RSS

38. Pelle the Conqueror (1988)

12 Feb


Roger’s Original Rating :
Thumbs down

Should be :

Somewhere between December 21, 1988 and March 3, 1989 Roger came to really like Pelle the Conqueror. In his At the Movies review Roger gave the movie a Thumbs Down. In his later written review Roger gave it 3 1/2 stars.
In his At the Movies review Roger said he didn’t think he could give it a recommendation because it “was really predictable from beginning to end. Once every character is set up you know more or less what is going to happen to them. I mean, we’ve seen these kinds of pictures before in which little boys grow up in ways that are sometimes painful because of the evil adults in their life.. ” He also said it was “moving very slowly and it took a very long time to get to the end.” He said “Max Von Sydow was terrific in the role but I wasn’t really challenged to get involved and engaged in it.”
In his written review a couple of months later he liked the movie much more. He said “Von Sydow’s work in the film has been honored with an Academy Award nomination for best actor, well deserved, particularly after a distinguished career in which he stood at the center of many of Ingmar Bergman’s greatest films (The Virgin Spring, The Seventh Seal). But there is not a bad performance in the movie, and the newcomer, Pelle Hvenegaard, never steps wrong in the title role (there is poetic justice in the fact that he actually was named after the novel that inspired this movie). It is Pelle, not Lasse, who is really at the center of the movie, which begins when he follows his father’s dream, and ends as he realizes he must follow his own. ”
The movie has a 7.8 rating on IMDB and a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. I think Roger’s second review is good, his first is not so good.
Advertisements
 
Comments Off on 38. Pelle the Conqueror (1988)

Posted by on February 12, 2010 in Ebert's worst reviews

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: