The best charactars in this version were ~
-
HollyHop — 13 years ago(September 19, 2012 04:17 PM)
I find Fyfe's Willie Loomis terrible distracting, he doesn't only act goofy but he looks like a dirty mess. In the original Loomis was one of my top favourite characters while in the revival he pisses me off. To me Fyfe's Loomis was even worse than the Burton version and the character design in that one was a disappointment. At least Jackie Earle Haley did his best to put some dignity into a sadly butchered character.
Grayson Hall did stumble with her lines a lot but I can't remember her breaking the fourth wall as some other actors did. I miss Julia's red hair when watching the revival. I prefer Hall because Steele comes off as a bit too cold I think. Carter's version of Julia was the absolute worst and felt like an insult.
I prefer the original Roger Collins, I found Louis to be more funny in a dead pan manner. I agree that David in this show is very strong. Frankly I think all the actors who played David did good performances.
I'm only early in the revival show but I like this Sarah much better, one of the reasons is that so far I've only heard London Bridge one time.
Yes some of her scenes were very eerie.
I haven't seen Lysette's performance yet but I'm sure it's better than the Burton version. If she can compete with Lara Parker I have yet to see.
So far I find the revival show to be superior to the mess Burton committed on screen but the original has the advantage of more episodes, storylines and characters.
Don't tell me, it's no use to me. Tell yourself if you want to but don't tell me. -
saraliz710 — 13 years ago(September 27, 2012 08:35 PM)
Surprised no one has mentioned this (unless I haven't seen it) but I absolutely could not stand Carolyn in the 91 version!! I thought she was awful. I find it of that they didn't cast the actress playing Daphne in that role. She seemed like a much more seasoned actress. I also preferred the clean cut relationships in the 91 version. The fact that Daniel, Jeremiah, Sarah and Barnabas were all siblings for example. It was much more clear. I agree with most of the other responses here about equal performances.
-
susannah-5 — 13 years ago(October 19, 2012 10:30 AM)
Those snark matches between Natalie and Joshua in the original were extremely amusing! You've just reminded me of something missing in the 1991 version: Joshua doesn't come off as the stiff-backed, patriotic American Puritan that Louis Edmonds' Joshua was. That unbendingness was crucial to the character and if the show had continued would have hindered the drama of Barnabas's situation considerably (similar to how leaving out the plot points of Angelique tricking Barnabas into marriage and despite this his subsequent peculiar loyalty to her dilutes the tragedy of their relationship).
The scene that introduces Josette in 1991, when she addresses Joshua as "Citoyen" and her father explains that since the Revolution in la belle France she is eaten up with republicanism, missed some zingers. Can't you imagine the 1966 Joshua's reply? "You are in a republic now, madam. A true republic."
Is it because a totally different actor did he have any role in the present in the 1991 storyline? played him, so the character was given short shrift? Joshua was so key to 1795 in 1966 (that's fun to type), but in the new version he was just background. -
twcassidy — 12 years ago(June 25, 2013 05:55 PM)
I thought most of the actors did a good job, although Joe and Carolyn did not seem to fit into 1790 , both seeming too modern. Stefan Gierach did a great job and even looked like someone from that era. Both he and Sarah did well especially in ep 12 where they had some moving scenes. I liked Mrs Johnson/Abigail. Ben Cross, Barbara Steel, and Joanna Going all good, too.
Thought the scenes with Roger and Maggie were creepy, he is way too old for her.
The part about David trying to kill Roger and the forbidden art room were just left hanging
The sets were great, but do they have thunderstorms every night ?