Change Your Image
ferrerogrrl
Reviews
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
not tolerable enough to tempt me
I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.
Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.
What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.
The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.
Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.
On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.
In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.
The Shape of Things (2003)
Felt like a 4 character play .. but on screen
. .which is unfortunately an awful combination. It simply amplified whatever flaws the film already would have had.
Put me in the same camp as the rest of the haters, I suppose, but mostly I'm really disappointed. This could have been an incredible movie. I really wanted it to be, anyway. The concept was interesting (enough so that I plunked down $10 to see how it played out)and I walk into the theater already predisposed to like it. LaBute was a director willing to challenge audience comfort and norms; Weisz and Rudd are two actors whose work I enjoy; and I was in thrall with the idea that on film would be captured the raw nature of human relationships and character, in all of its malicious ruthless glory.
I see I was hoping too much. What I got instead was a play on film with four actors and an incredibly stilted feeling to all aspects of the film, from the acting to the cinematography to tthe dialogue. Everything felt boxed in and rehearsed! Nobody broke out of the boundaries, which is irritating from a film that promises to unleash the full, brutal nature of relations between man and woman. As for all the "subtlety", it is ruined by the film's large looming sense of its own self importance. The concepts are bashed over the audience's heads like a baseball bat and Evelyn HUGE revelation in the end .. .*yawn* ho hum. I'm sorry, did everybody else see that coming too? Because everyone in our theater sure did! The enthusiasts of this film will say others simply missed the subtlety and the nuances but I pity the people who ignored the wooden acting and awful cinematography in the rush to praise LaBute prematurely. Thanks for this disappointment, Neil.
my advice? Don't waste this interesting concept: remake the movie in a couple of years with an entirely new cast (what a mistake using the stage cast: all of the acting, down to the line recitals and hand gestures felt painfully rehearsed . .*sigh* even the normally refreshing Rachel Weisz, who is loads better in 'Confidence' btw) and a director with fresh ideas and without fear. LaBute was simply too close to the project to bring about a refreshing film version of his play. And, gods, Gretchen Mol really needs to stop doing films. Shouldn't she and Claire Forlani really be waitressing at your local Denny's by now?
The Triumph of Love (2001)
'Oh, Agis!'
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
'veneer of depth'
First, it reels in the viewer with the powerful emotion of the bus tragedy. Fine. Then, the grief and loss of the myriad of characters in their individual ways is shown. Fine. The characters are shown to have individual problems and idiosyncrasies. OK. AND THEN THAT IS IT. One character ends the movie with a flimsy lie (and provides a convenient closure to her emotional arc). The movie goes nowhere (many characters introduced, their psyche minimally examined and then boom, movie over) and has no purpose. The pretension and pride of the film is its examination of guilt. AND THAT IS IT. It just feels like a student filmmaker's excercise: 'look at me! look at my art!'. Unfinished, static, pretentions of depth, emotion, complexity.I'm angry that two hours of my life got robbed from me by watching this movie. Another viewer summed up this movie aptly and succinctly by describing it as having a 'veneer of depth'. I don't mind watching mediocre movies but it bothers me when the film thinks it is better than it really is and this films acts thus: it preens and fawns over each of its' scenes with its trite lines and grating flute music. The conceit of examining loss and grief is interesting but stretching it over two hours and going nowhere defeats whatever virtue it began with by dwelling in mediocrity and self-percieved depth.
it began promisingly and then went nowhere. After watching this, I found myself wishing I were inside the schoolbus with the kids and gone over the railing with them. For those who suggested that anyone who doesn't enjoy this film because they are used to fast MTV-style movies and can't appreciate 'depth', I say that I feel sorry for people who are easily convinced a movie is art simply because of slow pacing, jarring music, unorthodox editing. Simply having a tragic subject/event does NOT = a good, substantial or 'deep' film.
The kid playing 'Bear' was adorable but the film otherwise ..
OVERRATED