This movie is lying
About pretty much everything
share[deleted]
I dont know where you have your information from, but the film depicts the austrians as some kind of villain which they really were not. At least Argo was a good an thrilling film, this is just melodramatic crap.
share[deleted]
Figures the reviews...
share[deleted]
whats even sadder is people backlashing a career while sitting infront of a computer 24/7 doing nothing but complain. i would like you to see write a proper review and get chosen to work at the new yor times. yeah, esauer said than done. Critics chose their job, because belive it or not, they are competent writers with kmowledge about movies. not all of them, but there is a bunch.
just accept that this movie is riddled with cliches. the classic underground story, with our rookie (reynolds) suceeding at the end. My daily newspaper made a whole articel about how the whole movie is basically portraying everything from a primitive kind of view. there are a lot of things wrong with it but someone like you just has to learn to accept that.
Face it, you are owned on this thread. You said the film is lying and you are completely wrong. Now you are trying to avoid that by changing the subject to say it's filled with cliches. Even if this is the case, the cliches are the true aspects of the story. But you are wrong about it being lies, and you won't admit it.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
I have read the book Lady in Gold by a respected journalist and I can say this movie is one of the most faithful and truthful film adaptations of any historical event. What some people call clichés actually happened, such as the young lawyer Randy telling the judge he didn't understand the first question. (Nobody else did either!) The escape of Maria and her husband in 1938 is changed slightly for dramatic effect, but that is all I could find. If the OP is claiming lies, why doesn't the semi-literate OP provide some examples? Or a link to this oh so insightful local article? Movie critics tend to be a cynical lot, but I did not read any reviews which questioned the veracity of the story itself. OP, if you are going to present an argument, facts are helpful. Otherwise you just come off as an idiot and I wouldn't want to call anyone an idiot. (A not-so-bright kid once complained to me that a boy called her the "e" word. Puzzled, I said whisper it in my ear. "He called me an "e-diot". True story). OP if English is your 2nd or 3rd language, sorry for questioning your pathetic literary abilities.
shareWhat literary abilities? I think they are perfectly fine, being only 18 years old and already able to speak 5 languages is not bad, also I don't see any reason why you would bring that up, my english is on par with a nativespeaker. The article is in german. It listed each year with the incidents that happened in said year. Those were facts. It also talked about how the screenwriter didn't do a lot of research and basically came up with a lot of stuff that happens in the movie and choses an exact side where the movie stands. Its not very objectife and therfore comes across a bit one sided. I would link you the article if i find it, however as i said before, it is in german
shareI'm not wrong do some research idiot. There was a whole article about it
shareEverything I have read indicates the movie was true to the facts. Here is just one example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/reich/ct-woman-gold-reflections-20150404-column.html#page=1
In fact, searching on "Woman in Gold accuracy" doesn't yield any link to a source that says the movie is lying, especially about "pretty much everything" as you claim. The onus is on YOU to provide a link to substantiate your claim. That's the convention on the internet when you want people to believe what you say.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Yes I may have overreacted but heres the link anyway:
http://mobil.derstandard.at/2000016549464/Die-Frau-in-Gold-Faktentreue-ist-eine-schlechte-Dramaturgin
sackofwhine, your English is not bad for a fifth language, better than my high school German, so humour us and enlighten us bitte on some of the major "lies" in the film. I see a lot of references to court dates after 1998. The heart of the movie is what happened in 1938. Did you read the article in English from the Chicago Tribune? Is that also lying? If you give some examples of "lies", we can debate like grownups. Danke.
shareI don't know German. I used a translator, and frankly sackofwhine, I don't see what supposed lies are pointed out by this article. One thing it says is that the real Randol Scholberg was not as smart as depicted in the movie. Who's to say?
The other thing I got out of it was it complains that the restitution info, that the portrait of Adele was sold for $135 Million, was shown in text at the end of the movie. The article then goes on to say that Scholberg received 40% of that as his compensation, and it looks like it says that he used the $ to make a large donation to the LA holocaust museum.
The last paragraph (before the timeline) says that the other four Klimts were sold for $192.7 Million, and Scholberg benefitted from these sales, not Maria Altmann.
All of this is interesting info if true, but what exactly did the movie lie about? There may be limitations of the translator and there were other pieces of info I couldn't make out, but I saw NOTHING in their article that alleges the movie lied. sackofwhine, we are still waiting.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
http://mobil.derstandard.at/2000016549464/Die-Frau-in-Gold-Faktentreue-ist-eine-schlechte-Dramaturgin
The article - from an Austrian liberal newspaper, which might explain the Hollywood vitriol ^^ - sinply states that the true facts do not make good drama. Which is not true of course, but it's a free world, where 18-year-olds act as if they are the main authorities on things..;-)
The major difference is that it was Hubertus Czernin who found and wrote about the documents before contacting the survivors with the info, he did not learn about his father until shortly before his death in 2006, at 50, so portrayed as a much younger man in the film.
Maria Altmann had 4 children.
'Smarter' in German has a different meaning than in English, more in the line of good-looking, worldly, suave...
I can understand why the paper takes issue with the originator-facts being left out/dramatised incorrectly, although the tone of the article is slightly sarcastic/arrogant, but hey, it's Austrian, haha...
Somehow convenient that Hubertus Czernin is dead and cannot complain... and yet I do not think he would have minded that much, having read the interview which is linked below the article. What he says about the Austrian officials involved is EXACTLY as portrayed in the film, and he prefers the painting to be in New York, saying that there, probably more Austrians will see it than in Vienna, haha.
Two documentaries are linked about the case, for anyone interested:
http://www.stealingklimt.com/
http://www.adeleswish.com/
I had more issues with Helen Mirren's accent, which was not correct, she should have had an accent like Dr Ruth Westheimer, know what I mean? And, while they used some German actors, they used more who spoke German with an accent - from all over Europe for all I could make out... - and, like in The Book Thief, that is just very irritating when you are able to discern that. But the good acting helped to not be irritated too much...
All in all an enjoyable, not too moralistic film imo.
You gotta take everything you read with a grain of salt. One local city newspaper article may not always be the most accurate. Did you see the Korea Times Newspaper that said the "Chicago Bears won the Stanley Cup?"
Look at more than one resource and cross-reference them. There are many different resources and references that support this movie's facts and timeline. In fact, it is extremely accurate for the most part. You can even look up the Supreme court proceedings and transcripts if you are inclined to do so.
Nonsense. If you compare it to the real events, the depiction in the movie was very close in every respect.
Unlike crap movies such as Argo, in which 85% of it was made up b.s. which wasn't what happened at all. (When that piece of garbage won an Oscar for "Best Picture", it blew the last thin shred of credibility those bogus awards had left. They're nothing but a really bad joke.)
(Well SOMEBODY has to say it!)
Great post.
I thought the film was relatively accurate & plausible. Above all, Mirren's performance was brilliant. share