Change Your Image
aajay
Reviews
Jane Eyre (2011)
Not my favorite version, but better than most
Well, I've seen worse but then again I've seen better. Jane Eyre is my most favorite book since I first read it at thirteen and many, many times since. Frankly, I don't know why they keep remaking it if they're not going to stay true to the book. They only end up disappointing us "Janeites" to whom every word and idea is known and loved and confusing the heck out of those not familiar with it. I don't know how anyone, who is not familiar with the book, made any sense out of this version. It's hard enough to shorten JE which is not only packed with complicated relationships but also, more importantly, with IDEAS while dealing with random flashbacks. And the omissions--the morning after scene MUST include Jane's wrestling with herself "who would care" if she lived with Mr R "I CARE"--"Laws and principles are not for the time when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this" These are the concepts which make up Jane's character; without them it's just another Gothic thriller. My favorite version is the 1983 mini-series in which they had time to develop the book. I'm not sure one can make a two hour movie of a long Victorian novel. And another thing, why do these movies have to be so DARK? What happened to "suspension of disbelief"?
Persuasion (2007)
Any Jane Austen is better than No Jane Austen
That being said, I must say I liked the 1995 Amanda Root version much better. Even though it was only a little bit longer it was truer to the book especially the endings. I join many others in dissing that ridiculous running back and forth in the streets. I was just willing to tolerate the anachronistic kiss in the street (Amanda and Ciarn(?) also do this), but a young lady of that era sprinting through streets!!! I thought, checking my watch, that they would have time for that lovely party scene at the end where Wentworth declares his intentions to the whole company. Instead we get a dumb run through the streets and Wentworth presenting Anne with the house? How did he get hold of it? Or did Sir Walter lend it to them?. I don't think Sir Walter could sell it off as it was entailed to William. Rented from William? with their animosity I think not. I don't mind if they cut stuff but I really hate it when they change things for no earthly reason. And was that the Moonlight Sonata (by Chopin, born 1810) she was playing? Or maybe not.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Very good film but lacks humor and heart
After reading all the books so far and seeing all the movies, it suddenly occurred to me that Order of the Phoenix movie left out many of the little humorous touches which make the books so endearing. I thinkthe clearing out of the Black house is hilarious as is Tonks; she gotshort shrift. I missed the house elves both in this and in Goblet ;(Dobby gives Harry the seaweed in the Goblet and he also tells him about the Room of Requirement in Order), both plot devices which should have been included. Also Kreacher should have had more exposition, he just wanders in and out a few times; I think he was actually a lot more sinister. I really, really missed the scene at St. Mungos, especially Nevilles tragic situation, that's what I mean by "heart". But most of all they left out the message to Aunt Petunia and her standing up for Harry and keeping him there when his uncle wants to throw him out. This is such an major theme through out the series--the importance of Harry's mother's love and the protection this affords him thru his Aunt Petunia. It would only have taken a few minutes to include. I agree with leaving out the Quidditch as it would have taken up a great deal of time. Throughout, too much emphasis is on action and violence at the expense of humor and "heart". However, thanks to all for the books and the movies, we should be grateful we have them at all. Advice to next director: If you want to make Daniel look younger, give him back his longer mop-like hair=do, like Ruperts. His short "manly" haircut emphasizes his jaw and thicker neck (sorry, Dan)and makes him look much more mature.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
I loved the movie but was disappointed too
I know that the book was so long that some things had to be cut. However, it seems to me that whenever a cut is necessary it is always the softer, 'sensitive' and humorous side which gets it, leaving and even expanding the "action" i.e. violent side. All of Hermione's activities to save the house elves which are very funny sequences are omitted. But even worse, the manipulations which necessary to eliminate the roles of Winky and Dobby in the plot were not only complicated but made much of the Barty Crouch Jr stuff inexplicable. If I had not just reread the book, I'm not sure what I would have made of the whole thing. On the other hand we were subjected to that whole flying dragon thing which was not in the book and minute after minute of swimming thru mer-people and thrashing thru hedges. Those sequences could certainly have been shortened especially since the whole thing was so truncated that the tasks seemed squashed into each other. This is the third "classic" (Pride and Prejudice" and "OLiver Twist") I've seen this year in which the director made perplexing choices in cutting. However as I always say, "Any Harry Potter is better than no Harry Potter"
Oliver Twist (2005)
A lovely movie but not MY Dickens
I know it's not realistic to expect the whole story with all the plot lines in a movie, but not to have some of the back story as well as the comic bits? How can anyone produce an Oliver Twist without Mr and Mrs Bumble and the glorious statement by Mr Bumble "if the law supposes that, the law is a ass"? I don't think I've ever seen a version which omitted that and I've seen every Oliver since the one in the 1930s (with Dickie Moore, yes, I'm older than dirt). Polanski has left out as much as the 1930s version which I thought a very superficial job. There was a TV version in 1982 that was excellent but was much longer. I don't understand why directors make classics when they are not willing to follow them faithfully, or at least include essentials. Who are they making them for? The non-literary types won't go to see them anyway and the old faithfuls, like me, are offended. The only movie series which do not make this mistake are Harry Potter--not with all those young fans watching every move- and Lord of the Rings.
My Architect (2003)
Genius and/or "Ba****d"?
Khan may be a genius but he was also a despicable human being. I agree that Nathaniel's mother was a dim wit and that the children were the victims here. The scene with the three children was poignant with the unspoken suffering of their childhoods. Younger viewers today cannot understand the disgrace in those days for "illegitimate" children growing up. Ann, Alix's, mother was the most dignified and self-respecting of the bunch. Of course he couldn't divorce Esther; she supported him most of his life and probably had the money in the family. He never even supported those children financially since their mothers worked and he died bankrupt. As for his work, I thought the Salk complex was one of the coldest, most barren sites I have ever seen. Frankly, Kahn deserved to die as he lived; aloof and alone.
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002)
Like "Dirty Dancing" nobody loves it except the movie-goers
If anyone doubts this, look at the reviews of "Dirty Dancing" when it came out. So it's not "Steel Magnolias" or "...Green Tomatoes" but it is a fine movie with excellent actors and interesting plot and dialogue. Do we get this every day? And how many movies give us fine roles for older women? So it's predictable--have you seen any of the "non Chic flick" war movies, angst movies, stand-up comic gross-out movies--they're not predictable? Could it be that the male critics use a different standard for woman dominated movies, especially older women? Lighten up boys!
Un tè con Mussolini (1999)
Critics, lighten up
I'm completely nonplussed by the tone of the "external reviews" How can a film with Cher, Smith, Dench, Plowright and Tomlin be anything but wonderful?. Plus Florence and San Guiglinamo (sic)? The carping and snippiness of many critics is beyond understanding. So it isn't the greatest film in the world but better than 99 percent of what we're subjected to. Maybe if they were nubile nymphets or "grumpy old men" the reactions would be different? How dare these "invisible" old women have such adventurous and fun lives?
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
Amelie, one of the most annoying characters I've seen
Maybe it's an age thing, but I found Amelie one of the most annoying movie characters I've met in a long time. After about an hour or so, I was rooting for Nino to drop out of the game. The Paris scenes were lovely and some of her tricks were fun, i.e. the Gnome, but she was cruel to the greengrocer and just feckless re: manipulating the affair with that maniac. The paper chase with Nino was just plain tiresome. Sorry, from A Minority of one.