OK, we just finished seeing this movie for the second time. I can't say that I love it, exactly, but I definitely find it intriguing. Here are some random comments.
If you've already seen Martin Freeman as, say, Tim Canterbury and John Watson, you're probably already impressed by his ability to give distinctly different performances -- but although I see certain common characteristics (for example, Rembrandt is sometimes gentle, playful, and vulnerable, so a bit like Tim in that regard), Rembrandt is a very different character, and the movie is well worth watching for Freeman's performance alone.
Judging by customer reviews and other internet comments, one might think the movie consists primarily of nudity and sex, but that's so far from the truth that I almost wonder if everyone saw the same movie! Yes, there is some nudity, but all within the context of the story (i.e., not gratuitous) and (in my opinion) not at all in-your-face. Unless I've lost count, there are three sex scenes, all fairly brief, and all crucial to showing Rembrandt's relationships to the women in his life. They are somewhat graphic, but matter-of-fact rather than in-your-face. Oh, and Rembrandt uses a certain amount of "bad language" (he's particularly fond of the F-word), but mostly when provoked. Admittedly, this is not the Disney version!
There are a number of babies in the cast, and some of the other actors treat them almost like props. I had heard (in the commentary for an episode of The Robinsons) that Martin Freeman enjoys working with babies, and I believe it! If there's a baby within arm's reach, Rembrandt is unobtrusively interacting with it. In one scene, for example, a baby's bonnet slips down over its face, so of course it cries. Rembrandt/Freeman casually reaches over and gently tugs the bonnet back into place.
Last edited by Carol the Dabbler (August 30, 2012 4:53 pm)
Fetchinketch wrote:
