Change Your Image
glen922
Reviews
Cannery Row (1982)
Whattery What?
If you enjoyed Steinbeck's 'Cannery Row', you will probably hate this. If you wanted to see the book brought to the screen, you will not find it here. There is no excuse, or conceivable explanation, for the complete departure in this film from the book's character and story. The book is short enough to be rendered faithfully, the characters are colorful enough to satisfy any audience, and the story is beautiful. This is not a case of mere alterations of character and story details, which are to be expected with most adaptations. This is a case of film makers stealing the name, setting and period of a book, along with a few of the characters names and basic biographical data, and setting out to write their own story, as if the original text had none to offer. The result, this film, has nothing of the soul of Steinbeck's 'Cannery Row'. It has no soul at all, and its makers have surely lost theirs.
I'd still like to see this book brought to the screen. The film I want to see does not exist.
Quarantine (2008)
No ending?
For its genre, zombie horror I guess, what there was of it was quite well done. And Dexter's sister was great. But "everyone dies, apparently," is not a satisfactory conclusion, for me. And it is more than a little odd that the final shot of the film is given away in the teasers, trailers and poster. I expected that shot to be somewhere early in the second act, as in, 'holy crap, this is getting serious.' But no, that's the final shot. Everyone else has already been killed or bitten, except for her, and she gets dragged out by the uberzombie in the attic - cut to black, roll credits. Weak.
I never saw the original, but since this was apparently a shot for shot re-make, I'd have the same problem with that. Perhaps there will be a sequel and we'll more story there, but I don't quite see it. What I believe is that the writers had an relatively original idea as to how some zombies might originate, but did not have the brainpower either to truly work out the details, and so left them muddy, or to imagine a third act, and so ended it at two. For that matter, I'm not sure that it wasn't all just one long first act, with an inciting incident 30 minutes in.
Martin Chuzzlewit (1994)
Best possible adaptation (in 6 hours), Excellent
This is the first Dickens full novel adaptation that has not greatly disappointed me. Far from it. This was wonderful! I had just finished the book when I watched it (as always), and so was keenly aware of alterations, and there were quite a few, which I'll get to presently. However, with one notable exception, this production did not suffer greatly for the deleted or redesigned sequences, as all other Dickens adaptations seem to. This success I believe is creditable first to diligent and careful writing - to David Lodge (who hasn't done any Dickens since, which is a shame). He clearly knew the work intimately, and had studied the story and characters in great detail. To distill and, as needed, to disassemble and reassemble a novel of this breadth to fit into a six hour production, without trampling and flattening, or mangling, the story, and without omitting significant characters or subplots, is a rare accomplishment.
I don't know much about directing, but I know when it stinks, and I know when it's good, and in this case it was excellent. I don't know Pedr James, but for his direction he surely deserves a large share of the credit for this fine production.
The casting of this production was genius, and the performances consistently outstanding. In particular, among the major roles: I couldn't imagine a better Seth Pecksniff than Tom Wilkinson, and he was brilliant as always. He seemed to truly enjoy this role, and oozed imperious Pecksniffian arrogance and false modesty. Paul Scofield as Martin Chuzzlewit was equally wonderful, and so deliciously playful as he came to life and sprang the trap into which he has lured Pecksniff. Pete Postlethwait was marvelous as Tigg Montague/Montague Tigg, a difficult double role of sorts, and so closely resembled in appearance and behaviour the character I imagined as I read the book, that I'm not sure I ever had any image of Tigg in my mind but his. Philip Franks as Tom Pinch nearly steals the show (as does the character in the novel), with a perfect portrayal of that subtle combination of sweet naiveté, chivalrous dignity, and defender of the meek and decent that is Tom Pinch. Elizabeth Spriggs breathed, as it were, liquor-saturated life, into one of the most uniquely Dickensian characters (and a bizarrely dialectic one too) in this story. Marvelous! Keith Allen provided a Jonas Chuzzlewit perhaps even more vile and sinister, and ultimately self-tormented, than the one Dickens himself conceived. Likewise, Emma Chambers' Charity Pecksniff surpassed the original, owning every scene in which she appeared, and simultaneously evoking great empathy for the wrong done to her by her father, and antipathy for her own callous treatment of her sister.
The high quality of writing, direction and performance in this series were further complimented by excellence in all artistic contributions, from set design, costume and make-up (somebody actually read Dickens' descriptions of the characters and studied the original Phiz illustrations! What a novel idea!), and musical score, and by masterful editing, seamless and tight, with not an awkward or wasted frame.
Where I always have issues with Dickens adaptations is in the deletions and alterations that invariably occur, and that apparently must occur. This series stands out to me as one that did not suffer much on this score, even though much of the dialog was shortened, some scenes were melded together, others deleted or compressed, and time-lines were occasionally teased slightly. I hate that generally, but as I've said, I credit the lack of damage done in this process to the skill and hard effort of the writer, David Lodge. I can even forgive the significant re-writing of the climax and epilogue chapters (the omission Westlock's proposal to Ruth, of Charity being left at the alter, and of Tom in the future, at the organ, with Ruth's children) because what was done worked so well and was so fully consistent with the story and characters that it might have been an alternative ending written by Dickens himself. The one major issue I did have along these lines was with the severe watering down, almost to nothing (Mary reading letters from Martin), of young Martin's and Mark's trip to America. This was an important aspect of the novel, to which many chapters were devoted. First, this is necessary to tell the story of the critical change that occurs in young Martin when he is sick - for a month! - in Eden, (being selflessly cared for by Mark) and realizes the folly of his selfish ways. Second, the things that Martin and Mark witness and experience in America provide the reader/viewer with Dickens' own impressions of, and satirical commentary on, pre-civil war America - the slave-owning, ill-mannered, ever-spitting, money-grubbing, agrammatical, thieving, vain, violent, ignorant, swindling, bastard kin of the mother country. It's hysterical! I'm sure it was cut for political correctness, and that is sad.
I believe that this is as close to a perfect production of a Dickens novel as can be done in a six hour time-frame (other than the unfortunate treatment of the American episodes). To truly do full justice to a major Dickens novel, I believe a production must devote one full hour to each of the original 'episodes' as published (three or four chapters were published each month - all of Dickens novels were first published that way). Because Dickens wrote in this episodic way, there is a built in episodic quality to his work, and it is therefore already organized for the corresponding number of film episodes. Martin Chuzzlewit was published in 19 episodes (18 months with a double episode the last month). The best possible adaptation, in my opinion, would follow this episode list.
Little Dorrit (1987)
Going. Going! Gone!
In addition to describing the progression of my regard for this film as I watched it, these are the names of the last three chapters of the book, a book which, as usual (with Dickens adaptations), the writers of this film had not read - or at least had not read recently enough.
Most of the performances were fine. Alec Guinness was spot on, and the little woman playing Amy was perfect. At first I hated the Fanny performance - and then I remembered that I hated Fanny, so she was also perfect. Arthur could have been played with a little more enthusiasm, and without all the whispering. The actor playing Tip likely never went far. But all in all, the acting was acceptable.
Where this film failed, and failed completely, was in the telling of the story: in the writing, directing and editing. First, of course, was the ludicrous vertical splitting of the film into two character-centric/perspective parts to be presented sequentially. This was a horrible idea on every conceivable level, but most importantly, it resulted in the disconnection of important elements of Arthur's story and Amy's story, that must play upon one another in order to build the drama and advance the story. These connections being brutally severed, the story and all of its intensity were lost.
If that were not enough, there was so much more ill-advised meddling on the part of the writer and director, that it alone would have ruined the film - at least for readers. Anyone who has read even the cheat notes for Little Dorrit must have wondered and been dismayed at the absence of numerous important characters. Most notably, they must have asked, 'where is Rigaud?' This story can't be told without Rigaud! It is through this colorful and evil character, "with his nose coming down over his mustache, and his mustache going up under his nose," who is blackmailing Mrs Clennam, with the help of Flintwich, that Mrs. Clennam's secret is revealed, and his involvement is essential to the building suspense surrounding this secret - of which suspense, as a consequence of Rigaud's absence, there was not a trace in this film. And since there is no Rigaud it follows, perhaps, that there would be no Cavalleto, another uniquely Dickensian character who was sorely missed. Rigaud is also an important evil element among the Dorrits abroad, where he teams up with the dissipated Henry Gowan - who is also, sadly, never seen again in this film after he marries Pet.
So little is made of the Meagles family, a major omission in itself, that I suppose it is no surprise that there is no Tattycoram, and since there is no Tatty, there is no Mrs. Wade: more great losses for the audience, since their highly charged and emotional subplot helps to define and humanize the characters of the Meagles family and of Arthur. Mrs. Wade of course also plays an important part in the Rigaud - Flintwich - Mrs. Clennam story.
The Murdles are so overlooked in this telling, that one may wonder, when Mr Murdle shows up at Fanny and Sparkler's apartment to ask for a pen knife (with which he later commits suicide), who he is and where he came from at that point. Among other hard-felt losses stemming from this neglect, is the missed opportunity to engage in some of the fun that best exemplifies Dickens' sense of humour and satire. The parties at the Murdles, with all of the sycophants that are named only by their professions (Bar, Physician, Clergy etc.), and the head butler that terrorizes the great Mr. Murdle. All gone!
Since there was no developing Rigaud blackmail subplot, readers knew well in advance that the end of the film would have to be substantially re-organized, and that it would be awful; and it was. Dickens version of the story behind Mrs. Clennam's secret is, of course, quite complex, but certainly worth accurately telling, since it is the motivation for the entire plot! But no! Now we are expected to accept the story that there is money in the house that Frederick had sent for Amy, and that Mrs. Clennam had held back? How absurd! Frederick has been in contact with Amy her whole life; so if he had money for Amy, he would have just given it to her. Of course the real story was this: Old Mrs. Clennam's father had forced her and Arthur's father into marriage, when Arthur's father was actually in love with another woman (Arthur's real mother, who lived with and was provided for by Frederick), an affair that when discovered by Mrs. Clennam, sent her into an old testament rage, in which she took the baby (Arthur)to raise and drove his real mother into an insane asylum and eventually into her grave. When Mrs. Clennam's father died, he felt remorse for what he had done, and left part of his estate to Arthurs real mother, or, if she was not living, to the youngest female kin (Amy!) of the real mother's caretaker (Frederick!). Yes, complicated, but not if it's told right.
As much as this film was brutalized and its audience cheated by the cruel omissions and alterations in this story, which I have only highlighted here; it must also be noted that by dint of scandalously flawed directing and editing, what remained of the story managed to drag on miserably, with inordinately long pauses between lines, painfully slow pans to make small points,and long, lingering scenes in which nothing actually occurs.
My recommendation: do not waste six hours watching this. In that much time you could be well into reading the actual book, which is terrific. Get the Penguin Classics version - it has all the original illustrations, wonderful, informative extras including very well done end notes.
Will no one ever properly adapt a Dickens novel to film?
David Copperfield (2000)
Dickens spins in grave
I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade.
If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.
There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.
The Happening (2008)
worse even than expected - so what happened?
The expansive laundry list of the failures of this mind-numbingly miserable, preposterous excuse for a film, which essentially includes every conceivable aspect and component of it, have been well detailed in earlier posts. I won't waste much time reiterating those comments. I have to say that I disagree with those who, in spite of their overall distaste for the film, with which I heartily agree, found the first so many minutes to be watchable, or the score to stand out as a positive feature, or who found anything else positive to say about any part of this thing. Perhaps you're just being kind. No need. OK, Deschanel is a cutie, but that's it for this film.
So what happened to Shymalan? Sixth Sense was obviously a masterpiece. Unbreakable was brilliant, although the stilted dialog was starting to show. In Signs we still had a good story and very watchable thriller, but it was becoming clear that Shymalan had no idea how real people actually talked to one another. In these first 3 films we had Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, and Mel Gibson, top of the A-list talents, and one must wonder how much of the quality of these films was due to their great ability and superb performances rendered. Shymalan has not been able to recruit this caliber of actor since Signs, as no doubt actors and their agents do read the screenplays pitched to them. Not to take anything away from Hurt, Giammati, or Whalberg, who all have done and are capable of more great things, but they are a step down from the likes of Willis and Gibson, and this compounded with increasingly silly stories and atrocious dialog, the result was one mediocre, one bad, and one utterly awful film, in that order.
Another possibility is that Shymalan stole his first two or three stories, or has since lost an important uncredited collaborator or muse, and really never had any talent himself. In any case, that's probably it for Shymalan, and it's about time.