Posts Tagged ‘adaptation’

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.



Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

I wasn’t that interested in seeing this movie till I saw the “red band” Hit Girl trailer which ticked, I’m not ashamed to say, pretty much all my boxes. I’d seen Chloe Moretz in a couple of small roles like the Amityville remake, Wicked Little Things (neither of which I can honestly recall her in) and most recently 500 Days of Summer, but she hadn’t really struck me yet as being among those who are worth watching anything exclusively for. Here, however, with bright purple hair, swearing like (actually, worse than) a sailor, with knives and guns, we have a new icon in the history of controversial young girls in movies… possibly the most memorable since Natalie Portman did a few similar things in The Professional 16 years ago. I start with this just so you know where ultimately my 5-heart rating for this movie is coming from. I adore Hit Girl. She has the best movie entrance since Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and it only gets better from there on out.

Kick-Ass, however, is far from being all about Hit Girl, and I was surprised to find all of its other elements just as appealing, appalling, surprising and enthralling as the one thing I could be sure of not being a letdown. Enthusiastic praise began to appear on Twitter etc in the past couple of weeks with many declaring it as “best superhero movie ever” etc and my response was pretty much “I doubt it.” It looked too silly for that no matter which way I looked at it, even despite the very encouraging Hit Girl stuff. On the other side were discussions like that on the BBC’s Review Show where stuffy art people tried to find an anti-violence message in the movie and found one only marred by the very way the movie revels in its own violence. Even I, who prefer my movies to have substance, knew that this was a movie more than anything designed to purely entertain, and I was happy to accept it as such (provided there was plenty of Hit Girl – which there is).

So it surprised me how involved I got with the whole thing as the story progressed. The point of this movie, if you’re unaware of the set-up, is that more than any superhero movie to date it is relentlessly grounded in our reality. The movie opens with a would-be hero standing atop a skyscraper viewed by a very “is it a bird? is it a plane?” type crowd, diving off majestically… and smashing head first into a car on the street below. The eponymous hero Kick-Ass’ first encounter with bad guys results in his being horribly (and I mean horribly) wounded and hospitalized. Even Hit Girl doesn’t escape the movie without sustaining injuries that painfully jolt you into remembering that beneath it all she’s “just” an 11 year old girl. The answer the film proposes to its question “why doesn’t anybody ever make themselves a superhero suit and fight crime?” seems almost certainly to be exactly that offered by a side character early on, “because it’s crazy!” … but you still leave the movie wanting to be either Kick-Ass himself, Red Mist, Hit Girl or Big Daddy (go on guess which one I wannabe), because the morality of such a move is so perfectly, not to mention entertainingly, delivered.

I won’t be calling it the best superhero movie I’ve ever seen or anything, because I don’t know how to make that call on a genre that becomes more diverse, exemplified hugely by Kick-Ass, with every new entry. What it is is a thoroughly satisfying whole that is far far greater than the sum of its sometimes disjointed parts. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it had my eyes glued to the screen and made me want to look away. Like I said I was really only there for Hit Girl but without her that 5-heart rating would likely only lose one point. It’s a great movie which probably has something for everyone. It’s certainly a great start to my movie year.



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.