Then there are films like Valley of the Dolls and Myra Breckinridge which were legendary for their on the set squabbles and dissension among cast members. Both turned out to be box office bonanzas and the trouble they had making it to the big screen was quickly forgotten. Some films that suffered this fate during filming were The Godfather and Titanic. Many times film have such bad vibes during production that they are rumored to be a terrible mess before they have a chance to premiere. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank the gods. (And I don't even like golfing.) This ain't CASABLANCA. It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called "unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. For a couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a different world for close to two hours. I do claim that's it's fun to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. Hello? Aren't most comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR WARS? I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. Of course the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. The characters are archetypes of their literary forbears. On that level, the film succeeds admirably. That's a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue once THE WATCHMEN comes out!) What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is about style as opposed to substance.
(The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is breathtaking. As to the former-not enough like the graphic novel, in other words-just how in the heck can a screenwriter accommodate the dark and twisted visions of Alan Moore in a two-hour Hollywood movie, anyway? I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel".
Wells, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I find that difficult to believe. Does nobody read the classics anymore? Nobody reads Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H.G. The latter seems to me to be an unutterably silly reason for disliking a film. It seems to be divided between people who don't like the movie because it's not enough like the original graphic novel and people who don't like it because they've never heard of half of the characters that are members of the League. I've been reading the comments page in a somewhat bemused fashion.
0 kommentar(er)
