Posts Tagged ‘adaptation’

Edge of Darkness

Edge of Darkness

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

It’s odd that I didn’t realise just how much I wanted to see this movie until long after its initial release.

I watched this following that second underwhelming viewing Shutter Island pretty certain I would enjoy it more, and it hooked me fast. This is a movie that launches quickly, with a gutwrenching moment between Mel Gibson and his screen daughter that made me jump out of my skin in such a way I’m not sure I’ve done since the car crash in The Forgotten. Let me say now, I’m increasingly easy pleased when a movie can still do this to me, and this one managed to do it twice in its duration.

Because of how powerful these moments of the movie were for me, it’s hard for me to talk about the story because I’d hate to spoil a similar experience that might be waiting for others. In short, this is mostly a conspiracy thriller, concentrated mainly on a kind of revenge story for Gibson’s character. If you liked him in Ransom or Payback, you will love him here, because it’s that Mel Gibson and in light of his own well documented real life personal problems (to say nothing of his latest tirade: I watched this a while before all that came out), it’s even more intense than ever in this movie. At one stage he seethes at someone, “I’m the guy who’s got nothing to lose and I don’t give a sh*t!” and boy, do you believe it. Fortunately, if being so raw onscreen again was any kind of gamble for Gibson at this stage, I feel confident in saying it pays off hugely. I personally loved (if that’s the right word) every minute of this movie – it goes as far as I believe all movies of this kind need to, with a broad corporate conspiracy line and a deeply personal cause, with Martin Campbell giving equal weight to the emotional side as he does the action – but what I’m sure no one will deny is the power of Gibson’s performance.

It was only midway through the movie that I remembered reading/hearing/being told that it was based on a 1985 BBC series which intriguingly was also directed by Campbell. I loved the idea of the story, and the idea of a director remaking his own work, so much that I got hold of and watched the entire 1985 production immediately (over a couple of days) after the credits rolled on the Gibson movie. The thing to note by comparison is that they’re really very different productions, and I find myself now I’ve seen both loving each in starkly contrasting, but equally passionate, ways. The TV series runs to nearly 6 hours. The story is very slightly different, and the flow simultaneously calmer, more procedural, but (in the last episode particularly) actually ultimately that bit crazy and surreal. I would definitely recommend the TV series to anybody who liked the movie, but I imagine it’s even more pertinent to recommend it to those who don’t like the movie at all… the TV version might be exactly what you’re looking for. Me, if I had to choose… I would have to pick the streamline plot and sheer rage of the movie… I’m not a hateful person, but when it’s so pointed and heightened as this, I can really go for it, and this one really had me rooting for the vigilante.



Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars

Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Words can’t express how much I feared this one, but I knew I would have to watch it if only so my objections could at least be informed, lol. It sat in my collection for a few months before I finally plucked up the courage (okay, I just wanted this week to get my total 2010 movie views up to 10 so I could post a list before the middle of the year… additional: I’m running about 3 weeks behind in actually posting stuff right now so that doesn’t quite make sense lol…).

The first 5 minutes surprised me. Much of the style feels drawn straight from the (in my opinion) flawless 1997 movie by Bronwyn Hughes. It feels very much like Michelle Trachtenberg’s Harriet grown up a few years. It reminds you that, actually, that treasured first film incarnation of Louise Fitzhugh’s eponymous heroine was also a modernisation of the original, which was set in time it was written, the 1960s. Then, “Spy Teen” appears. A typical, commercial, teen movie with a heartthrobby star. The fear strikes, oh no, this über-modern Harriet is surely going to fall for him and the movie’s about to collapse. But she doesn’t… it’s hate at first sight. That’s our Harriet.

And you know what? Despite my stoic expectations that at some point it would surely turn awful somehow, for the life of me I can’t say it did. Of course it’s nowhere close to the Trachtenberg movie let alone the books… and of course I’d still prefer they never even tried this version of the story at all. But given that they did try, this is about as good as they could’ve made it. They genuinely nod their head to the ’97 version, and excuse themselves for any failing in the far worse “Spy Teen” subplot. Even on the Disney TV movie level that it stands, it’s a hell of a lot better than Camp Rock or Get a Clue, etc… but more importantly it was so better than my expectations. I mean I’d actually probably watch it again. For fun.



New Moon

New Moon

Monday, July 12th, 2010

So, I forget exactly why it was I decided in the end to watch the first Twilight, but I know I would never have watched the sequel (and the next one) were it not for the unfortunate casting of Dakota Fanning (and, in the next one, Jodelle Ferland)… I may have actually physically kicked something when I first realised I would “have to” watch this. So, yeah, I didn’t exactly come to it with an open heart LOL.

There’s a scene here that to me is pretty much the whole Twilight “Saga” (please, do we really have to call it that?) in a nutshell. Even better than the fact that the first major plot point hinges on ZOMG a papercut! there is a montage following Edward’s departure that literally made me LOL. Kristen Stewart sits in a chair in the middle of a room, and the camera begins to spin around her slowly. Titles indicate the passage of months as an emo song plays and she sits there looking miserable the whole time. I might be wrong, please tell me if I am, but I think we’re actually supposed to feel something other than “PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!” about this. (I’ve since been told that this sequence appears in the novel as simply blank pages with the month names typed in the middle, which only makes it funnier…)

Later, the kids go to see a movie within the movie – titles overheard in this fictional movie theatre? “Love Spelled Backwards Is Love” and “Punch Face”. No kidding. “Drake and Josh” had better made up titles than this. DRAKE AND JOSH.

Okay, I was mostly just annoyed that I watched this for Dakota Fanning and it takes her over an hour to show up. Really: if you’re planning to watch the movie for the same reason, don’t bother. Her role is nothing here, though it looks like she might have more to do in the third (alas). And it’s far from even her most averagely half-good work. I have no clue why she thought these movies were a good idea. I don’t think I wanna know.

But there was something else that irked me… the fact that after being so annoyed by how long it took Kristen Stewart’s character in the first movie to say “you’re a vampire…”, she basically does the EXACT same thing with Jacob the werewolf this time around. At one point he actually says to her, “the killer part is you already KNOW…” like as if he might as well be asking, “Were you dropped on your head as a child?” When the penny finally drops, someone actually says, “I guess the wolf is out of the bag…” If this were a comedy it might be perfect. “So you’re a werewolf…” Bella finally twigs, “Last time I checked,” quips Jacob… “… Can’t you just, like, stop?” she asks.

But for all my bitching, I’ve gotta say, there’s a point where it slightly flips and bizarrely isn’t in the end quite as bad as Twilight. “It’s a wolf thing,” Jacob tells Bella at one point. “No, it’s a Jacob thing,” she says, “You’re like your own sun,” and I kinda got the tingles a little. But then comes the clincher, when Bella faces both her potential loves and tells them,

“Stop. You can’t hurt each other without hurting me…”

And I kinda got it. When you boil down the triangle in this series to its simplest components like that, just about everyone has a personal experience they can bring to it, and for me this line really stung. Sure, there’s still at least one more embarrassing “Twilight in a nutshell” moment to be had at this later, better stage in the movie (Michael Sheen as a mindreading vampire looks into Bella’s thoughts and sees “nothing”, LOL), but as the credits rolled I can’t deny I found myself just a little choked up, and even if that had nothing to do with the movie as a whole, it still for me makes this installment that much better than the first. But there’s still way better things to get so excited about, kids.



Shutter Island

Shutter Island

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.



Alice in Wonderland [2010]

Alice in Wonderland [2010]

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Well, here we go. Anyone who knows me or follows my Twitter or whatever will know this wasn’t in any danger of becoming one of my favourite takes on Lewis Carroll’s story, but I swear I didn’t go into it entirely closed minded.

The problems start right at the top, and again I knew this well before watching a minute of the actual movie. This simply shouldn’t carry the title “Alice in Wonderland”, and the usage is clearly a marketing decision… “Disney’s Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton” sounds like “Kerching!” right? You’ll know already perhaps that it is not the usual straight retelling of Carroll’s story but finds Alice 13 years later returning to the land of Red Queen, Mad Hatter, and White Rabbit Return to Oz/*Hook*-style etc. What you might not know is that Linda Woolverton’s screenplay has brought manic obsessive order to Carroll’s completely inconsistent nonsense land, now called Underland and populated with creatures and artefacts all of which have outrageous names, encylopedia entries and backstory.

In short, this movie not only substantially but literally removes the Wonder from Wonderland. I wish I was the kind of person who welcomed the substitution of Carroll’s imagination with Burton’s extravagant visuals but I’m not. This movie reminded me of watching Richard Kelly’s director’s cut of Donnie Darko which destroyed the original movie by telling the audience what it was supposed to mean. Everything looks as you expect from an Alice movie, the production design is up there with the best of them; but there’s such desperation to shed light on every nook and cranny, to explain everything so that your brain doesn’t have to work at all let alone a little, that even in 3D (I watched in 2D) it’s bound to come up flat to anyone who truly cares about art, to say nothing of the many fans of Carroll’s original work (it scares me, however, how many people clearly call themselves Alice fans without ever having actually read the text…)

The worst of this for me wasn’t any of this, however. The worst of it is, to my surprise, Mia Wasikowska is actually a pretty great Alice. Yes, she’s older, but we’ve covered why that is and it’s a problem all its own that isn’t limited to this production. She would’ve been a fine Alice even if they’d just told the original story age be-damned as so many Alice adaptations have (my fave, Fiona Fullerton, and the not-too-bad Kate Beckinsale Through the Looking Glass, eg). And though my love of Johnny Depp has slid with every Pirate sequel he’s added to his resumé, I didn’t find his Hatter at all as annoying as I expected (stupid WTF dance in the final reel notwithstanding). The scenes between the two of them, particularly the one where Depp questions, frightened, “Have I gone mad, Alice?” are almost all of them heartbreaking to behold. Here, Burton moves the camera in on his actors, he stops showing off his visuals… there are shadows both physical and psychological, and the movie actually starts to become something.

It’s not enough by far, though. I might just be set in my ways on the subject but I’ve seen tons of Alice adaptations and no take on the story has yet made me feel so utterly convinced as this one that Lewis Carroll would literally cry if he heard about it (particularly the action-packed finale in which Alice slays the jabberwocky amidst a Lord of the Rings like battle…really) which I’m sure many people don’t really care about anyway. It struck me when the movie flashes back upon Alice’s original visit to “Underland” and they use a younger actress of the correct age that it would’ve been nice if, while shooting these small scenes, they had just gone ahead and had a second crew film the whole original book/s as a side project. It then occurred to me that the problem then would be that I fear many kids falling for this new vision would view such a thing as a prequel. And that’s just about enough about how much this movie depressed me.



Odd Girl Out

Odd Girl Out

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Again, I wanted to watch this for a long time (a very long time, in fact) not only for Alexa Vega’s role, but also a rare post-Annie appearance by Alicia Morton, shortly after which she seems to have quit acting completely. I’d also heard seriously good things about the movie in general, and there aren’t many movies like this which I don’t find at least marginally more interesting than most others.

The problem initially for me was pretty much related to that… there have been so many other good movies on this subject – and this one seemed immediately to fall bang in between two of the best, Mean Girls and Thirteen, the former for its extreme bullying (albeit here with the humour stripped away) and the latter for its rawness, here found in Alexa Vega’s performance. It was interesting to watch this straight after Remember the Daze where she’s older and glossier. The only way I can describe Alexa’s face in this movie is, it’s like a Carpenters song… you know that empty, lonely, drained and sad but still beautiful quality their sound had? Something like that. You utterly believe her loneliness in this movie and that helps a ton in understanding a lot of her decisions.

What I wanted and hoped for from this movie, and it was a big ask, was some kind of answer to the behaviour it presents. Alexa Vega’s character here ultimately finds herself cornered with literally nobody that she can go to for help because all her trust circles collapse for various reasons and the bullying she is subjected to is not easily explained to anyone who isn’t involved. I understand that place well, and I kind of still find myself there sometimes, but like the mother here explains to her daughter at one point, I never really figured out how to deal with it.

Astonishingly, I felt like the movie kind of gave me such closure. Something far more satisfying than I expected, at least. This movie gets so sad and this girl’s situation so impossible that I really feared that it was simply that kind of movie, that merely presents the seeming unconquerable nature of these situations and leaves it hanging there. There’s a really excruciating moment following the girl’s attempt at suicide when she returns to school and once again accepts her “best friend”‘s apology with open arms and part of me was just hoping she was finally leading them on, setting up some kind of revenge. I kind of lost all sympathy for her once I realised nope, she was just that naïve (there are a lot of moments like this, it must be said, when the whole thing is a little too extreme to be believable). But then the truth comes out, and it’s the final straw, and she confronts the one person who hurt her most and says something simple but perfect,

“You have nothing that I want.”

It worked for me, anyway. I don’t know about the state of bullying in schools today, there are a lot of people over on this movie’s IMDb board claiming this kind of thing never happens and certainly not these days: but I believe that it could happen, anywhere; that these situations don’t just occur in school; and that for anybody who finds themselves in such a situation, or anything even close, would find a light at the end of the tunnel in this movie. It’s the best performance I’ve seen yet from Alexa Vega, truly haunting, and the rest of the cast aren’t too bad either (Alicia Morton is particularly frightening, about as far removed from her button-nosed Annie as you could get). Really worth looking for.



Inkheart

Inkheart

Friday, May 21st, 2010

First of all, this definitely forms as good a double bill as expected with Bedtime Stories. Secondly, I have to say, I was watching this at very end of the night going into the early hours, so if I say I was kind of falling asleep towards the end, it is by no means solely the fault of the movie. But I will start by saying, I’m kind of astonished that of the two, this turned out to be the one that turned me off most.

On the surface Inkheart seems very similar to Bedtime Stories – the central character is a man able to make stories come into the real world just by reading them… and that man is played by Brendan Fraser, an actor known even more than Sandler for some pretty goofy and questionable comedy in the past. But really the similarities end there. This is a much darker, refined and frankly more ambitious story, and that’s kind of why I was so amazed to find it so lacking in comparison to Bedtime Stories. Also, in this one, the stories really come to life.

So how can such a movie with a supporting cast including Paul Bettany, Andy Serkis, Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent be so much less than an Adam Sandler comedy with Keri Russell, Russell Brand, and Courtney Cox? I’m genuinely not sure. All I can say is though Inkheart has some great ideas, even beyond the basic set-up (I’m sure the book trilogy it is based on is far more engrossing), rather than run with them it seems to just plod. Not one character seems particular changed or even on the verge of changing at the end, or even particularly in need of change at the start – there are even characters, like the one from Arabian Nights, whose purpose in the story I’m at a real loss to justify. I’m afraid I really can’t think of anything else to say of it.



Alice in Wonderland [1933]

Alice in Wonderland [1933]

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

It’s kinda amazing I haven’t seen this rather lavish Hollywood version of one of my favourite books yet, especially in these past few years of being particularly enamoured of all things Alice. I was reminded of its existence while watching Dreamchild again recently so I finally decided to get hold of it… sadly, it was the shorter 75 minute version, not the 90 minute cut that apparently exists elsewhere. I didn’t have particularly high expectations of it, mostly because you don’t really hear about it much at all, and almost immediately as it started, I set myself up for a difficult hour, as Alice first graces the screen looking practically in her 20s or 30s, in any case the oldest looking Alice (not counting the elderly Liddell in “Dreamchild” of course) I’ve ever seen (the actress, I’ve since learned, was 19; the character claims 12 years and 4 months lol).

But it’s incredibly hard not to love this movie in the end. Indeed, if it had only been made a few years later and done the same “fantasy world in colour” trick of The Wizard of Oz and had only one song more memorable than the few it has, I’m almost certain it would be just as beloved as the Judy Garland movie.

Notably, despite the title, it is much more based in fact on the second book “Through the Looking Glass”, which if you know the books is indication itself of the film’s surprisingly intellectual aspirations. Though it’s perfectly possible to enjoy the movie for its surface sheen (the set design is certainly up there with that of the later Oz), the actual screenplay (by Joseph Mankiewicz, who later wrote All About Eve among other Hollywood classics) retains many of that book’s more complicated nonsense exchanges. I don’t know what was cut from the longer version, but this version hops around Carroll’s world in a frankly disjointed way but so long as you’re comfortable with the nonsense at the core (which, in Wonderland, you really oughta be), it’s not too much of an issue.

Anyhoo, it’s not up there for me with the likes of my fave musical version of the story with Fiona Fullerton or Disney’s eyepoppingly aesthetic 50s version (to say nothing of Tim Burton’s more recent take, as I still haven’t seen it), but I would say at the least that it deserves to be seen and known a lot more than I feel it has been so far. There’s barely an Alice adaption not worth seeing, as there are simply so many approaches and interpretations to be made (whether you like them or not), and this was no exception.