Change Your Image
mama-sylvia
Reviews
The Alphabet Murders (1965)
Possibly the worst book adaptation ever
I don't know why the producers purchased the book rights; other than a few character names, there is NO resemblance to Agatha Christie's taut suspense story. Hercule Poirot, famous for exercising only his little grey cells, leaps about and crawls under barriers. His faithful sidekick Hastings has become an inept security agent, from whom Poirot continually escapes. Poirot actually meets the intended victims except for the first one. Tony Randall does a rather good job playing this miserable excuse for Poirot, which isn't necessarily a compliment. The story and resolution are completely changed, and not for the better. If you're an Agatha Christie fan, pass this one by.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Charming, but not the best version
First, I should probably make it clear I compare any P&P not only with the original Jane Austen book, but with the glorious and faithful 1995 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version. This version has lots of plusses, but has major problems both on its own and in comparison. My main objection is the rushed feeling and the unnecessary deviations from the book. Even the six-hour miniseries had to cut some of Austen's dialogue, so it's not surprising that a two-hour movie had to cut much more dialogue and even some characters -- the Hursts have disappeared, as have Mariah Lucas, the Gardners' children, and others. Other than lack of faithfulness to the book, the missing characters are not a great loss, but the rush through one story element and to the next is unpleasant for the viewer. Why on earth did the director waste screen time on long shots of woods and parks that could have been used to add a little more story? The artiness of the dawn shots doesn't add anything to the movie. The clothes and hairstyles were also poorly done: gowns not very attractive or accurate for the period, hairstyles sloppy and falling-down. It could be that the production was trying for a grittier feeling, as the Gardners were both quite coarse and the exterior shots showed more of the underside of pleasant upper-class living, but I found it quite distracting. Even more distracting were the changes that served no discernible purpose. Why was the first sort-of love scene between Elizabeth and Darcy set in a rainy wood? Why the scene in the ribbon shop? What is gained by changing the scene at Pemberley from the grounds to the music room, or the scene between Lady Catherine and Elizabeth to the middle of the night, or the denouement to early morning in the fields? Many of the actors compounded the production's problems. Matthew Macfadyen's portrayal of Mr. Darcy makes him simpering rather than stately. (To be fair, one of the minor flaws of the 1995 version was that Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy was SO reserved that the viewer saw very little of his struggle against his interest in Elizabeth.) The able Donald Sutherland is horribly miscast as Mr. Bennet, and fails to present his humor or his weakness. As usual, Jane (Rosamund Pike) is not the stunning beauty that Austen describes, but I have yet to see an adaptation that uses a lovelier actress for Jane than the star, Elizabeth. Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins was pompous rather than silly. Judi Dench, of course, manifested stateliness as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Claudie Blakley was suitably unimpressive as Charlotte Lucas. I've liked Keira Knightly since 'Bend It Like Beckham' (qv), and she is luminous as Elizabeth.
The biggest reason to see this version is, actually, its shortness. Many members of our MTV generation won't sit through a six-hour show, no matter how faithful or well-done. Anyone who has not read the book or watched the 1995 version will probably miss the defects and simply enjoy Austen's story. If it piques the viewer's curiosity enough to look for the book or a better version, everyone wins.
Awakenings (1990)
Heart-wrenching portrayal of humanity
I approached this movie differently from most people, because I'm a nurse and I worked with patients receiving experimental chemotherapy. I was absolutely floored at the sensitivity and talent that so accurately presented the desperate clutching at hope, the anger and grief when the response is less than ideal, and even the patient's own concentration on the physician learning from the process. The line about "get the camera" was completely true to life. (Nearly every patient I personally explained an experimental protocol to, who signed consent, said something like "even if it doesn't help me, maybe you'll learn something that will help someone else.") Everyone involved performed superbly. Two comic legends, Robin Williams and Anne Meara, played straight roles with tenderness and a touch of pathos. Steven Zaillian should have won the Oscar he was nominated for for the screenplay. Randy Newman's music set the mood for each scene perfectly. Penny Marshall was robbed, I have no idea why she wasn't even nominated as Best Director.
Hollywood does not have a good track record with medical themes, much less mental health themes. This is a jewel of an exception and deserved much more hoopla than it received.
Xanadu (1980)
Wonderful concept, poor execution, still very watchable
A movie based on a fantasy concept isn't necessarily a failure -- look at The Muse and Down to Earth. The problem with this one is the sloppy execution. Too many of the songs contribute nothing to story or character development, such as "Suddenly" and "All Over the World." There is a really ghastly cartoon sequence in "Don't Walk Away." The finale "Xanadu" is a confusing mess of floor dance, tap, roller-skating, and even circus acts! So what is right with this movie? Gene Kelly is of course incomparable and I can't really consider his big dance number "Whenever You're Away From Me" as irrelevant. Olivia Newton-John is luminous (especially in the haunting "Suspended in Time"), and Michael Beck does fine. "Dancin'" is the only example of blending two different musical genres (big band and hard rock) that I know of. But what really holds me is the charming love story: boy finds girl, boy loses girl ... and if I finish this I'll have to check the "spoiler" box.
The Virgin Queen (2005)
Not recommended for historical accuracy
The authors disagree with most conventional histories of Elizabeth in small but significant elements. The most important was their portrayal of Amy Dudley's death as a suicide, since the cloud her death left over Robert Dudley affected his relationship with Elizabeth for the rest of his life. They portray Lettice Devereaux as a scheming vixen, Mary of Scotland as being framed for conspiracy against Elizabeth, the Earl of Essex as a manic-depressive, and portray Elizabeth as seriously intending marriage when most evidence shows she was shrewdly playing suitors against each other to benefit England. On the other hand, many of the intriguing and baffling elements of her reign are accurately presented, including her intelligence, her scheming to survive her sister Bloody Mary's reign, her vanity, her tendency to blind partiality towards her favorites, and the astonishingly poor military ability of those favorites. Rather engaging story and will hold the interest of those not familiar with Tudor England, but seriously disappointing to those of us who think the story supported by historical documentation is enthralling enough.
Shining Through (1992)
Much underrated, taut romantic thriller
Although I'm not a Melanie Griffith fan, this is a wonderful story full of surprises. Griffith's irritating, whiny voice perfectly suits her role as Linda Voss, a Brooklyn secretary from a German Jewish background. Don't be put off by the secretary-turns-into-a-spy premise, the way it's presented it's really pretty believable once you remember how scared Americans were of a possible German victory. I like stories where I'm set up for unexpected events that were adequately foreshadowed, and this fit the bill. Michael Douglas is quite good as the terrifying tiger who turns into a lamb for Linda. Sir John Gielgud, unsurprisingly, grabs your attention during the little time he is on screen. Joely Fisher is just as glamorous as her famous mom Vanessa Redgrave. As others have pointed out, Liam Neeson's character seems rather naive and transparent for a high-ranking Nazi officer. Certainly many of them were devoted family men in private life, but he seemed to lack the closed-minded drive. The major flaw I noted was Linda's inconsistent ability to come up with quick explanations when caught in a lie -- sometimes she does and sometimes she just stands there and doesn't say anything. However, "Shining Through" is still well worth your viewing time.
Man of La Mancha (1972)
Disappointing for no reason
This movie has a well-deserved terrible reputation, and looking at the credits, it is hard to understand why. Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren are incredible actors. James Coco as Sancho was inspired casting, and he can even sing. Arthur Hiller's directorial credits are extensive and impressive. The musical play was a hit twice on Broadway, where I was fortunate enough to see the revival, and later saw Richard Kiley (who created the role) as Cervantes in a touring company. And as a confirmed optimist, I simply love the story.
I think one big problem is the voices, or lack thereof. O'Toole makes both Miguel de Cervantes and Don Quizote de la Mancha come alive. Sophia Loren captures the essence of Aldonza from the first moment the camera finds her sitting in the prison, apart from her fellow prisoners. But neither of them can sing worth a hoot, and this IS a musical; listening to "Aldonza" is physically painful. Dubbing is a well-established Hollywood tradition, why was it abandoned for this movie? Changing the words to several of the songs is a minor but irritating problem. (Why on earth do so many musicals go through lyric changes when being made into movies? The changes are never improvements.) However, I think the biggest problem was switching scenes between the prison and the outside world settings. Cutting back and forth was terribly distracting. This play was written to be staged in a single small area. Did Hollywood think the American public was too stupid to enjoy a movie set in a limited scene? I taped this for my collection because I do like Man of La Mancha so much, but I can't watch it without thinking of the marvellous work of art that it *could* have been.