'o' - remake of othello with josh hartnett and julia stiles

[cimorene]

it seems like you can't go wrong with shakespeare, but for some reason, something was just giving me a bad feeling about 'o' from the moment my mom bought it almost a year ago. the fact that they wrote their own script for the modernization further endangered their quality, like think ten things i hate about you instead of romeo + juliet (and don't think clueless because i don't want any rule-disproving here).

the first ten minutes was enough to tell me how awful this movie is. it jumps in with stiff acting, weird setting, predictable plot and no exposition beyond martin sheen favoring othello over josh hartnett to explain the latter's evilitude. julia's acting might have been alright, but it wasn't shining in the midst of the dross. the badness overpowered even her--even martin sheen! my god. i had to stop watching after othello was accused of raping julia and she didn't actually deny it, and then we found out he was a druggie, and then he went and beat up josh's henchman. please, people. the pain.

wax_jism recommended the bounty, but nothing except someone i really, really like is worth watching mel gibson for me. if mom hooks the dvd player back up, i have bonfire of the vanities and cleopatra and south pacific to watch (not to mention the ever-present alternatives singin in the rain, pirates of the caribbean and finding nemo.)

Comments

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

you know, i actually like 10 things i hate about you. just, as itself, not as a shakespeare remake. because i haven't actually read the play it's based on, so i just figured it was some random teen movie. and i have a thing for heath ledger. oh, and that third rock from the sun kid. he's cute.

is clueless a shakespeare remake? i've never heard that one before.

but i agree with you on O's badness. i never even bothered watching the whole thing. i thought julia stiles did a pretty good job on hamlet, not great, but alright, but O just sucked... argh. and, speaking of hamlet, kenneth braunaugh's version was WAY better than ethan hawke. even though that one did have some cool modern scenes that i liked.

Re:

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

is clueless a shakespeare remake? i've never heard that one before.

Clueless is the most witty and spot-on adaptation of the three different film adaptations of Jane Austen's Emma, all of which came out within a year of one another after Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility made Austen films all the rage. Clueless is also the film that made Alicia Silverstone a star (well, for a little while). It was written by Amy Heckerling, the director of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and it's easily the best of the 3 attempts at capturing the spirit and the wit and fun of Emma.

(Don't get me started on the Austen-to-film discussion, haha.)

Re:

[cimness.livejournal.com]

what was the third emma, besides emma and clueless?

have you ever seen northanger abbey? it's from the 80s, but quite adorable. a very good adaptation, capturing the spirit and whatnot; the main change is that they made john thorpe actually kinda menacing, when he's supposed to be a bumbling idiot.

Re:

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

The third Emma was the A&E production of 1996 or 97. It was written by Andrew Davies, the same person who wrote the adaptation for the famous A&E Pride & Prejudice, and the script for Bridget Jones Diary (with that other guy, richard whassisname who wrote four weddings, etc). It was an okay attempt--it starred Kate Beckinsale (they didn't bother making her blonde, haha) and was very much Andrew Davies' bit of self-indulgence after P&P. He said once in an interview that he didn't like Mr. Knightley as a character, and thought that he was too hard on Emma, and that's glaringly obvious in the film, where Mr. Knightley has bad teeth, a receding hairline, a thick jowl, and a prominent frown on his face--so that even before he says a word you're like, "you expect me to believe Emma falls in love with this guy?" It naturally stays truer to the books than the other versions in terms of getting all the major events, especially the strawberry-picking outing and how that segued into the Box Hill incident; but the canonical accuracy also makes Davies' hand more apparent and intrusive. It's a good film to watch if you're bored and needing a change--I recently bought it, but more from the desire to complete my Austen film set than because I was eager to see the film again.

I have seen Northanger Abbey, and I really didn't find it that endearing--it's been a long time since i've seen it, but all I can really remember about it is that everyone keeps leering at Catherine. :))

Re:

[cimness.livejournal.com]

hmm. i've always thought that emma was awfully unrepentant--not that knightley was too hard on her. but i'm not satisfied with the gwyneth paltrow version either, i remember, although it's been some time since i saw it.

leering--well, isabella, certainly, and general tilney and john thorpe. there is rather a lot of leering, but then there is in the book too. and they do make isabella and john both more obnoxious. it's not really possible to make isabella and john like in the book, where they're highly obnoxious but catherine's innocence masks that for them a wee bit at first; because when you see how they deliver their lines you can't miss it, even if she can.

Re:

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

hm! yeah i didn't know that... probably because i've never read anything by jane austen. it's on my list but hasn't been priority.

clueless came out when i was really quite young, so i was vaguely entertained but didn't really get it. it was before i was even a teenager, i think.

Re:

[cimness.livejournal.com]

it came out when i was in seventh grade. i think you're three years younger than me.

Re:

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

let's see.... 1995... so i would be 9. grade... 4? yep, you're right!

[cimness.livejournal.com]

should i watch the hamlet with julia?

i didn't like the branagh version that much. i mean, it wasn't really BAD, but there were parts when i thought lines were mis-delivered. it brought to life all my dissatisfaction with the play which is, i think, the result of taking shakespeare as Serious Art and Literature and forgetting that shakespeare had fun and created it for mass entertainment.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

hm. well if you like. it's a lot shorter so it's not too terrible to just sit back and watch. i don't really like ethan hawke that much but he did a pretty good job at hamlet. and the ophelia part was quite good. it's a modern version but still using shakespeare's dialogue, mostly.

so, i'd say, not a huge loss if you don't bother seeing it, but not a huge gain if you do. ^_^

i liked the branaugh version mostly for the sets. i thought the sets were fantastic. at least that's what i remember thinking.... hmm.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

mm, yeah, the sets WERE good. i'm more of a costume girl, and i wasn't too impressed with those.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

man i love your icon.

ahem.

i don't remember the costumes... which means they probably weren't all that exceptional.

i just love hamlet though, so that was an added reason why i liked it. i did NOT like, however, the mel gibson version. i hate mel gibson. he was not a good hamlet.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

ME TOO.

i can't stand mel fucking gibson!

that's part of why i love r&g, because i love hamlet so much and it's like a really wonderful fanfic.

(thanks, i'm quite taken with it too. have you read the play yet? have you-have you?)

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

yes! there's just something about him that irritates me to no end. can't stand watching him in anything..... signs was almost good, besides HIM.

YES. That's it. it's like a really good fanfic. it is, really. that's brilliant.

i'm actually in the middle of reading it right now. i'm just at act 2. i remember quite a lot of it from the movie, vaguely, but there's some stuff i don't remember so that's really awesome. it had me giggling all afternoon. i'll probably finish it this weekend.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i haven't read it for like six years so i can't wait to read it again. i just have to go to the university library to get it. (i did watch it like one week ago though.)

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

i'd rather watch it. because, liek, tim roth/gary oldman. *sigh*

[cimness.livejournal.com]

YES. ::sigh::

but you can do both. or maybe you can't... but i can do both!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

*grumble*

well we'll see. maybe blockbuster will come through for me.

until then i'll settle with reading it. and watching queer as folk. ^_^

[cimness.livejournal.com]

well, one can't have everything.

i did really like the second season. but now i have to wait for the third on dvd.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

thank you kazaa. ^_^ the quality's a little behind but beggers can't be choosers.... there's no way i could afford to buy a whole set of dvds.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

oh, i rent them from blockbuster. we have dial-up so downloading any long video files just isn't an option.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

oooh. so blockbuster has tv shows? wow i didn't know that! man i gotta go down there sometime, seriously. i bought season 3 of xfiles, it cost me an arm and a leg, but i totally love that show.... man i miss xfiles ;_;, uh anyway. so yeah i never got to watch the other seasons (on tv i did but i like to watch in order so i remember better) and so now maybe i could rent them!

eep sorry i took a lot of words to say one thing. hhahah. ~_~

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i don't think they have the x-files. and they get the dvd sets somewhat late. but ours has sex in the city, the sopranos, six feet under, queer as folk, the osbournes, and maybe buffy.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

darn no x-files.... i think those are the only one's i'd want to watch. i'm not really a big tv fan... i only watch survivor now, and i used to watch xfiles and simpsons. oh now i watch family guy if i can, too.

i never got into the buffy thing... the acting was terrible at first and by the time it got better i didn't get what was going on, hehe.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i never did either. it's not exactly to my taste. but i admire the creator for it. it's one of those original things that's sort of radical while being made up of nothing but universally-known pieces of other things. it was really innovative and has many copycats, now, but no one who has quite the hip feel of it.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

yeah i'll give it that. plus anything that has such a good slash base is bound to be good. the ta for one of my classes was a big slash fan. i found this out when i handed in an outline for a paper on slash and she sent it back with smily faces, it was cool. she was a huge buffy fan, so we did papers on an episode.

hey i'm rambling. ^_^

[cimness.livejournal.com]

rambling is the source of all good conversations.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

very true! actually, now that i read this, i wasn't really rambling. but it took me a long time to type so it seemed like a lot, hehe. hooo. good morning!

[cimness.livejournal.com]

good evening!

i don't even remember what you said anymore, so that's all right.

i saw lost in translation and was disappointed, although it was... affecting. moving? but it wasn't as funny as i hoped.

but now i'm halfway through secretary (dad has to have a medical procedure done, and i'm waiting for him) and IT'S way cooler than i expected so far.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

good evening! :)

really? a lot of people have been saying it's really good.... i've been meaning to watch it. lost in translation, that is. i think the girl in it is really cute.... i liked her in ghost world.

what's secretary about?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

secretary is like... a drama/romantic comedy about two compulsive people. it's the fluffiest romance about a dom and a submissive i've ever seen.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

sounds cool! i'm going to watch movies today.... hopefully i can rent a few but if not, i have the faculty and sleepy hollow i could watch. i love those movies.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i've never seen sleepy hollow.

although in my johnneh! phase i was planning to.

[wolfsage.livejournal.com]

ooh. well i liked it! it wasn't brilliant but it was definetely worth watching. i liked the mythological aspects... his dreams, and the witch girls and stuff. pretty gothic.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

ooh. maybe i will.

[wax-jism.livejournal.com]

Ten Things I Hate About You! I quite like that one. O, though... I haven't yet seen, although I actually own it. Ahem. I've been afraid of the badness.

There's this Hamlet version with Ethan Hawke they keep rerunning on the movie channels and I just. Can't. Watch. Aie.

I didn't really recommend The Bounty! I just said... ships, mmmh. No, really. Disclaim, disclaim. Also, I didn't realise it was with Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson did a remake of The Bounty? I was thinking Michael Caine.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

o is REALLY bad. although it has josh grimacing as someone gives him an injection below the belly-button... you might like that.

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on O. All of the Hollywood attempts at Shakespeare over the last decade or so have proven profoundly unsatisfying for me at any rate--the one notable exception being Looking for Richard which is less a movie than a "hey, gang, let's dig these costumes out of our trunk and have a little fun!" film where Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland are Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey. I've been somewhat curious to see Ethan Hawke's corporate Hamlet--but I fear it will go the way of the other two recent Hamlets and all the rest.

But really this is just an excuse to say "there is nothing like a DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!" at you loudly.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

you know, i quite like much ado about nothing, although my opinion of branagh's hamlet is way low.

but rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead was SO fabulous! ::faints::

Re:

[bookshop.livejournal.com]

you know, i sort of set branagh aside because i don't know what to do with him--he's not *quite* hollywood but then he's not exactly merchant ivory either.

I think his adaptations of Much Ado About Nothing (oh, how i love that film!) and Henry V are amazing. But then there's his tragedies and how

I've been keening to see the late 90's adaptation of Twelfth Night again. It's my favorite play, ever, so of course it was impossible to find the movie version quite as sparkling as I think it should be, but I'd love to see it again just for Ben Kingsley and Nigel Hawthorne and Helena Bonham-Carter, and especially for the not-slashiness.

and, um, I am hideously ashamed and embarrassed to admit this, but i've never seen or read rosencrantz and guildenstern.

Re:

[cimness.livejournal.com]

oooh, you must!

i love hamlet--the play--it's not my favorite evah, but i'm not sure i have a favorite. i love hamlet, and r&g is like the best fanfiction imaginable of it, although in a way it's literature in its own right. you should read it, cause there's stuff that won't fit in the movie; but stoppard directed it, and the movie is excellent. gary oldman and tim roth are both terribly, shockingly brilliant, i think. it's a comedy that puts a lump in your throat, and makes you ache for them! and it's slashy.

it's hysterically funny, but it's sort of wistful and serious--poignant--at the same time. and i don't know if you like or dislike meta, but it's rather meta. you know, what is literature? and what are secondary characters doing when they're not on stage? since shakespeare writes his disposable characters with a wink and nod at the audience it's a particularly good place for doing that. there's a point where one of them talks about how they exist just to play their parts--not in those words exactly.

(i've never seen or read twelfth night--even though it's my mom's favorite! so perhaps we're even.)