'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:

[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!