Posts Tagged ‘adaptation’

The Road

The Road

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Another movie I really have very little to say about and of which I had relatively high expectations. I haven’t read the book on which this is based yet and (especially now I’ve seen the movie) I’m pretty sure it will be a more fulfilling experience. I felt this, more than any other problems you might find with it, was just far too long for what it ultimately shows and tells us. It could have been done a a 30- or even 15- minute short, and better. I wasn’t overawed by either Viggo Mortensen’s or the kid’s performance, I just got the idea within 15 minutes and it doesn’t develop anything new beyond that point. It’s not that I dislike a depressing filmgoing experience (I’m sure those who love the movie think this is the only reason anybody would not like it), because heaven knows I do; but I dislike movies that repeat themselves so flatly as this one does. It’s ironic that when this movie leaked on the internet initial copies had 30 minutes of footage missing. I feel like anybody who mistakenly viewed that version might’ve been the lucky ones.



The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I was surprised by the emotional path I took through this movie after hearing such a widespread lacklustre response to it elsewhere. I’d been looking forward to it for a long time, since it was announced perhaps, just the idea of Peter Jackson doing a) anything on a “smaller” scale than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong and b) something that sounded so tonally like one of my favourites of his, Heavenly Creatures. I was slightly annoyed when Saoirse Ronan was cast in a role that sounded to me (though I hadn’t, and still haven’t, read the book it’s based on) perfect for Dakota Fanning – I don’t even know now if that was a real rumour or wishful thinking from me, lol – in any case, subsequent viewings of Atonement warmed me to her as an actress.

The story’s a simple one, kind of Ghost meets What Dreams May Come: a young girl is murdered and views the aftermath from an “in-between” place between earth and heaven, both her and her family unable to move on. Thoughts of revenge are entertained, the girl able to a point to “touch” the real world and send signals to her father in particular, a boy she fell in love with shortly before the incident, and a fellow schoolgirl who has a kind of sixth sense. The movie deals with grief, loss, and moving on quite beautifully as well as adding (I’m told it’s been added in the adaptation process, anyway) a suspenseful thread of the attempt to identify and bring to justice the killer, played quite frighteningly well by Stanley Tucci.

I gave the movie 4 stars at The Auteurs site immediately after the credits rolled but thought of it as a high 4; however the more I think about it, the higher I think that should have been, I feel I’ve been affected by the strange quantity of negative reviews when I can really see nothing wrong with the movie. There’s a turn the story takes at the end where I felt the ending was going to be crushingly unsatisfying, but even that is fixed (hard to explain without spoiling things). I would put the negativity down to it merely being a bad adaptation and that all these negative opinions are coming from fans of the book but it seems too widespread for that explanation… am I the only person who saw the movie but didn’t read the book?

Maybe it’s that people measure Peter Jackson’s work now with a larger scale. I’m certainly one who tends to compare a great artist’s work with what has come before and rate relatively, but one has to remember that in addition to Heavenly Creatures and The Two Towers, he also made King Kong and The Frighteners, both of which this far outweighs. Maybe it’s just that there have been so many great movies and “must-see” movies in the past year and this one drew the short straw. It goes into my favourites, anyway. Saoirse Ronan is phenomenally haunting in the lead, the visual effects used to portray the in-between a really pleasant surprise (it’s not really much “smaller” in these sections than we’re accustomed to from Jackson lol), and there are other notable supporting performances from the likes of Rose McIver (a Power Ranger, I’ve just read, making her all the more impressive here!) as the girl’s sister, a quite mesmerizing turn by Rachel Weisz as her mother. It is a beautifully haunting, sad, yet ultimately strangely uplifting movie that I look forward to seeing again, perhaps after reading the book. I really don’t understand the underwhelming response elsewhere.



Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Scrooge – A Christmas Carol [1951]

Monday, January 4th, 2010

My second review of an adaptation of this book this year and I’m afraid I’m going to come out sounding like a bit of a Scrooge myself. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading a month or more, I didn’t much like Robert Zemeckis’ new 3D animated version, especially not it’s last third. Since writing that review I saw the Muppet version for the umpteenth time and James Cameron’s Avatar in 3D, which collectively made me think even less of Zemeckis’ take not only on Dickens’ novel but also on 3D and motion/performance-capture cinema. So, we come to this, the one which Mark Kermode mentions glowingly on his show every Christmas (he likes the Muppet one too, it must be said) as being one of the best.

I don’t know what to say. I tried reading the original book again this year and stopped after the first ghost because I just know it too well. While one can’t deny that this is probably one of the greatest stories ever told, there’s just something after so many tellings that feels like all the energy and creativity in the storytelling has been snuffed out. I find myself turning to the more out-there versions, Scrooged, The Muppets, because all the nobler, “accurate” adaptations just feel like painting by numbers… almost like going to a very, very boring church, just point by point like an upmarket school nativity.

This is a version I’ll watch much sooner again than Zemeckis’ (if only because, for shame, this particular viewing was of the Five broadcast colorized version – I’ll likely get the Blu-ray for next year and give it a fighting chance). I was surprised by just how much I thought invented in Zemeckis’ version was not only present here but, when I looked back, actually in Dickens’ own words to begin with. I’d prefer Bill Murray or The Muppets and Paul Williams’ songs any day, though, and it’s Christmas so I really don’t care how that makes me sound :-P



Wuthering Heights [1970]

Wuthering Heights [1970]

Monday, September 7th, 2009

This is kind of infuriating to write about. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite novels, a fact that’s kind of more impressive when I remember that I was introduced to it at school by an English teacher I frankly didn’t like that much at the time (I have since forgiven him, he did afterall introduce me to the book and also Suzanne Vega and Bob Dylan’s music). This was one of the versions of the story I hadn’t yet seen so I put it on as part of a little season of Wuthering Heights around Emily Brontë‘s birthdate. And at first I found myself mesmerized.

Though Timothy Dalton’s quite elfin features at this time don’t quite lend themselves to the Heathcliff I have always pictured, this is far and away the best looking, and second best (sorry, Michel Legrand, Ryuichi’s 1992 score just beats yours) sounding Wuthering Heights film I have ever seen. And YET!

It’s bad enough that almost all Wuthering Heights adaptations stop in the middle of the book, only telling half the story; but this is a fact I have come to accept. Here, however, they go one step further in trying to offer, I guess, some kind of closure at this point. I’m not even going to issue spoiler warnings because you should in my opinion go into this movie knowing what they’re about to do. Hindley shoots Heathcliff at the end, lol. Considering how wonderful the rest of the production is, this really does make it one of the worst endings I have ever seen. It’s so disappointing.



Alice Through the Looking Glass [1998]

Alice Through the Looking Glass [1998]

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

I really cringed at the start of this, I’d been looking forward to it ever since mid-May when I started reading the two books by Lewis Carroll and it happened to be on TV early one morning. I decided to save it till I’d actually finished the second book, though. First of all, obviously, Kate Beckinsale at 25 is way too old to be Alice. But that in itself didn’t worry me – I loved, for example, Fiona Fullerton in the Seventies version of the first book (okay, she wasn’t quite so much older, but she was still no pre-teen). What made me cringe is that she’s presented here at first as a mother reading the Looking Glass story to her daughter (who, incidentally, is far more suited to the Alice role though you don’t really get a great sense of her acting ability).

But despite the inexplicable bookending (which, I’ve gotta say, even that’s saved by Beckinsale calling the little girl “Humpty” in the end like Alice in the book calls Dinah, though it doesn’t have the same tight connection to Humpty’s line about looking upon a King, re: “a cat may look at a King” from the first book – sorry, can you tell I’ve been reading the annotated version much? lol), and despite the at times awfully cheap and shaky TV production values, this is stunningly faithful to the text – in fact to the point where I genuinely wonder who it was made for. Virtually none of the nonsense and talk is diluted, and it’s a kind of blessing and curse at the same time.

But whether I enjoyed it or not (the jury may still be out), it still deserves a lot of respect – and that it even ends on that mesmerising acrostic (“A boat beneath a sunny sky … Still she haunts me phantomwise … In a Wonderland they lie, Dreaming as the days go by, Dreaming as the summers die … life, what is it but a dream?” – I’m absolutely crazy about this poem right now), read alternately by Beckinsale and the little girl, really almost made me want to go and read the book again.



Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Monday, May 5th, 2008

“The me I never knew
Begin to stir sometime this morning;
The me I never knew
Appeared without a word of warning.”

I’d forgotten entirely how this version, too, replicates that “golden afternoon” feeling at the start so well, also that it begins in such a fashion in a framing device of “Mr. Dodgson” (Lewis Carroll) telling the three Liddell sisters the story. All bonus points in my book.

What I always remember about the movie are the songs, John Barry’s score, and Fiona Fullerton, who is absolutely beautiful in the central role – I don’t care what people say about her being too old for it, she’s young enough in spirit and appearance for me. The visual effects, it bears repeating from below, I still find absolutely stunning. The slow shrinking over “Curiouser and Curiouser”, ending with the trackback to reveal the pool of tears, is simply perfect, as is the later growing in the White Rabbit’s house.

It’s certainly still my favourite adaptation (so far). It also has the benefit (I think – as I’ve said in other Alice reviews today I only discovered this past week) of being one of the few to focus solely on the first book (hence the title, presumably).

September 8th, 2005:

This movie has a beautiful look to it, the kind they simply don’t do anymore, all foggy and mysterious like The Water Babies, not slick and perfect like today’s fantasy adventures. There’s some great music by John Barry (slightly dodgy lyrics by Don Black though) and an enchanting performance by then 16-year-old Fiona Fullerton as Alice. What’s most wonderful about the whole thing is its infectious innocence. The cast is packed with stars, from Peter Sellers to Spike Milligan and Michael Crawford, if you can recognise them under all the make-up. The effects are flawless, too. For a 90 minute movie, it tires towards the end, but overall it’s a fairly fantastic adaptation.



Alice in Wonderland [1951]

Alice in Wonderland [1951]

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Of course, as the Disney version, this is the best-known, most-loved, most stylised and standardised of all the adaptations. As far as I know, it was likely my only source of the story for a good chunk of my life, and by that I mean, I don’t even remember reading or being read the book (sniff lol): I only realised this past week reading the first of the books that parts of this and the other adaptations, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee for example, were in fact taken from “Through the Looking Glass” which I’ve yet to read. In this version, in fact, they even pull in a couple of elements from Carroll’s “Jabberwocky”, as well as throwing in some genuinely clever characters and lines of their own (“You gave me quite a turn!” “She’s stark raven mad!”) … all in 70 minutes. I still prefer the Fiona Fullerton version by a smidgen, and who knows what Tim Burton’s going to deliver, but this is one of Disney’s best, it’s eyepoppingly colourful particularly when you consider the year it was made, and the character designs etc certainly stick in one’s memory.



Alice in Wonderland [1966]

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

This one is fascinating – another TV production, this time by the BBC for the “Wednesday Play” series, and boy does that show: the word “pretentious” certainly comes to mind but I for one won’t be using it because this is one of the best adaptations of the book that I’ve yet seen. It begins by perfectly recreating the part of the story that has always been the most strongly evocative part to me: the simple, lazy image of Alice and her sister on the bank on a hazy Summer afternoon (“All in a golden afternoon …”). From there it launches into some of the most surreal, dreamlike progressions I’ve ever seen on film. It captures some part of the book that few other adaptations would dare. Through clever editing, it’s the closest and most prolonged replica of the dream experience I’ve seen.

I wouldn’t have thought it, as I’m quite attached to the innocent and gracious image of Alice in the blue dress with blonde hair in a bow etc, but I quite like this Hermione-haired, black-dressed, aloof version as played by Anne-Marie Mallik, too; I love how she’s always walking away from people with a “hmph!” flick of her hair. The look she almost gives the camera as the caucus-race “winners” gather around uttering, “prizes, prizes, prizes”, quite like zombies droning, “brains”, lol, is quite priceless, it’s the look of a person bemused by the herd-like behaviours of society.

In short, what it lacks in colour, effects, costumes and comprehensiveness, it makes up for entirely with the feeling it gives by the extraordinary stillness, both in the image and in the soundtrack, Mallik’s whispery distant voiceover, and that very BBC “Play for Today” type score (excepting the odd moment when it, like the imagery, goes a little mental). At 70 minutes, there’s no excuse to pass up the chance to see it.