First, a caveat: What I'm about to say is in regards to this film version only. The play itself is beautiful. I'm currently involved in a stage production of Dylan Thomas's "Under Milk Wood." The language is nothing short of breathtaking. Truly, it's a beautiful play.
Very minor spoilers ahead:
However, this film version of "Under Milk Wood" is nothing short of ridiculous. Large chunks of the wonderful narration have been left out, chronology changed, and general mayhem has been wreaked with the script. There are two creepy guys (accompanied by creepy music) who wander around the town, but appear to serve no real purpose. They don't narrate (as Voice One and Voice Two in the script do). They simply wander around creepily, and at one point have completely random, completely gratuitous tag-team (fully clothed) sex in a barn with some random woman. I'm left wondering, "What on earth were the people who made this movie thinking?" Thomas's script does not, in fact, include tag-team sex in a barn. I can see no reason whatsoever for this particular addition to have been made. It's ridiculous.
This is not to say that the film has no redeeming qualities. The woman who played Mrs. Banks in "Mary Poppins" turns in a nice performance as Myfanwy Price. Peter O'Toole plays a fairly good Captain Cat. The actress who plays Mae Rose Cottage does a lovely job. Mr. Pugh is played quite well.
On the flip side, Liz Taylor's portrayal of Rosie Probert is forgettable. Mrs. Pugh provides little motivation for her husband's intense hatred. The two creepy guys succeed in being creepy, but may as well have wandered on from another set for all the reason they seem to have for being in the film at all. Nogood Boyo is very badly cast, and may as well have been renamed Nogood 30-Year-Old Guy.
All in all, I can't say I'm at all impressed with this film. If you want to know "Under Milk Wood," you'd be better off by far just reading the play then watching this bastardization of such a lovely work.
Very minor spoilers ahead:
However, this film version of "Under Milk Wood" is nothing short of ridiculous. Large chunks of the wonderful narration have been left out, chronology changed, and general mayhem has been wreaked with the script. There are two creepy guys (accompanied by creepy music) who wander around the town, but appear to serve no real purpose. They don't narrate (as Voice One and Voice Two in the script do). They simply wander around creepily, and at one point have completely random, completely gratuitous tag-team (fully clothed) sex in a barn with some random woman. I'm left wondering, "What on earth were the people who made this movie thinking?" Thomas's script does not, in fact, include tag-team sex in a barn. I can see no reason whatsoever for this particular addition to have been made. It's ridiculous.
This is not to say that the film has no redeeming qualities. The woman who played Mrs. Banks in "Mary Poppins" turns in a nice performance as Myfanwy Price. Peter O'Toole plays a fairly good Captain Cat. The actress who plays Mae Rose Cottage does a lovely job. Mr. Pugh is played quite well.
On the flip side, Liz Taylor's portrayal of Rosie Probert is forgettable. Mrs. Pugh provides little motivation for her husband's intense hatred. The two creepy guys succeed in being creepy, but may as well have wandered on from another set for all the reason they seem to have for being in the film at all. Nogood Boyo is very badly cast, and may as well have been renamed Nogood 30-Year-Old Guy.
All in all, I can't say I'm at all impressed with this film. If you want to know "Under Milk Wood," you'd be better off by far just reading the play then watching this bastardization of such a lovely work.