<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Painted Veil</title>
	<atom:link href="http://illinformedgadfly.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142</link>
	<description>Movie Reviews by Ben Nuckols</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-3683</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-3683</guid>
		<description>I'm surprised at how much vitriol this review has generated. In response to the second comment: I didn't read the novel! I thought I made that clear. I don't WANT to read the novel now, but then after all the flak I've gotten, perhaps I should. I hope Maugham at least has an engaging prose style. But the structure of the story, which I assume emerges intact from Maugham, bored me silly.

By the way, I wonder: Did any of this movie's defenders see the trailer? It gave away absolutely everything that happens, including (SPOILER!) Walter's death. Not that I would have been surprised without that tidy little two-minute story outline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised at how much vitriol this review has generated. In response to the second comment: I didn&#8217;t read the novel! I thought I made that clear. I don&#8217;t WANT to read the novel now, but then after all the flak I&#8217;ve gotten, perhaps I should. I hope Maugham at least has an engaging prose style. But the structure of the story, which I assume emerges intact from Maugham, bored me silly.</p>
<p>By the way, I wonder: Did any of this movie&#8217;s defenders see the trailer? It gave away absolutely everything that happens, including (SPOILER!) Walter&#8217;s death. Not that I would have been surprised without that tidy little two-minute story outline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steandric</title>
		<link>http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-3631</link>
		<dc:creator>steandric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-3631</guid>
		<description>Obviously you don't like this film because you don't like the novel. From the over 100 critics' reviews that I've read and my 3 viewings so far of the film, this is the best of the 3 adaptations, and of course, as far as acting is concerned, there is no comparison from the previous 2 films. I think you've not done justice to this excellent film and the great performances of its actors (Watts and Norton) by reviewing the film under the shadow of a personal dislike of the novel ie. your review is baised and skrewed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously you don&#8217;t like this film because you don&#8217;t like the novel. From the over 100 critics&#8217; reviews that I&#8217;ve read and my 3 viewings so far of the film, this is the best of the 3 adaptations, and of course, as far as acting is concerned, there is no comparison from the previous 2 films. I think you&#8217;ve not done justice to this excellent film and the great performances of its actors (Watts and Norton) by reviewing the film under the shadow of a personal dislike of the novel ie. your review is baised and skrewed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-2214</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=142#comment-2214</guid>
		<description>they knew that it would appeal only to an art-house audience.  they also knew that, regardless of what you say, that watts's character was probably the most complicated she had ever played--much more than the simpleton she played in mulholland dr, which many have compared to her performance in the painted veil.  

obviously if you don't like this type of literature (or merchant-ivory) you would not appreciate this.  but watts proved she is the most expressive actress in film today.  but no...this is not an action film.   at least you admitted she was an emotional powerhouse.  &#38; it is one of the 10best.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>they knew that it would appeal only to an art-house audience.  they also knew that, regardless of what you say, that watts&#8217;s character was probably the most complicated she had ever played&#8211;much more than the simpleton she played in mulholland dr, which many have compared to her performance in the painted veil.  </p>
<p>obviously if you don&#8217;t like this type of literature (or merchant-ivory) you would not appreciate this.  but watts proved she is the most expressive actress in film today.  but no&#8230;this is not an action film.   at least you admitted she was an emotional powerhouse.  &amp; it is one of the 10best.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
