Neverwhere is a good concept hampered by inept handling on all fronts. Though a little gothy (as opposed to Gothic) for my tastes, I was willing to appreciate the story of a second London existing below and alongside the proper one, and the intrigue that happens there. Unfortunately, there are easily fixable slip-ups at every point in the production.
One: the acting is ridiculous. Not hopeless, necessarily, but it is melodramatic and theatrical when it should be subdued and forceful. Case in point: the two main villains are silly when they should be chilling. It is especially bad when anyone has to act as though experiencing extreme emotion, as during Richard's ordeal.
Two: the writing; specifically, the dialogue. A world like this should enfold as we are immersed in it. The characters should emote through their mannerisms, not their tortured diatribes. Look at Dark City for a similar movie that was handled expertly (save for the terrible ending).
Three: the direction. It is compared to soap opera direction on this site. I agree, but I would add that it is unforgivably bland beyond belief. The underground setting alone should be overflowing with great shots (and indeed many of the sets look wonderful; it is the way they are used that wastes them). Look at City of Lost Children for a movie with a similar setting that looks appropriately beautiful and eerie. The fight direction is also amateurish, as when Hunter fights the Black Friar.
I think that the best thing to happen to the SF/fantasy genre in recent memory is the explosion of special effects technology. Movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia, et cetera, have show us that it is possible to fully realize a foreign world. Do I expect a 1996 BBC production with a budget that wouldn't feed the crew of those movies for a day to be able to compete? No, but it does seem like a waste of time to have tried to do it without the resources necessary. Neverwhere is not as disconcertingly podunk as the BBC Chronicles of Narnia (think the letter from the wolf in the first installment), but it is in the running.
I'm sure that Gaiman apologists or pale Wiccan wannabes will disagree with my assessments, or my comparison to films with much more talent and money involved. Unfortunately for them, the last twenty years have shown us that anyone with enough drive and vision can make a movie with next to no budget, such as Primer or even Cube, which maintained its otherworldliness with one square room and enough of another room to make it look like there was another cube beyond it. A minimalist fantasy miniseries, i.e. one involving a second London under London utilizing the underground tunnels, could work impeccably, but not when it is weighted down with boring light filters, ugly art design, grating actors, uninspired direction, appalling dialogue, and bad production. A waste of three hours, and innumerable effort on the part of the cast and crew.
One: the acting is ridiculous. Not hopeless, necessarily, but it is melodramatic and theatrical when it should be subdued and forceful. Case in point: the two main villains are silly when they should be chilling. It is especially bad when anyone has to act as though experiencing extreme emotion, as during Richard's ordeal.
Two: the writing; specifically, the dialogue. A world like this should enfold as we are immersed in it. The characters should emote through their mannerisms, not their tortured diatribes. Look at Dark City for a similar movie that was handled expertly (save for the terrible ending).
Three: the direction. It is compared to soap opera direction on this site. I agree, but I would add that it is unforgivably bland beyond belief. The underground setting alone should be overflowing with great shots (and indeed many of the sets look wonderful; it is the way they are used that wastes them). Look at City of Lost Children for a movie with a similar setting that looks appropriately beautiful and eerie. The fight direction is also amateurish, as when Hunter fights the Black Friar.
I think that the best thing to happen to the SF/fantasy genre in recent memory is the explosion of special effects technology. Movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia, et cetera, have show us that it is possible to fully realize a foreign world. Do I expect a 1996 BBC production with a budget that wouldn't feed the crew of those movies for a day to be able to compete? No, but it does seem like a waste of time to have tried to do it without the resources necessary. Neverwhere is not as disconcertingly podunk as the BBC Chronicles of Narnia (think the letter from the wolf in the first installment), but it is in the running.
I'm sure that Gaiman apologists or pale Wiccan wannabes will disagree with my assessments, or my comparison to films with much more talent and money involved. Unfortunately for them, the last twenty years have shown us that anyone with enough drive and vision can make a movie with next to no budget, such as Primer or even Cube, which maintained its otherworldliness with one square room and enough of another room to make it look like there was another cube beyond it. A minimalist fantasy miniseries, i.e. one involving a second London under London utilizing the underground tunnels, could work impeccably, but not when it is weighted down with boring light filters, ugly art design, grating actors, uninspired direction, appalling dialogue, and bad production. A waste of three hours, and innumerable effort on the part of the cast and crew.