I'm abstaining largely from starting a bash-filled thread (while I did give it a 4) but I am curious that the consensus
-
starline — 17 years ago(March 18, 2009 12:09 PM)
I don't look at it as much as an adaptationwhich it is a decent onebut more like 'inspired by'. I love this 'modern' versionI love this film!
(I also love this director's adaptation of Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Little Princess! I didn't read Harry Potterbut did Alfonso Cuaron stick closely to the book for 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'? I dunno. He makes wonderful films though!) -
Chief_Watches-Many — 16 years ago(July 27, 2009 08:47 AM)
I agree with the OP, how does this get away without too much criticism?
Anyway for me the first half felt promising and I was kind of into it but I thought the second half was horrible, and eventually was glad it ended. As it finished it left me feelinga bit sick! Kind of unclean!
No offence intended I'm not bashing it for the sake of it, but for me it went from reasonable to really awful. (I am saying awful based on my level of enjoyment, not so much this is an awful film - If you like it fine.)
I haven't read the book, but like the 1946 film quite lot.
The 1946 one was a film for everyone, but (again no offence) this one just ended up feeling like a girls film.
I'm sure I won't be too popular for this, but just being honest.
Also I'm not coming at this as any kind of purist for the book or the original film, I'll judge anything on it's own merit (Although I only usually care for remakes when the original has fallen short of what it should have been).
My Vote History -
http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=20920835 -
samso999 — 16 years ago(August 16, 2009 01:12 AM)
This is a movie I try to watch, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. I like the actors, and the idea of it, but somehow it all feels horribly wrong. So even as I am half watching it now, I had to come here to see if it got bashed as I expected. Guess not!
I feel like apologizing to Mr. Dickens.
I do hope this is not a girls film, then again I may just be too old a girl to understand the appeal. -
crooked_spoons — 15 years ago(August 14, 2010 10:42 AM)
I know samso999 posted this a full year ago, but I just had to quote him/her.
This is a movie I try to watch, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. I like the actors, and the idea of it, but somehow it all feels horribly wrong.
^^THIS is EXACTLY how I feel. I'm trying to watch it and to understand it, but it all feels so unnatural. I just get this overwhelming mixture of senses, like one part awkward embarrassment another part shame. Like I'm not supposed to be watching and I'm doing something I shouldn't be.
"I thought I was bisexualuntil I had a threesome."
http://tinyurl.com/27syuvh -
Caffeine-Free — 12 years ago(June 12, 2013 11:04 PM)
This is a movie I try to watch, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. I like the actors, and the idea of it, but somehow it all feels horribly wrong.
^^THIS is EXACTLY how I feel. I'm trying to watch it and to understand it, but it all feels so natural. I just get this overwhelming mixture of senses, like one part awkward embarrassment another part shame. Like I'm not supposed to be watching and I'm doing something I shouldn't be.
This is all correct.
I'm on a Great Expectations kick after watching the more recent 2012 film adaption directed by Mike Newell, which is a solid 9.5 at least. It is really good overall.. good acting, true to the story, a classy, appealing retelling.. and I don't even know what possessed me to finally watch this version and now more skeptical to watch an equally recent miniseries of it but I swear nothing can be as bad as this.
It does indeed make you feel dirty and guilty watching it. A great, classic novel turned into one part soap opera, eight parts badly acted 90s soft core porn. Even before that begins it just has a creepy feel where every character and scene is creepy. The direction is weird and unpleasant. The score is annoying. It's unbearable. I waited for something to redeem it and nothing did.
I can't fathom why people like it if they care for the original story at all. Rant complete. -
maz89 — 12 years ago(September 21, 2013 03:43 AM)
I can't fathom why people like it if they care for the original story at all.
It's not a faithful adaptation. Why should it be? It is its own work of art not 'bound' by the requirements of the literary source material, to be judged on its own merits and not against some work in a different medium altogether.
And I find it amusing that you refer to it as a "soap opera". Have you read the Dickens novel? I mean, Cuaron's unique version does do away with a lot of the "startling" revelations at the end, making it decidedly less melodramatic - at least from a narrative perspective.
Other than that, I think he created a compelling audio-visual feat, an exciting treat for the senses. Some of the scenes still ring vividly in my head - eg, the cathartic run-in-the-rain sequence, impeccably scored and beautifully shot. Or the sensuous kiss-by-the-fountain sequence, and how the bright and sunny lighting making it almost dream-like and surreal. It's not a perfect film but it's far from being unbearable.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose. -
greenleaf_glade — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 12:27 PM)
Perhaps if you think of it this way: it's not a straight adaptation. It's an update. It's set in modern Manhattan where the rules are very different from Dickens' England. So there will of course be changes. There is something timeless about the plot of "Great Expectations" which is why you could set it in any time period really. If anything, this film is a testament to Dickensit shows that even though it was written long ago, it can still be retold today.
-
itsalltears — 16 years ago(November 11, 2009 02:02 AM)
i thought this took an amazing classic and made it into a movie for idiots.
i didn't feel like i really knew the characters or cared about them. dickens made you feel for pip and identify with him. i didn't care if ethan hawk got gwyneth paltrow or not, and frankly aside from her beauty i didn't see any reason why he would even care about her. -
Gbolling1984 — 16 years ago(November 15, 2009 11:32 AM)
I read this book in high school (I'm 24 now) and I loved the book but I think the film, on its own merits, is quite good. I agree with what someone else said that it seems more inspired by the book rather than an adaptation. I really dug the technical aspects of the film. Thought it had a great atmosphere and thought the acting was good as well. I actually find this film to be very underrated
-
Pheebshirl — 12 years ago(February 07, 2014 04:59 AM)
I didn't find this adaptation awful, but it was not particularly good either. I personally would rate it as an average film, probably about 5/10. My main problems with the film were the pacing (it actually started to become boring in parts), the acting (Ethan Hawke was not good, Gwyneth Paltrow was Ok but not wonderful), the complete lack of chemistry between Hawke and Paltrow and some of the writing was quite bizarre (e.g. the whole train sequence with De Niro was just weird and not at all suspenseful). I understand how changes needed to be made to adapt the novel to modern times, but I felt overall it just did not work. The characters also lacked any real character development and therefore it was hard to care for them. Anne Bancroft and Robert De Niro's performances were also both so hammy that they verged on turning the characters into comical caricatures.
I love 80's movies