'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)
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: