Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
I saw the original, un-aired pilot and was thrilled by what made it to
the air. I'm desperately trying to keep it separate from the UK
version, simply because they have mixed many of the flaws. New York is
a better choice, for the grittier streets of working-class Manchester.
Michael Imperioli was practically inspired casting, Gretchen Mol is a
vast improvement, and even the Jacket is black instead of the ugly tan.
O'Mara no longer seems intimidated by the part like he did in the
original pilot. Maybe somebody finally told him the original didn't
look so comfortable in the role at the very beginning either and yet
went on to create one a very memorable characters.
The one thing that wasn't changed for the better was Gene Hunt. Keitel may be a great actor, but it is obvious when they have to film around his age.
It's important to take this as it's own show. This isn't like the Americans remade Doctor Who. Life On Mars was brilliant, but not an icon because it hasn't been around long enough yet. The Office has managed to make themselves into a wonderful, different show from the UK version, and I have faith Life on Mars would do the same if we all quit asking where John Simm is.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is the movie that I always say is the funniest one I've ever seen. It's funny because it doesn't rely on Ashton Kutcher or bad parodies or stupid clichés -- the jokes are tight, unique and, most importantly, have meaning. Any comedy that can make us cry at the death of a Broadway extra from Cats (the poor much maligned Cats) but have us laughing at the one man's desire that he feels he can't have, gives us a depth of meaning not seen in comedic film in quite a while. We've become to dependent on having comedies without a meaning, or a point, or a way of laughing at something as terrifying as the AIDS crisis. Sometimes we want to laugh at that which scares us -- it gives us power over it.
I love the Avengers. Emma Peel was a hero of my childhood. I was ridiculously excited for the arrival of this film and had nauseated all my friends when the project was first announced about who was to be our two spies. I was thrilled with the selection of Fiennes -- but Thurman? I was hesitant. Then Diana Rigg passed on being in the film. Another bad sign. Then, the television trailers, yet a third omen but I told myself the movie could not possibly be that bad. IT was worse than my wildest nightmares -- and I have an excellent imagination. Thurman was as bad as I thought, Fiennes had nothing to play to. Macnee, oh, how it could have improved if we'd seen him. I think this movie is terrible because they didn't get the joke. The Avengers is cheeky, campy, fun, and never without some form of the double entendre somewhere. Apparently, the script writes never actually saw the series and didn't get the joke. I beg, some British filmmaker somewhere give it a chance. Make your own version. Give some dignity back.
I remember the hype over this movie and the build up to the Oscars. I too, got caught up in the "isn't this marvelous" stage, until I saw it the third time -- well after the Oscars and Tom Hanks' win # 2. DO I think he deserved it -- yes, but the movie itself doesn't stand up. The movie itself is sweet but the historical edits -- and pure impossiblity of the story doesn't help. The tone of the film isn't fantastical enough to carry such a story -- it's too far in the realm of the real to carry something as impossible, and this effect is far better achieved in the book and in examples of films like "Big Fish." Overall, the players are what make this film good. Never mind Hanks but Robin Wright is perfectly understated as Jenny and Gary Sinise was my personal favorite as Lt. Dan, but the story, direction tone and absolutely horrific historical editing, prevent this movie from being brilliant. In fact, should anyone ever consider this the best movie of it's year? One might, until they see "The Shawshank Redemption."