Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Emma BBC Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, June 13, 2010 , under , , , , , , , | comments (1)





Show: Emma (BBC miniseries)
Director: Jim O’Hanlon
Starring: Romola Garai, Johnny Lee Miller, Michael Gambon.
Plot: Based on the Jane Austen novel of the same name, this four part miniseries follows Emma Woodhouse, a lively and very rich young woman in 19th Century England.

Jane Austen adaptations always fascinate me. I always wonder who it was that thought yet another Jane Austen adaptation was absolutely necessary, let alone who thought THIS version of Emma was indispensable to the Austen canon.

The Jane Austen Renaissance of the mid nineties produced three version of Emma alone: the darker made for TV version starring Kate Beckinsdale, the light and sparkling film version directed by Douglas McGrath and starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Amy Heckerling’s teen comedy Clueless.

While each of those brought something different to the story (particularly Clueless, which, incidentally, is my favourite adaptation) this latest offering from the BBC seems to be nothing more than a rehash of what's already been done. It doesn't add anything new. Indeed, it does pretty much what the McGrath version does, but takes TWICE as long.

This version of Emma suffers from poor pacing, particularly in the first two episodes. There feel like there is a lot of filler as opposed to story. This is perhaps most obvious in the ill-advised opening sequence which focuses on the childhood of Emma, Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. Apart from shouting to the audience 'look at all the ways we are different to all the other adaptations!' the sequence itself is rather pointless.



Director Jim O'Hanlon and screenwriter Sandy Welch also utilise an odd variety of narrative techniques. The audience is privy to Emma's private thoughts, her fantasies and imaginings and (most bizarrely) Emma delivers full fledged monologues. They occur sporadically (*Clueless shout out!*) and inconsistently and seem out of kilter with the rest of the other wise naturalistic production values.

However, this version does allow Frank Churchill to come across as the blackguard he is (I always felt he got off a little to easy in the McGrath version). I also enjoyed seeing a little more of John and Isabella Knightley.

But perhaps the biggest obstacle Emma faces is not poor pacing, but Romola Garai. I am still trying to decide whether she was miscast or misdirected. Emma is not unintelligent, rather her intelligence, as Mr Knightley puts it, is misapplied. Unfortunately in the hands of Garai, Emma Woodhouse is almost insipid. Most of the time Garai is wide eyed and overacting. Emma is a character you love because of her flaws, however, Garai is just irritating without being endearing. It is difficult to believe that Mr Knightley would be attracted to such a silly girl.



Johnny Lee Miller is quite nice to look at as Mr Knightley (but once you remember that he was married to Angelina Jolie he loses some of his appeal). He is a gentler Knightley than other adaptations, oh heck, even the book suggests, but it works for Miller, even though you get the feeling that he knows that he is in love with Emma all along.

There is nothing particularly outstanding about the rest of the supporting cast: Jodhi May is watery eyed as Mrs Weston, and Michael Gambon just does the Michael Gambon thing.

All in all, this adaptation of Emma does not offer anything new. It is over long, a little too over indulged and severely lacking in focus. It even manages to lose the Austen wit and charm that is central to the enjoyment of the story.


Should I See It?

Most likely it will disappoint even the most die hard Austen fans.


 Emma Official Site here.

All pictures courtesy of the BBC.

Prince of Persia Film Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, May 31, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Film: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Directed By: Mike Newell
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina
Plot: Prince Dastan comes into a possession of a mystical dagger that can turn back time. With the help of Princess Tamina, he must return it to its safe keeping place before it falls into the wrong hands.


I know that Prince of Persia is based on a video game. I never played it, but for my brothers it was one of the defining moments in their game-playing lives (in other words the game is AWESOME). SO how well it compares to the original game I have no idea. I am sure there are plenty of fan boys elsewhere on the web who can tell you all about it, but not here I’m afraid.

I guess it's fun watching Jake Gyllenhaal jump around. His muscles are in good form, but his performance less so. He is uneven. At times, perfectly charming, at other times, he looses it. Though he thankfully never decends into the Orlando Bloom realm of boring (but more on that later).


 
Of course there is a love story, and for this type of movie, this couple fare better than most. I appreciate the film maker’s restraint in resolving the relationship at the end of the film.  Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina does well enough. She has to deliver some awful lines. But she makes her way through with sunk and sparkle as best she can. 
 
Alfred Molina brings the charm and the funny that almost, though not quite, makes up for the lack of it in the rest of the film. I have to say that I did actually learn some thing from this film: Ostriches are really ugly.
 
Prince of Persia is a decent film, but it never crosses into the 'fabulous' territory that it desperately wants to. The dialogue could have done with some revising. A lot of the intended laughs fall flat. The continual references to destiny seem a little hyperbolic for a film of this kind. And, perhaps a more streamlined plot would have worked better: As it stands, the ‘dagger’ is lost and retrieved so many times it’s dizzying. This is a movie, people, not a video game. And at under two hours, it feels like a lot longer.
 
 
 
 
Of course, comparisons with Pirates of the Caribbean are inevitable. the film is coping a lot of criticism for not being 'clever' like Pirates, as is Jake Gyllenhaal for not being Johnny Depp. But in perspective, Johnny Depp was the only good thing about the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie (the other two I cannot comment on). Without Depp, there is no movie. At least Gyllenhaal fares better than his real POTC counterpart Orlando Bloom, who manages to be as bland as rice crackers in every movie he's in.
 
But, back on topic.
 
Mike Newell could have been a little bit more adventurous shot wise, particularly in the action scenes. I was actually excited about Newell directing this, as I really enjoyed what he did with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. But, I don't know, he didnt bring the funny that I was after.  Nor did he bring the depth of character that I expected.
 
 
 
To sequel or not to sequel, that is the question.
 
Even though i dont think this film is strong enough to warrant a sequel, I cant imagine it's far from the producer's minds. Films far less worthy have had sequels. I guess it will depend on the $$$$$$ it makes at the box office.







Should I See It?

If you just want a bit of fun, go for it! But don’t expect anything too……deep.





Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Official Site here.