Terrible movie.
-
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. -
Kinematico — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 03:01 AM)
I've read the book, I've watched both versions, David Lean's one and Cuarn's version.
I've enojoyed immensly each one of those experiences. Great expectations either on book or as a film, by Lean or by Cuarn is simply a masterpiece.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons. -
lotsofwordz — 18 years ago(December 19, 2007 06:39 AM)
The book isn't that good??? ROFL. Only one of the greatest books ever written, by one of the greatest novellists who ever lived.
As to the film: what a waste of film stock. To have the whiney GP as Estella is bad enough, a piece of spectacular miscasting, but to move the setting to NY is just plain dumb. The Kent and London settings are essential to the atmosphere of the story. Only an idiot would move the setting across the pond.
And frankly, anyone who sets out to modernise the story has lost the plot.
This film was done. It was done by a genius called Lean. Redoing it is nonsense. It's the modern disease that is destroying modern cinema: redo all the great films of the past, only make sure the new versions are 5th-rate (from King Kong to Great Expectations and everything inbetween). It betrays the lack of imagination and creativity of today's film-makers: they are no more than cows chewing the cud. -
-
againo — 18 years ago(December 31, 2007 10:10 AM)
Thank you for citing my error in spelling, and showing me the meaning of the word CHILDLIKE in doing so. In any case, you have a right to your opinion, but that's not what annoys me. What annoys me is people laughing at other people's opinions. Looked in the mirror lately?