MonkeyPundit Reviews

Blade Runner (1982)

Inspired by the cliffs-notes of a great novel, Blade Runner is, unfortunately, not widely recognized as a fecal insult to literature

[1/10 · 8 October 2010]

Blade Runner is perhaps the worst film adaption of a novel ever made. To say that Blade Runner is an adaption of Phillip K Dick's inspiring novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is not only a lie, but it is an insult to both Phillip K. Dick and any movie that has been adapted to film with even a marginal degree of success. It is most generous and honest to say that Blade Runner is inspired by "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".

Blade Runner presents, at best, a surface-level representation of a select few of the novel's characters; these representations are devoid of the depth that made them captivating. Likewise, there are many great (and well-developed) characters who were excluded from the film.

The subplots, entire segments of the plot, the greater part of its ethos, and major aspects of the novel's theme are also expunged from this film. In short, the elements of the novel that have moral, narrative, effusive, or dramatic merit are conspicuously absent from this film.

Instead of being a narrative that re-affirms greater truths about humanity, Blade Runner exists only as a testament to sloppy adaptation by screenwriters who have such little respect for literature that they would cinematically re-hash a novel's spark notes.

I believe that, were the novel by which Blade Runner is inspired more widely read, society would recognize Blade Runner as the fecal insult to great literature that it is.

Titus (1999)

Titus is Julie Taymore's opus.

[10/10 · 17 February 2004]

Many might choose to fault Julie Taymore for her anachronistic method of adapting Titus Andronicus to film. To those who dislike this, it should be mentioned that Shakespeare's own plays and the productions thereof were rife with anachronisms. Julie Taymore thus keeps with the tradition of Shakespearean productions.

Julie Taymore's Titus is a visual masterpiece which manages to capture all the excitement, anguish, anger, and pain of the original play. Backed up by an equally dynamic score, the amalgamation of these elements with incredible special effects and superb acting jobs by Anthony Hopkins, Jessica Lange, and Harry Lennix (among other great actors) conveys just how intense of a work Titus Andronicus actually is.

Yes, Julie Taymore took some liberties with certain elements of Titus Andronicus. For example, the messenger who delivers Titus Andronicus the news of his sons' demise is highly elaborate and probably overemphasized. However, Julie Taymore's liberties also did the play considerable justice, especially with regards to the attack on Lavinia and Titus' begging for his sons' lives.

Many will probably find fault with this movie as the plot is long and matches the language in comprehensive difficulty. One must recognize that Shakespearean English is an entirely different dialect if one is to try and appreciate any Shakespearean play, especially Titus Andronicus. Also, one must recognize that Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare's first attempt at a revenge tragedy, which is why it lacks the polish of later tragedies such as MacBeth and Othello. However, the advantage to this is that, unlike MacBeth and Othello, Titus Andronicus' main villain (Aaron) possesses motiveless malignity and has no redeeming personality traits (it is unfortunate that, in Titus, Julie Taymore chose to remove some of Aaron's important lines that would have supported this, especially with regards to the plea bargain between Aaron and Lucius). In later plays, Shakespeare attempted to explain away the evils of his villains and make them more understandable.

Overall, Julie Taymore has managed to take an under-appreciated Shakespearean tragedy and turn into a marvel of cinematic and dramatic beauty. Titus is by far one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of all times, and its only fault is the removal of some highly significant lines.