Terrible movie.
-
ardman — 18 years ago(August 29, 2007 08:42 PM)
i saw the movie and loved it. Then i read the book and found it to be a terrible book and a pathetic adaptation of the movie! The book didn't have the emotional connection that Finn and Estella had in the movie.
HOW'S THAT FOR PERSPECTIVE!! -
chelie2003 — 18 years ago(April 20, 2007 07:42 AM)
please watch the film more closely before making incorrect comments. fin only says joe was a drug smuggler and that joe subsequently died. we realize this is all a lie when he shows up ALIVE at fin's exhibition. he is actually just a fisherman..
as for estella not keeping her clothes on probably a good 70% of ADULTS can identify with that. So, why not? -
timmy_501 — 18 years ago(May 13, 2007 09:39 AM)
I think you are basically right, masho_xo. This is a decent movie, which is only a loose adaptation of Dickens. It kept me guessing, whereas a strict adaptation of the work might have bored me because I already knew exactly what was going to happen. It is unlikely that any movie would do justice to the book. This is an interesting reimagining of the story which works just well enough.
I'd give the movie 7/10.
Not a masterpiece like Dickens, but worth a look.
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas -
notorious_souljah_17 — 18 years ago(October 07, 2007 04:43 AM)
I had to watch this movie for an english assignment and it was very painful watching it. the near two hour movie bored me to death. they could of least put on training day Ethan Hawke is awesome in that. Instead we have to watch some nonsense bullsh*t patahtic romance movie. now i have to write 1000 words on this junk called a movie. ARGGGGGH.
-
timmy_501 — 18 years ago(October 07, 2007 07:14 PM)
Why are you telling me about it? Are you sure you replied to the right person?
Also, your post is every bit as intelligent as your username
Most Recently Viewed
Evil Dead 2 7/10
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels 6/10 -
wembleyfraggle1 — 19 years ago(December 23, 2006 12:01 PM)
People need to stop comparing books and movies on equal grounds. You cant. They are differnet media, not to mention differnt times. Rate them seperately. YOu have to adapt movies to the media they are on. You wouldnt expect someone who adapted a guitar song onto drums to produce the exact same nuances would you?
-
jfalkstudio — 19 years ago(December 27, 2006 01:40 PM)
First off, I am one who has seen the movie and read the book, with my reading preceeding my viewing of the film. I'm really tired of people who obviously love books more than movies, complaining about movies because they expect it to be a 2 hour easy version of their experience of the book. Please, just stop watching movies. And in response to "the world is flat"'s comment about everything being green, and how easy that is. Actually, it is somewhat difficult to shoot photography with a consistent color theme and make things appear differently than they really are. "Little Bitter One" complains of the focus shift from Joe and Pip to Pip and Stella. This is a way to focus on a theme, which is generally what a film has to do for the sake of time, instead of explore a theme. It really boils down to a focus on unrequitted love, and the disappointments of growing up. I suspect critics of the film have trouble relating to these ideas. Look at all the exceptional actors, Deniro, Banecroft, Cooper, Hawke and Paltrow ( 4 of these are oscar winners ). I don't know what else you want from a movie. But let's remember, these are just opinions. You can't prove that a movie is good or bad, and judging a movie by a book is like tasting a meal with a grocery list.
-
tommy-francis — 19 years ago(February 05, 2007 03:18 PM)
I love the book, but I think they did a very good job with the movie considering. The casting was excellent, Paltrow and Bancroft especially, and they did well cutting it down to fit into a 2 hour film without ruining the plot. The book is better, but the book is always better, accept this and enjoy the movie for what it is.
-
lpycb42 — 19 years ago(February 07, 2007 07:47 AM)
True. It should'ne have been called great expectations, but something else. As a movie inspired by the book it's pretty good, but it's not a great adaptation. It lacked a lot of character development as you said. The thing is, Cuaron concentrated more on the romantic aspect of the story (which is Pip/Finn and Stella's relationship)instead of focusing on the real theme of the story which is more about spiritual growth.
-
vxmono — 19 years ago(March 17, 2007 03:41 PM)
Renko - I agree.
I've watched the movie countless times and found that it works on many levels; apart from the stunning cinematography, the green theme, the acting was very fine too. I find that this is one of Gwyneth Paltrow's most moving performances - as opposed to a lot of bland stuff she has done in the past - and the others in the cast did a great job.
Ultimately though, I think the cinematography lends itself to the richness of Dickens' theme - whether Cuaron and the scripwriters chose to stick to it in a holy manner or not.
I read somewhere that this was one of the most difficult movies for Cuaron to make because there really was no semblance of a script- so everyone just went with it.
Ultimately though, I think it stuck through with the essence of Great Expectations. -
ctpoet — 19 years ago(March 18, 2007 05:58 PM)
My favorite book and one of my favorite movies of all time.
This isn't a movie about the book, this is a movie inspired showing the same heart and pain. Dicken's spirit is here on the corruption of childhood, the suffering of lose, obession and power and the lose of innocence in a modern day tragic to the very end of two people who cannot break cycles of lose.
You want Dicken's brilliance in under two hours for an American movie audiance? Well, this is about as good as it ever has been. Great film.
The movie honors the great book, please do read it, but you can't put down a painting because it isn't a photograph. -
greenleaf_glade — 19 years ago(March 04, 2007 08:00 PM)
Stop being ignorant. If people cannot recognize the difference between a Dickens novel and a Hollywood film, well they're not going to be seeing this type of movie in the first place. And the rest of us do not need YOU to tell us that they differ.
I always thought it was interesting reading the reviews in America vs. those in England when this movie came out. Many more Americans reviewed the movie with your same sort of "How dare you!" approach, as if it were a great sin to even try to adapt Dickens' timeless themes into a modern context. THAT'S the greatness of Dickens! That you can successfully make a modern film with his same themes is a testament to his work. This was recognized by the British film critics.
Interesting that the critics from Dickens' home country were far more fascinated by this film than know-it-all American film critics.
PS. The use of green is a theme in other Cuaron films. Do some research. -
Rogueboi19 — 18 years ago(August 31, 2007 03:52 AM)
'you can't put down a painting because it isn't a photograph' - I like that. Plus, I agree with what you said. I love this film, it's one of my favourites and I've seen it many many times. The cinematography (sorry, I can't spell =S), the music, the performances, the music, the musicI think it's Gweneth Paltrow's best performance!
I think we've now established that you can't compare a book and a film, but I do think you can comment on the quality of an adaptation. but in terms of this film, I thought it was supposed to be based on the novel, as apposide to an adaptation.