Half an hour in and the inaccuracy is astonishing. Enjoy this if you !Ike but forget about it being history. "inspired by historical events" is about as close as you can get. And yet the facts are dramatic, dynamic, suspenseful - all the makings of a great plot. If only the makers of this had used them
Reviews
5 Reviews
Brideshead Revisited
(2008)
Brideshead ReWorked
17 November 2008
I'll say at the start that I am passionately devoted to the novel and to the 1981 Granada adaptation, and I came to this film expecting to dislike it and scoff at how badly it had been done. To my surprise I had to admit at the end that there were points of interest that I will carry with me when I next re-read the novel and when I next watch the TV adaptation again.
The languor of the novel is by necessity completely removed and the central theme of nostalgia is so severely cut back I wonder if it works at all for someone who doesn't have any familiarity with the original work. The relationships between the characters bear very little resemblance to the novel, changing the plot so radically I only reluctantly accept any suggestion of superficial similarity. The minor characters are not developed at all and don't serve their original purpose, and possibly not much other purpose either. And sadly the humour is almost entirely stripped away.
However there were some touches that I found intriguing and which have given me food for thought. Sebastian's paranoia. Lady Marchmain's creepiness. Charles' conflict between Sebastian and Julia. Lord Marchmain as fun and young-at-heart. Charles' obsession with the house, which despite my love for and immersion in the novel over some 27 years I still hadn't picked up on before.
The cast was excellent and saved this film. Without Emma Thompson, Michael Gambon and the glorious Patrick Malahide this film would have earned all my pre-conceived scoffing and sneering. I disagree with the earlier poster who said if you love the novel and the 1981 series then you can skip this. I could quote you pages of the text from memory and yet, in the context of the novel and understanding and enjoying it, this film was thought-provoking and spotlighted some aspects which I will enjoy exploring further. If you allow the film to be different it becomes more enjoyable, and you may then be surprised, as I was, to discover that despite its differences it can still illuminate the novel and the previous adaptation.
As to whether the film stands on its own, I'm not sure. The plot and characterisation have been so cut back they may be too thin. The setting is fully developed and if you like period pieces, this isn't too bad although there are so many that are better. The novel and the miniseries need an investment of time you may not be prepared to give, but I suggest that perhaps this film will give you a way into enjoying the novel afterwards to get a richer, deeper experience.
The languor of the novel is by necessity completely removed and the central theme of nostalgia is so severely cut back I wonder if it works at all for someone who doesn't have any familiarity with the original work. The relationships between the characters bear very little resemblance to the novel, changing the plot so radically I only reluctantly accept any suggestion of superficial similarity. The minor characters are not developed at all and don't serve their original purpose, and possibly not much other purpose either. And sadly the humour is almost entirely stripped away.
However there were some touches that I found intriguing and which have given me food for thought. Sebastian's paranoia. Lady Marchmain's creepiness. Charles' conflict between Sebastian and Julia. Lord Marchmain as fun and young-at-heart. Charles' obsession with the house, which despite my love for and immersion in the novel over some 27 years I still hadn't picked up on before.
The cast was excellent and saved this film. Without Emma Thompson, Michael Gambon and the glorious Patrick Malahide this film would have earned all my pre-conceived scoffing and sneering. I disagree with the earlier poster who said if you love the novel and the 1981 series then you can skip this. I could quote you pages of the text from memory and yet, in the context of the novel and understanding and enjoying it, this film was thought-provoking and spotlighted some aspects which I will enjoy exploring further. If you allow the film to be different it becomes more enjoyable, and you may then be surprised, as I was, to discover that despite its differences it can still illuminate the novel and the previous adaptation.
As to whether the film stands on its own, I'm not sure. The plot and characterisation have been so cut back they may be too thin. The setting is fully developed and if you like period pieces, this isn't too bad although there are so many that are better. The novel and the miniseries need an investment of time you may not be prepared to give, but I suggest that perhaps this film will give you a way into enjoying the novel afterwards to get a richer, deeper experience.
Rag Tale
(2005)
Not all bad
8 February 2008
I enjoyed it actually.
The camera-work was shocking. Truly terrible. It gave me a headache after a few minutes.
That aside, I thought the acting was good, the pace of the dialogue worked, there was (contrary to the other comments on here) a reasonable plot, I found the banter quite funny.
The ending, after the twist, probably wasn't necessary - the explanation of how the twist happened reduced its impact for me. The conversation about the photos was poignant though, they should have just gone with that.
My main problem was JJL - she just wasn't convincing. Replace her with someone else, and you'd have a much better film.
The camera-work was shocking. Truly terrible. It gave me a headache after a few minutes.
That aside, I thought the acting was good, the pace of the dialogue worked, there was (contrary to the other comments on here) a reasonable plot, I found the banter quite funny.
The ending, after the twist, probably wasn't necessary - the explanation of how the twist happened reduced its impact for me. The conversation about the photos was poignant though, they should have just gone with that.
My main problem was JJL - she just wasn't convincing. Replace her with someone else, and you'd have a much better film.
Alexandra's Project
(2003)
Instantly forgettable
27 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I acknowledge all the people who say you'll love it or hate it, and I'm glad some people got some enjoyment out of it. I tried really hard to like it, and I will say straight up that the acting and cinematography was excellent. But the plot was just too weak.
I can't see how this is a feminist film as it shows the woman in such a poor, vindictive, pathetic light. She had to video all her thoughts and revenge because she can't tell him to his face because he "talks over her." Poor sweetie. She doesn't explain why she married him in the first place or what happened to the love she felt or why she waited so long to tell him. She doesn't recognise that her attempt to remove the children from his life treats them the way she blames him for treating her, ie ignoring their opinion and desires and ignoring the fact that they are perfectly capable of doing something about this themselves, either now or when they are older.
So this is a man's idea of how a woman would behave if she was unhappily married and could wreak whatever revenge she likes, eh? Riiiiiiiiiight.
I can't see how this is a feminist film as it shows the woman in such a poor, vindictive, pathetic light. She had to video all her thoughts and revenge because she can't tell him to his face because he "talks over her." Poor sweetie. She doesn't explain why she married him in the first place or what happened to the love she felt or why she waited so long to tell him. She doesn't recognise that her attempt to remove the children from his life treats them the way she blames him for treating her, ie ignoring their opinion and desires and ignoring the fact that they are perfectly capable of doing something about this themselves, either now or when they are older.
So this is a man's idea of how a woman would behave if she was unhappily married and could wreak whatever revenge she likes, eh? Riiiiiiiiiight.
The World's Fastest Indian
(2005)
Surprising gem
24 October 2005
I saw this film on a plane - I know, I know, the worst place to see any kind of film - and thought I would just fall asleep as I didn't expect it to catch my interest enough to put up with the bad audio and small screens. In any case I dislike feel-good movies, and all the Kiwi-innovator stuff makes me cringe, Kiwis don't have the monopoly on being resourceful. And I'd never heard of Burt Munro. So I was surprised to find within a few minutes I was entranced.
Anthony Hopkins has made a brilliant job of the role, his accent wasn't too bad, and I loved the way he said "Invercarrrrrrgill". Hopkins' talent really shone - without him saying a word or changing his expression, you just knew how Burt felt when confronted by an apparently insurmountable obstacle (I won't spoil it) and his placid acceptance of the inevitable falls, tumbles and injuries told you that for Burt these were a fact of life. The other cast were also flawless, for me there wasn't a weak point in any of the acting. The humour was delivered in the main by Hopkins and with the lightest possible touch. The cinematography was beautiful and conveyed the journey from long quiet light of Munro's idealism in Invercargill, murky 'orribleness of the necessary evil of passing through LA and laying your dream on the line in the harsh open glare of Utah.
Hopkins has done a few of these slightly-disreputable, love-em-when-you-get-to-know-em characters but this is the best. And I'm not a motorcycle fan, and no Kiwi-made-good fan, but I will confess to a tear (almost) at the end when the text came up about Burt's unbeaten record.
If you watch this film at home you won't want to be disturbed by other people talking - you'll want to catch every word, every nuance.
Anthony Hopkins has made a brilliant job of the role, his accent wasn't too bad, and I loved the way he said "Invercarrrrrrgill". Hopkins' talent really shone - without him saying a word or changing his expression, you just knew how Burt felt when confronted by an apparently insurmountable obstacle (I won't spoil it) and his placid acceptance of the inevitable falls, tumbles and injuries told you that for Burt these were a fact of life. The other cast were also flawless, for me there wasn't a weak point in any of the acting. The humour was delivered in the main by Hopkins and with the lightest possible touch. The cinematography was beautiful and conveyed the journey from long quiet light of Munro's idealism in Invercargill, murky 'orribleness of the necessary evil of passing through LA and laying your dream on the line in the harsh open glare of Utah.
Hopkins has done a few of these slightly-disreputable, love-em-when-you-get-to-know-em characters but this is the best. And I'm not a motorcycle fan, and no Kiwi-made-good fan, but I will confess to a tear (almost) at the end when the text came up about Burt's unbeaten record.
If you watch this film at home you won't want to be disturbed by other people talking - you'll want to catch every word, every nuance.
Tell Your Friends