'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

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!