'o' - remake of othello with josh hartnett and julia stiles
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.)
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Re:
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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?)
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
but you can do both. or maybe you can't... but i can do both!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh.
no subject
well we'll see. maybe blockbuster will come through for me.
until then i'll settle with reading it. and watching queer as folk. ^_^
no subject
i did really like the second season. but now i have to wait for the third on dvd.
no subject
no subject
no subject
eep sorry i took a lot of words to say one thing. hhahah. ~_~
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
hey i'm rambling. ^_^
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
no subject
no subject
although in my johnneh! phase i was planning to.
no subject
no subject