Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Another way of reading the novel
11 May 2002
Regardless of all the controversy, I just loved and love Brett Easton Ellis' novel. I thought and think it's a bold, challenging and tremendously original work and not just anyone can fully appreciate all the dark humour and despair beneath the gory surface.

The film adaptation shows the depths of the novel refraining from its cruelty. Even though it boasts some shocking scenes (ie the chainsaw) the nature of the impact is mainly psychological and relies very much on the impressive performance by Christian Bale, once again proving the wonderful actor he is. Rather than being dark and ambiguous with respect to the main character, Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner have chosen to look at him from outside thus exposing his pathetism and twisted sense of reality, therefore avoiding any chance of glamorisation of the character, and the film is constantly mocking his yuppie macho conceit, something the novel left the reader to do him/herself. Also, it deserves to be noted that the film is much more woman-friendly than the novel could possibly ever be, most female characters (including the melancholy Courtney) being sympathetic. There is no scope for mysoginy here.

To sum up, this is a more accesible, much less ambiguous approach to a difficult character. While the novel is fascinating because it constantly pushes you to new limits as a reader, the film becomes a highly witty parody of it all. A bit more of social criticism is missing in this adaptation but however thumbs up to Harron for her feminist way of treating an unbearably ridiculous mysoginist lunatic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Totally unfaithful to Emily Brönte´s classic
11 May 2002
Starting from the facts that William Wyler was a terrific director and Lawrence Olivier a wonderful actor (better in drama than on screen but anyway), this films is really disappointing when you watch it afer having read and loved the novel.

The storyline lacks all the passion, the fury, the moral ambiguity, the complexity and poetic wilderness of its original source; Olivier turns out to be far too refined and "British" to be a convincing Heathcliff and the lack of commitment of the adaptators towards the gothic masterpiece is quite irritating.

Not being totally satisfactory either, I consider the 1992 adaptation of the novel much more faithful to the spirit of the book. A shame, really.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lolita (1962)
10/10
Cynically romantic
23 March 2002
Having read the Nabokov novel and the two well-known versions of the film, I believe the most accurate way of defining the relations is: Lyne´s film is more faithful to the literal reading of the story, Kubrick's one is far more faithful to its spirit and, what is even more important, it isn't drowned by comparisons with the book.

Probably what bothers most people who have seen both films and read the novel is that Kubrick gives ample space to cynicism, farce and mocking of all the main (and even secondary) characters: it ridicules both the cultured, refined and cosmopolitan Englishman and the pseudo-liberal and fairly tacky Americans (the cultural and behavioral differentiation reminding me of Henry James, just in reverse). The child temptress is here seen more realistically as a sexy however vacuous and irritating teenager and Humbert´s love of her as a noble and real but tremendously stupid infatuation (coming from a cold-headed intellectual like him). Also delightful the portrayal of alcoholic and neurotic Shelley Winters, and particularly of Peter Sellers as a mediocre tv writer enhanced by American middle-class culture. There is a lot of witty sociopolitical criticism here.

Adrian Lynne's version, being utterly romantic (and striving really too hard to be poetic) may seem more accurate on the love story but is really Nabokov's intention to tell a love story as such? I can't really appreciate how such wonderful novelist could be so obvious and open to his reader. Not forgetting the romanticism of Humbert's feelings of despair towards the girl, Kubrick doesn't indulge in a simple love story but explores all the most obscure consequences of irrationality and does so with irony and sarcasm (humour is everywhere) but also with a touch of compassionate dramatism when appropriate.

We have a classic here, both faithful to the novel and full of innovations. Lynne´s intent is merely a limp follower of its two (the literary and the filmic) predecessors.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
5/10
What is the point???
16 March 2002
Vacuously pretentious movie for teenage minds, shallow, repetitive, a terrible script, unimaginative, too hard pushing to be original and baroque (just to hide all the emptiness I suppose). It's a shame some talents like Kidman, McGregor and Jim Broadbent are so cornily spoiled here.

As for the music, it's really awful: has ANYONE who praises it ever heard the originals??? I just don't get the point...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Intimacy behind grandness
13 March 2002
What I mainly love from David Lean is his portrayal of the emotional intimacy of his characters (be it main or secondary), for which was mainly rewarded in lower-budgeted films like Summer Madness or Brief Encounter but mainly in huge projects like Doctor Zhivago or this one.

Some people keep complaining of the biographical inaccuracy here and there but they seem to miss the point that this is a film about an individual, the name is actually unimportant: what we should analyse is his emotional relationship with the desert, with the Arab men around him (including permanent homosexual overtones), with his leadership status, the British authorities, the Arab ones, etc etc. This is NOT a historic film or a biopic, it explores the rise and decline of a man's faith, integrity and enthusiasm, his evil as well as his heroism, to sum up HIS MIND and HIS FEELINGS, from piety and innocence to madness and violence and on to apathy and skepticism. This also applies to all the characters that surround him, all of them superbly characterised, none of them gratuitious or one-dimensional.

The cinematography, as usual in Lean's work, stands out at every stage: wonderful photography, marvellous acting (Omar Sharif was only this great when directed by Lean, and what to say of Anthony Quinn, Alec Guinness and especially Peter O'Toole?) and great narration (it is this long and yet you're never bored). A masterpiece like all the others I mentioned above, nothing more... And nothing less.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed