to see Cold Mountain at some point, even if not theatrically. But I have a feeling that if it cleans up with nominations and awards many people are going to assume that the A.M.P.A.S. are completely Harvey W.'s bitches.

I'm not saying ROTK is the "feel good movie of the year" or anything. And yes, the Academy isn't always giving out awards to the happiest film. But if you are sitting at your desk, staring at a ballot that has, say, Cold Mountain, House of Sand and Fog, Mystic River, 21 Grams and ROTK on it, I think the emotionally satisfying ROTK might have the inside edge in that case.

It's a pretty thin pack of Oscar worthy films this year.

I think ROTK's emotional impact come from sacrifice made in the service of friendship, but it didn't make all that much impression upon me afterwards (i.e. I didn't have much to chew on afterwards). Cold Mountain's emotional impact is undercut from a premise that seems more fantastical than almost anything in ROTK: Can the all-too-brief spark of attraction/love/lust sustain both Ada and Inman in that 4 years of trying to make it back to one another? For many, that aspect of the film doesn't work (I bought most of it, so it worked for me) and contributes to the lack of "greatness/depth" of this particular love story with the Civil War as the historical backdrop.

Just saw this and wow I am overwhelmed at the great response this is getting from DVDTalkers. Much like the horribly pretentious We Were Soldiers this movie plain sucked. Let's start by saying the pacing was awful. The movie starts out ok, but then about an hour through it becomes a parody of itself. I thought I was supposed to take this seriously, but then all of a sudden there's toilet humor. The dialogue was atrocious. It attempted to be Shakespeare but the words just never came out right. The plot was horribly cliched and predictable. The movie took itself way too seriously (which is fine, btw) but it never delivered what it promised. This movie made Last Samurai and Gangs of NY look like masterpieces. You're supposed to like this film because of the cast and director, but don't be fooled. I expected more out of an "Oscar Contender".

Quite a pleasant surprise for me: clean narrative lines, beautifully photographed, well focused script that doesn't overplay the Civil War context, enjoyable performances (though Jack White seems as out of place as Bob Dylan in Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, complete with goofy headwear). I can't rate the southern accents, but two critics I read (both from the south, one specifically Alabama) were particularly enamored by them. And after listening to the accents in Big Fish earlier that day, Cold Mountain's dialogue sounded absolutely tuneful.

Kind of like my opinion in all honesty. ;)