Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

I'm rather surprised that no reviewer so far has commented on the rather elementary chess blunder in Luzhin's game as white against an unnamed opponent immediately before the final. Despite the use of Jonathan Speelman as consultant chess expert, Luzhin is shown winning the game with an illegal move. In between the rapid cuts away and back to the board it is not hard to spot that after Luzhin's combination culminating in a queen sacrifice, his rook on d1 is still pinned by black's rook at c1 against his king in the corner at h1. Thus he is unable to play the purported mating move Rd1-d8 which would be illegal - but he's shown doing so to rapturous applause from the audience.

This is part of the game or sport genre that has enjoyed commercial success over the years. Only a few eccentricities manage to differentiate this from its sibling films, yet you feel that this could have been a lot more. Especially since its an adaptation of Nabokov. But it is simple melodrama. Predictable and sentimental. It could have had edge, seeing that it is about an obsession that leads to self-destruction. But it plays it safe and unintelligent.One interesting snippet, towards the end, was when Luzhin reads a letter from Valentino attempting to manipulate him into finishing the event. Luzhin burns the letter but the voice-over continues to play. You can see that he is being consumed by his own obsession, just as the letter is being consumed by the flames. The symbolism of Luzhin's king and queen chess pieces is rather heavy handed. The opening image: the light at the end of the tunnel, was an obvious presentiment of Luzhin's death.

very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel.

This movie is frustrating because the director can't decide what type of movie to make. Should it be a love story? This approach won't work because there is little development of the relationship between hero and heroine; the hero's character is so shallow that it's hard to imagine any lady falling in love with him. Should it be a period piece? The director doesn't take advantage of the natural beauty of the northern Italian lake district. One would have hoped that at least one of the hotels would be recognizable, or that through the mist one would see some Cyrillic characters on the presumably Russian railway carriages. And where does one find a rail station without people except the principal actors? Should the movie appeal to chess enthusiasts? There is insufficient detail to appeal to them. Perhaps the movie is intended to showcase Emily Watson's beauty? Or perhaps to tell the story of the hero's obsession with chess? Rating: 4 out of 10.