Login
Still not satisfied with Daniel Radcliffe performance. He has to come out from the character Harry Potter. He must lose his eye glass and try to give natural expressions. He has to learn a lot to be a great actor in this competitive cinema world or downfall is guaranteed.
It was a good story, but Radcliffe ruined it in few occasions. He tried his best in many parts, I liked his hard work and execution. I though Dane DeHaan tried to stir whole ship by himself behalf of his co-stars, but his role was not built well. Because the story was told from Radcliffe perspective. Yeah, it is the fact that Dane DeHaan saved the movie as much he could.
It was based on a real person and a gay theme. The story sets in the 40s where two students in the English major in Columbia university try to revolutionise the future literacy with their unique ideas. The efforts are made, but stuck in a confused relationship that harms everything in front of them.
As based on homosexual from an earlier era, it was presented well. Kept background secrets of a character to break in at a right time of the story. Initially the title explains its meaning, but as the story progress it becomes more reality. I feel bad to blame everything on Radcliffe but I know someday I gonna praise him with my full heart. I was saying that it would have been nice if his role was given to some other actors like Andrew Garfield or Freddie Highmore. That means it is not a red signal to skip this movie, believe me it is a good movie.
7/10
