[Classic Movie] The Adventures of Greyfriars Bobby

This is another proof that movie adaptation could hardly represent the true values of the book—especially classics. This movie is the 2005 adaptation of Eleanor Atkinson’s Greyfriars Bobby, a Scottish movie directed by John Henderson.

Castings

As this was a Scottish movie, I don’t recognize any of the casts. Their acting are not too good, especially the protagonist, a teenage boy called Ewan, his gestures and expression were unnatural. Another bigger problem is the language. I can hardly catch the Scottish dialogs, while it was poorly subtitled in Bahasa Indonesia. So, from most of the movie, I could follow only from the gestures of the casts, and the familiar story.

Story and Plot

The only aspect that followed the true story was Bobby’s and John Gray’s name. However, ‘Auld’ Jock was not at all old, poor, and lonely, as in the book. He was quite young, a policeman not a farmer, had wife, and I think, a child. He loved Bobby as any man loves his dog, not as Auld Jock loved Bobby as a soulmate. John Gray here let Ewan the teenage boy befriending Bobby, and after Gray’s death—which did not caused too much sadness over Bobby—Bobby became Ewan’s dog.

So, the powerful strength of Atkinson’s book, i.e. unconditional and faithful love, has been stripped from this movie. To me, Bobby here was sad as any other dogs would when their masters died. By watching this adaptation, you would not understand why, and how, a dog could endure eight years of mourning for its master; while by reading the book, it would be obvious. And then, by having a new master, Ewan, Bobby would not be too lonely as Atkinson’s Bobby.

More than that, the movie made Bobby involved in chasing villains—and humiliating them—just as Hollywood made Lassie or Airbud doing. In the end, Bobby became a cute, lovely, and clever dog, who steals everybody’s heart. That’s all. Too pity. Maybe it because the director aimed this movie for children.

Setting and Costumes

The setting was a little too cheerful; while Atkinson wrote it in darker and dimmer atmosphere. Maybe the only satisfying and interesting aspect of this movie is the costumes. It was something I could not imagine from the book, as I seldom notice Scottish costumes.

For all that, I granted six and a half stars for this movie. Of course, I would have liked it much more if I haven’t read the book!

[Classic Movie] The Cherry Orchard

Thanks to my friend Maan Kawas, I could watch this movie via youtube. This is the old version of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard movie adaptation; 1981 BBC video of four parts miniseries, directed by Richard Eyre, where Judi Dench plays beautifully as Madam Lubov Andreyevna Ranevsky.

Castings

This movie would not be as strong as it is without Judi Dench’s acting. She can play convincingly as Lubov; she is everything I can imagine about her. She can pull out the emotion very well. In short, Judi Dench is the center of the stage whenever she is on it. What’s more interesting is that about twenty years before, Judi Dench has also played in another The Cherry Orchard movie version, but at that time she played as Anya.

Lopakhin is also quite convincing here; as a slave boy who has been climbing as a successful businessman, and who—deep in his heart—always keep his ambition to ‘beat’ his ex master. Bill Paterson plays well the cunning Lopakhin. But I think his gesture when announcing that he is the new owner of the house is a bit overacting. It might be good on stage, but in the movie I feel it doesn’t fit the whole scene.

I think Frances Low is too old to be Dunyasha. Is she really that older from Yasha?

Story and Plot

As with most of BBC classics miniseries, the plot of this one is following the book’s very precisely, so, no complain about that.

Setting and Costumes

One thing that is less satisfying from this movie is the setting. It seems that BBC is quite confused whether they’d make The Cherry Orchard into a movie or perform it on stage. The house is OK, but the garden (or is it actually part of the cherry orchard?) is too plain. I know it is a bit difficult to perform it outdoor; it is OK to have a set decorated as an outdoor, but you must decorate it such to look like real. And it would be great if we can take a glimpse of the cherry tree, if not the whole orchard, at least the tree(s).

Just like the plot and setting, the costumes follow the book precisely. My favorite is Lubov’s, they make Judy looks elegant (but I think it’s more of Judy’s, not the costumes :D). Anya’s is a bit old fashion for her character, but considering how she’s changed her mind about the cherry orchard after conversing with Trofimov, I think it makes sense that she dresses plainly, leaving the glamour behind.

Overall, I rated this adaptation 7 to 10.

The movie on youtube (1st of 4 videos)

~~~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #7

Romeo and Juliet [Play + Movie]

Let’s Read Play’s theme for this month is tragedy, and I have picked one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies of all time: Romeo and Juliet. Although I‘m not a fan of romance story, least of all teenagers romances, I braced myself to give a try on this particular play. Well, I must say that my instinct has never failed me before, and it doesn’t this time also. It turns out that I could not enjoy this play, and it didn’t move me like Julius Caesar did me, for instance.

First of all, I am annoyed by the harsh—and sometimes very vulgar too—humour Shakespeare put in this play. I know that somehow it is his style, but I think it has come at an annoying point this time. Maybe it’s because I have been expecting ‘Romeo and Juliet’ comes as a romantic yet tragic love story, that there would be flowery sentences and paragraphs. They do appear of course, but especially in the beginning, there are also harassing comments or insults from Romeo and Mercutio around sexual topics. And as this has happened in the very early Act, it diminished my mood (and respect) to read the rest.

What interesting me is the eternal hostility of two Houses in Verona: Montague and Capulet. The play can portray very well how each of the families took their hostility; how the youngsters especially, were eager to ignite strife whenever they met the enemies. It is in the situation that Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet found themselves in love. And apparently, the hostility of the two families could only be resolved by the two teenager’s sacrifice. It’s quite ironic, considering that these two youngsters were merely thinking about their passionate love, but from them the adults would have to learn much about the real meaning of ‘love’.

Considering that this is about teenagers’ love, the story is as ridiculous as you could have expected, but I think the plot is interesting; how the mistiming and misunderstanding caused the tragedy. It’s only proving how love can sometimes be blind for naïve (or foolish?) people. Three stars for this tragic play—which did not really moved me, honestly…

~~~~~~~

Right after finishing the play, I jumped to the movie adaptation. I picked Baz Luhrmann’s version, partly because that’s the only one I had (:D), and partly because I was curious to see the earlier collaboration of Baz Luhrmann and Leonardo diCaprio (before The Great Gatsby).

I’ve already known that the movie would be in modern settings, before I watched it, so I was a bit surprised to see that Luhrmann only alter the settings, but not the dialogues! The dialogues were really picked from the original play, and that makes the whole movie is really unique. Listening to those punk boys speak in Shakespearean language was weird but interesting.

Here Leonardo diCaprio is in his earliest career, and this movie shows distinctly the difference with his present acting. However, I think he plays Romeo quite convincingly as the waverer and sentimental young man. The rest of the stars are not very prominent, except for Harold Perrineau, Jr who plays as Mercutio, who is the most interesting character in this movie.

One of my favorite scenes is Juliet’s tomb—which in this case doesn’t look at all like a tomb. It is very eloquent and glamour (typical Baz Luhrmann, of course), and the scene of Romeo and Juliet in their last agony is superb! Only while watching Romeo drinks the poison not knowingly that Juliet is stirring beside him, and Romeo’s expression when he knows the truth, that I am really moved. So in this case, for me, the movie has enlightened the play rather than the other way round. 7 to 10 is my final rating for this adaptation.

~~~~~~~~

I read the ebook version from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted for:

May theme of Let’s Read Plays: Shakespeare’s tragedy

5^th book for Back to the Classics 2013

11^th book for What’s in A Name Reading Challenge 2013

43^rd for The Classics Club

I watched the movie for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #6

[Classics Movie] The Great Gatsby

I don’t know which one is the truest; rereading the book for the second time has given me an advantage to enjoy the movie, or watching the movie has intensified my emotion as well as my understanding of the book. I believe it’s more of the second than the first one. The film has vividly showing the real emotion of all scenes from the book, which makes it easier for me to (more) understanding the book. Overall, the latest 2013 Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby IS indeed Great!

Castings

I have no complaints for the main characters. First of all, Leonardo diCaprio is superb! He could perfectly transform into Jay Gatsby’s enigmatic character. Although his portion is perhaps three quarters of the whole film, I can feel the strong charisma of Gatsby distinguished from others. Gatsby as the glamour and lavish parties host; Gatsby as an awkward lover (who was between excited to reunite with his long-time lover and anxious that there would be anything wrong that could break his bubbles of hope); and Gatsby as a fragile man full of hope. And let’s not forget those ‘rare understanding smiles’ that Leo has presented dashingly while raising his glass: “He smiled understandingly—much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life.”

Carey Mulligan fits Daisy Buchanan’s character; she could represent the dreamy, spoilt and indifferent style of Daisy convincingly. Joel Edgerton is also good in performing the rough and brutal Tom Buchanan by his gesture and the way he speaks. Jordan Baker is the one who quite surprised me; Elizabeth Debicki performs beautifully as Jordan. Now I see why Nick is attracted to her. She is the most fasionable one here, and really...I love her stylish hats! 

I was first curious about how Amithab Bachchan would play as Meyer Wolfsheim. Apparently, he can perform quite convincingly, if you don’t take quite seriously of the fact that Wolfsheim is a Jewish, of course! :D

Story and Plot

Thank God Baz Luhrmann chose to stick mostly to the original story and plot of the book. And even if there are slight alterations here and there to make the movie smoother, I think they just make the story more convincing. In the scene of Gatsby’s murder, I know very well that—from the book original version—he was really alone at that time and no phone call was coming. However in the movie, a phone call comes when Gatsby is swimming, and when he is reaching his hand to pick the receiver, the deadly gunshot arrives. Both scenes emphasize both tragedy and irony of Gatsby’s death, but the movie version emphasizes them in a more dramatic way which suits well for a movie which gives Leo room to express his mixed emotion—from hope (of a call from Daisy); satisfaction (from thinking that it was from Daisy, while it’s in fact from Nick); to surprise, disbelief, disappointment, and maybe fear in few seconds before he finally collapsed to death. [Confession: my eyes were wet on this scene… :( ]

One particular scene has confirmed my suggestion; it’s when Nick is eavesdropping Tom and Daisy as Tom is convincing Daisy that everything is going to be alright, after the accident. This scene confirms my idea that Daisy has admitted to Tom that it was her who actually drove the car; and that’s why they suddenly flee from their mansion (and the butler’s lie to Nick seems to point out Daisy’s selfishness to only seek security on top of everything); a really brilliant alteration of the scene that’s just emphasizing the meaning.

Setting and Costumes

I think the costume designers have done a great job to put the 1920s fashion into the movie. I like Jordan Baker’s style the most from the women, and of course….Gatsby’s suit from the men (except the pink one!). And of course Gatsby’s mansion and all the parties are gorgeous and entertaining, but still, my favorite is the characters and their emotions.

So, is it surprising you that I am giving this 2013 version of The Great Gatsby movie adaptation a 9.5 of 10 rating, old sport? :) Oh, and I think the idea that Nick has first typed his original script’s title as “Gatsby” and then later on adding “The Great” in handwriting is just topping all my feelings after the movie ends. Gatsby is great, the book is great, and this movie is great! Well done, old sport! ;)

~~~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #5

[Classic Movie] Les Miserables

Actually I’m not a fan of musical movies. The only one I was really satisfied with is The Phantom of The Opera (in Bahasa Indonesia). However, being the latest adaptation of one of Hugo’s masterpieces, and with a numerous talented actors/actresses playing here, I was intrigued at last to take a try on this Tom Cooper’s production. This is not a movie critic, it’s just how I thought of the movie, and it might be somehow biased.

Castings

Right after the first scene was on screen, Russell Crowe had drawn my attention. And I kept wondering during the film, wouldn’t Crowe be the more suitable casting for the constantly-brooding Jean Valjean, while Hugh Jackman could play the ever enthusiastic law servant Javert? I still think that would be more interesting. But anyway…I’ve never been in the movie industries…so, it’s just my personal opinion. But I was constantly admiring Javert slightly more than Valjean throughout the film—it’s perhaps because Crowe is so adorable and carries charismatic air in his uniform! Oh, just ignore my fangirling here… :)

 

The rest of the castings are pretty OK, although I still really don’t understand why Monsieur and Madame Thénardier must be made like a pair of clowns in Disney’s movies. Really!.... It’s only Éponine who is not as I’ve expected. She is lovelier than what I remember from the book, and I think her character here is indeed different from the book; she is sweet here, while in the book she is more bitter and determinate, do I remember correctly? But for me, in this film, Samantha Barks (who plays as Éponine) sings most beautifully among the females (and actually more beautiful and “live” than Cossette—played by Amanda Seyfried—who seems meek and unreal). Éponine’s dying scene in Marius’ embrace is the only one that had shed my tears.

Story and Plot

From what I vaguely remember of the book, the story follows the original story quite well. The plot is similar, but of course you cannot make a 1 hour 20s minutes film to cover the original 1000+ pages’ story! The adaptation is less engaging, and there are many parts that is missing, but what more can you expect?

Setting and Costumes

Both the setting and costumes are satisfying to me. The designers have done their homeworks by presenting the working class of France in 19^th century.

Crowe looks good in this
costume, eh?

All in all, this movie is quite entertaining, although sometimes I got bored when the song is too long. My favorite scenes are the opening scene when the convicts singing “Look Down”; Russell Crowe’s “Stars”—I just love the song and Crowe’s sexy voice ;)—and Samantha Banks’ “On My Own”.

Seven to ten stars for this movie!

~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #3

[Classics Movie] A Christmas Carol

I have actually watched this 2009 computer animated motion-capture adaptation of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol last December, but unfortunately I haven’t got chance to review it. So, I replayed my DVD last weekend, and after having lightly browsed the story from my ebook reader to refresh my memory, here’s what I thought about the movie….

What I love most from it, is the setting. The 19^th century London is vividly portrayed in the film, as if we are taken into a stroll on the streets, sensing the Christmas spirits around in the cold snowy days as well as nights. I might say that Robert Zemeckis has carefully put small details of what we might have seen from that century every where in this film, including the costumes. And apart from the motion-capture, the setting itself is very vividly captured!

The main characters are also portrayed perfectly (I guess this is the advantage of making animated film, you can create the characters as similar as possible with the book). Ebenezer Scrooge is “scrooge” enough for making others feel the rush of cold sweeping whenever he’s passing by. Fred the nephew is enthusiastic and gay enough to annoy his uncle. Bob Cratchit is melancholy enough to be the poor staff with a big heart for his family. And of course, Tiny Tim is “saint” enough to be the angelic child (seems that Dickens could never resist the temptation to create such angelic child in his tales…).

Now let us talk about the ghost and Scrooge’s encounter with the three of them: of Christmas Past, of Christmas Present, and a Christmas Yet To Come. The Christmas Past ghost might be my favorite, because it does not look like a ghost at all :). The Christmas Present is cheerful enough with his red and green costumes, but I don’t quite like his too-often-laughs which I don’t think appear in the book. And his departure is rather weird, I think…. As for the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, the dark hooded shadow gives a chill reflection all right, but unfortunately Zemeckis was trapped in the typical Hollywood to create a black carriage to chase Scrooge and to make Scrooge shrink to a mouse size. As if every movie must have a suspense effect to catch audiences…. *sigh*

All in all, this is one of the most satisfying classics movie adaptations I have ever watched so far. Two thumbs up and 8.5 to 10 is my generous rating for it. Although it’s still far from Christmas, I can’t resist to borrow Tiny Tim’s greeting to end this review—just as he ended the book—God bless us, everyone!

~~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #2

[Classics Movie] The Three Musketeers

The first book-to-movie I picked for Maria’s Books into Movies Monthly Meme is the 2011 adaptation of The Three Musketeers. I have just re-read the book last month , so the story and character are still vividly lingering in my mind. This movie was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and intended from the beginning to be an adventure film. Let me break down my thoughts into these categories….

Characters and Castings

This is my first complain for this film (there would be few more… :D). I always believe that classics literature (as in literary fiction) was built from its characters. Consequently, if you want to make a movie adaptation from a certain classics, you must at least keep the original characters as they were created by the author. You can change the setting, you can alter or simplify the plot, you can erase some minor characters, but DO NOT change the personalities of the main characters, because they are who drive the story. Once you do that, you are ruining the author’s great work, and that is an insult!

Actually, I did not even finish this film. I stopped abruptly after the scene of d’Artagnan giving in the Queen’s diamonds to be exchanged with Constance’s freedom. It’s too much for me that I was too angry to continue watching. First, it’s Athos; played by MacFadyen who actually fits the character. D’Artagnan is confused when Rochefort is holding Constance as a hostage, and will release her if the Three Musketeers give in the diamonds. Athos advises d’Artagnan to ‘fight for your love, and let France fight for itself’. Hellooo…did I hear correctly? Athos—the most loyal nobleman in France, who sometimes can become unreasonable; who is willingly to sacrifice his life for his blind loyalty to the King or Queen? How could he advise d’Artagnan to prioritize personal matters before Queen’s life and honor?

Then, it’s d’Artagnan himself. I can forgive the boyish face of the star, but what annoyed me is that the brave, smart, and masterful fencing player d’Artagnan looks so stupid and helpless in this film. The real d’Artagnan—as Dumas created him—would never just walk in enemy’s trap like the fake one in this film walks in to Rochefort’s cabin to give in the diamonds, only to be captured inside. That’s so stupid and absurd! Still more, when finally d’Artagnan can escape and is fighting with Rochefort, he is fencing so unskillfully, that Rochefort wounds him several times very easily. That’s it, I stopped my DVD player right at that scene!

Speaking of the other castings, Cardinal Richeliu’s is the only one from the main characters that satisfied me. The King Louis XIII is too boyish and ridiculous, Anne of Austria doesn’t have the elegance and beauty which said to be the most beautiful lady in France (her maid Constance is much more beautiful than her), Duke of Buckingham looks more like a rocker to me than a romantic lover and a skillful fighter he should be. Porthos here loose his high gentleman fashion, and become like a villain with harsh manner and bald head. Aramis turns to be a macho man, who is originally more polite and ‘beautiful’.

Story and Plot

From the scenes I watched, several of the plot follows the book with slight alteration: d’Artagnan comes to Paris and got troubled with Three Musketeers, the fight with Cardinal’s guards, the mission of getting Queen’s diamond necklace. But the rest is so absurd. The Three Musketeers together with Milady (yes!) and Duke of Buckingham is competing to get Leonardo da Vinci’s blueprint of an airship; Milady double-crosses Athos (they seem to be lovers here) and gives the blueprint to Buckingham.

But like I said, the plot alteration was not annoying me too much. From the beginning I’d already knew that this would be a typically Hollywood’s action movie with guns and airships battles besides swords fencing. I did not care about the story, but cared more in the characters, which failed me in the end.

Setting and Costumes

I’m just wondering how people can even come to this idea, combining ‘Da Vinci’ thing with guns battle and airship technology? And with lasers too! (the scene of Milady’s stealing the diamond necklace). If they want to make a modern adaptation, why don’t they put modern clothes and modern settings all together? Weird…. :(

I rate this four to ten, and I believe I have been fair enough for that. Why on earth did Matthew MacFadyen and Milla Jovovich ever play in this film anyway??

~~~~~~

I watched this for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #1

[Classics Movie] Little Dorrit

This BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens’ novel Little Dorrit was adapted to miniseries by Andrew Davies. Although they were rather long—for the novel is very long too—I have enjoyed it. This is the second time I watched Dickens’ adaptation by BBC, which I like for their original setting. As usual, I am breaking down my opinion of this miniseries in this review,

Castings

Overall, I don’t have many complaints for the castings. For Amy Dorrit, I preferred her in the miniseries; she looks stronger and more natural than in the book. I imagine that a young girl should obtain such qualities under poverty and hard times. Amy in the book seems too delicate, just as characters in tales. Claire Foy’s blue eyes, sweet face, and of course, brilliant acting, are really the main attraction of this miniseries.

Matthew MacFadyen is indeed a perfect cast to play the melancholy Arthur Clennam, a man of forty who thought he was too old for Amy and was beyond his age for romance. His reaction when John made him (Arthur) realized that Amy loved him, was superb. Mrs. Clennam and William Dorrit also reflect what I imagined from the book. My favorite is, perhaps, Mrs. Merdle; the actress can play the beautiful, haughty and hypocrite lady in a perfect manner. Rigaud or Blandois also fits my imagination from the book; his singing the French chant is really memorable, although for they who listened to it in the story, it must be a thrilling experience. 

Claire Foy as Amy Dorrit

The only one who did not match the book at all is Cavalletto. Cavalletto in the miniseries is too ‘handsome’, while in the book he was described as quite plump and comical. But who can complain about that, as James Thorpe—an English comedian—could play the character very well? 

James Thorpe as Cavalletto

Oh, and there is also Henry Gowan. I didn’t like him in the book, but I think Henry is, in the miniseries, the most attractive male character of all…..

Alex Wyndham as Henry Gowan

Story and Plot

Mostly, the plot follows the book; but there is a crucial part in it that has been altered, I don’t know for what reason. It is about Mrs. Clennam’s secret. In the book, the uncle of Mr. Clennam (Arthur’s father), following his sympathy towards Arthur’s real mother who was at that time already dead, inherited a sum of money to the youngest daughter of Arthur’s mother’s music teacher, who was Frederick Dorrit, or—if he didn’t have a daughter—the youngest daughter of his brother. In the miniseries, it was confusedly altered so that people would think that Amy and Arthur were relatives. This, I think, a fatal failure. The script writer might have adopted that alteration to make the plot less confusing, but at the end, it would confuse you more!

One more thing, here Amy revealed Mrs. Clennam’s secret to Arthur by showing him the document which Rigaud would like to sell to Mrs. Clennam; while in the book Arthur never knew the secret and because of that, never have to forgive the woman he thought was his mother, for Amy asked him to burn the letter which he never knew the content. In this case, I like the miniseries version, because I believe Arthur deserved to know about it, and Amy did not have the right to hide it from him. How can you start a marriage life with a lie?

Setting and Costumes

The Marshalsea is just a debtor prison as I have imagined from the book, as well as the old and fragile Clennams’ house. The atmosphere reflects both despair and bitter hatred of the inhabitants. Especially in William Dorrit’s room, I can feel the warmer atmosphere, which I believe was brought by the loving character of Amy. The glimpses of the Dorrits’ journey to Italy and Rome are quite entertaining, although I hoped more of the snowy Alps and the Great St. Bernard Hospice scenes.

Part of the characters in Little Dorrit in front of Clennam's house set

About the costumes, one that was annoying me was Fanny Dorrit’s. Really, must dancers in 19^th century put a weird make up like that? Watching Fanny Dorrit’s lips reminded me of a Geisha! I liked her much better when she has no make up at all, at the bedtime scene with Amy; there she was much prettier. Or maybe they wanted to point up Fanny’s bad temper by making her lips so thin? But still, you can do that by acting, not solely by the lips shape!

Emma Pierson as Fanny Dorrit

In the book, Amy returned to Marshalsea to visit her beloved Arthur, wearing her old dress when she was still a poor girl. This detail did not appear in the miniseries, although I think it’s not just about dress, but more to emphasizing Amy’s feeling, that poverty suited her much better than richness; so I think it’s important that Amy appeared in that scene in her old dress.

One thing that annoyed me is the ending. The ending was much different from the book, and I think, did not fit at all with the whole story. I don’t know why BBC must put a typical ‘happily-ever-after’ scene with all the confetti, colorful dresses, and cheerful celebration to describe Amy-Arthur’s wedding. After the dress, now the wedding, one would think that Amy is Cinderella! If we know Amy very well, we should know that—despite of her richness phase of life—she was still the timid and simple young woman who attended the more essential things in life, and who despised being a lady. I think, to be fit with Amy’s character, the ending should follow the book’s, where Amy and Arthur went to the Church and registered their marriage, then left it hand in hand in silent, savoring the happiness as husband and wife by themselves. That would be a perfect touching and memorable ending!

For all that, I granted 6.5 of 10 stars for this Little Dorrit BBC miniseries.

[Classics Movie] Great Expectations

First of all I must thank Melisa for copying this miniseries of Great Expectations for me (come with it also Dorian Gray and Importance of Being Earnest which I haven’t yet watched). This three-part miniseries was produced by BBC in 2011, an adaptation work of Sarah Phelps.

As I like to compare the movie with the original book, I watched this miniseries only several days after I have finished reading the book (when the story and the emotion were still quite fresh in my memory). So, here’s my review:

Castings

Overall it’s okay, I had only two objections. First, the cast for Joe which I think was too old and less innocent. Joe in this miniseries didn’t look like a hopeless husband under his wife’s domination. In fact once or twice Joe bravely grasped Pip from his wife’s beating; while in book Joe did not even dare to confront his wife, afraid that he too would be beaten by his wife. Joe was also supposed to be a shy guy, that when he must meet Miss Havisham, he kept directing his words to Pip instead of talking directly to Miss Havisham. The Joe in the miniseries seemed to have more confidence. And I’m just wondering, why Joe did not look older at all at the later part, while all others did. :) My same complaint goes for Wemmick’s cast. He’s much too old, almost as if he’s in the same age as Mr. Jaggers! About Mr. Jaggers, I think he had played in Agatha Christie’s movies as Hercule Poirot!

Is Gillian Anderson too pretty to be Miss Havisham?

But the worst, I think, is Estella’s cast. I’m so disappointed that she was far from “very pretty” that made many men attracted to her. When Miss Havisham presented the grown up Estella to Pip; when Estella stood next to her mother, well….Miss Havisham was even prettier than her, despite of Miss Havisham’s pale face (Gillian Anderson played as Miss Havisham). Estella in this miniseries looked too boyish with her skinny and bony body (especially when she wore strapless gown that seemed to hang loosely and rather un-proportionately on her body, ugh!). Young Estella reflected much better Estella's original character from book.

Grown-up Estella

Young Estella

Story and Plot

Overall the plot followed the original one, only simplified here and there as we could expect in movie adaptations. However, there are few things I did not agree with. First of all, Biddy never showed up. This perhaps will make the plot more complex, but I think Biddy has also some influences in Pip’s development. The second one was how Pip resisted to Magwitch for—for me—too long; it only made Pip looked like an ungrateful person—which I don’t think so. In the book Pip involved in the runaway preparation, and Pip was tortured badly in the waiting of the event.

The last one was the relationship of Pip and Estella; I know that movies tend to make everything smooth. As if without at least one kissing scene—and it happened always on romantic places which involving water (sea shores, by the lakeside…)—you won’t be able to attract audiences. Perhaps it’s right, but watching how Estella seemed to suddenly and quite easily loosen her resistance against Pip right after leaving Satis House was ridiculous to me.

Setting and Costumes

Now, while the castings and plot might be slightly disappointing, the settings and the costumes were really an entertainment! The misty marshes was fabulous, the forge and Pip’s home were everything I always imagine them to be. Satis House with the dusty and gloomy atmosphere, and the room with cobwebbed party left-over was also cool. So pity we can’t see Wemmick’s country house, that would be very interesting! :)

Wedding hall at Satis House

I like the gentleman’s costumes here, especially Pip’s. Gillian Anderson looked elegant in Miss Havisham’s old wedding gown, but I hate the choice for Estella’s costumes, they were too plain—considering that Miss Havisham did everything she could to make Estella shinning with beautiful jewelries. The jewelries had never appeared in the miniseries, and compared to other ladies in the ball—for example—Estella seemed too pale and ordinary, that if I had been one of the gentlemen there, I would have not regarded her at all.

One thing that was also interesting is the opening credits. I like the idea of the transformation of a cocoon to a beautiful butterfly; it represents Pip’s transformation so beautifully. He must get through hard times before finally become a true gentleman (not only in outer appearance, but also in heart).

All in all, it is quite enjoyable, especially if you have never read the book, or you have read it long time ago that you have forgotten most of the details. 7 to 10 is the best I can give for this miniseries.

...and this is the trailer:

[Classic Movie] The Phantom Of The Opera

Di depan sebuah gedung tinggi nan megah namun terbengkalai, berhentilah sebuah kereta kuda. Pintu kereta dibuka, lalu menapaklah sebelah kaki terbungkus sepatu hitam mengkilat ke tanah. Kaki yang pasti milik seorang tua kaya yang sudah lemah. Tubuh lunglai pria tua itu didudukkan ke kursi roda, lalu sepasang pelayan berseragam mendorong kursi roda itu ke dalam gedung yang terbengkalai itu. Dalam nuansa hitam putih yang suram, satu-satunya tanda bahwa gedung itu masih berfungsi adalah spanduk besar yang menyatakan bahwa sebuah pelelangan tengah berlangsung di sana.

Di dalam gedung, si pria tua di kursi roda menangkap pandangan mata seorang wanita tua berbusana hitam lengkap dengan topi dan cadarnya, khas busana wanita di tahun 1919, tahun yang digambarkan saat pelelangan itu berlangsung. Keduanya pasti pernah saling mengenal, dan pelelangan itu nampaknya memiliki makna tersendiri bagi mereka. Kotak musik dengan boneka monyet yang bisa memainkan simbal nampaknya amat berkesan bagi sang pria--yang ternyata dipanggil Vicomte de Chagny, karena begitu memenangkan lelang, ia langsung memandangi kotak musik itu dengan seksama bak sebuah harta yang tak ternilai. Saat si pria hendak pergi, ternyata si kurator mengumumkan bahwa setelah ini mereka akan melelang lampu kristal yang dahulu pernah memancarkan cahayanya nan gemerlap ketika tergantung di tengah sebuah gedung Opera pada masa kejayaannya. Sebelum munculnya Phantom of the Opera...

Gedung yang terbengkalai itu memang dulunya Paris Opera House, dan dengan dibukanya tabir dan dinaikkannya lampu kristal diiringi musik yang dramatis, maka scene pun tiba-tiba berpindah dari kesuraman di tahun 1919 menuju ke gemerlapnya masa lampau--masa kejayaan Gedung Opera itu pada tahun 1870. Maka kisah The Phantom of The Opera yang sesungguhnya pun dimulai di titik ini. Sungguh sebuah pembukaan yang manis dalam film musikal adaptasi yang diambil dari kisah karya Gaston Leroux ini. Meski penonton yang belum membaca bukunya, pasti akan bertanya-tanya siapa sebenarnya pria tua dan wanita tua di adegan pembuka itu.

Selanjutnya kisah bergulir hampir sama dengan kisah asli di buku. Kedatangan dua manajer baru, penyanyi yang menjadi bintang opera saat itu--Carlotta, dan tentu saja Phantom of the Opera yang misterius. Film ini menjadi apik karena dibuat sebagai film musikal. Aku suka dengan lagu-lagunya, terutama lagu "The Phantom of the Opera" yang dinyanyikan Gerard Butler yang berperan sebagai Phantom, dan Emmy Rossum pemeran Christine Daae di film ini.

Ini lagunya:

Selain itu, ada suasana yang "magis" ketika si Phantom menjemput Christine di kamar tidurnya lalu melewati lorong-lorong yang tiba-tiba saja dipenuhi cahaya berpuluh-puluh lilin, mengarungi sungai kecil hingga tiba di "istana" bawah tanah sang Phantom yang bergelimang cahaya dan kemewahan. Mengapa terasa magis? Karena ketika teman Christine menemukan cermin yang terbuka ketika mencari Christine, ia lantas melalui lorong yang sama dengan yang dilalui Christine dan si Phantom, namun lorong itu kini gelap, suram dan penuh dengan sarang laba-laba.

Secara keseluruhan film musikal ini sangat menghibur. Meski sebenarnya kurang menggambarkan sisi gothic dari buku aslinya, namun sebagai karya sinematografi cukup memikat. Penampilan Gerald Butler dan Emmy Rossum yang menyanyikan sendiri lagu-lagu mereka patut diacungi jempol, karena mereka sebenarnya bukan penyanyi, dan baru belajar vokal saat berperan di film ini. Kalaupun ada yang hilang dari kisah aslinya adalah pengungkapan sisi gelap Eric si Phantom dan bilik penyiksaan miliknya. Juga di buku sebenarnya ada 1 lagi tokoh penting yang mengungkap tentang rahasia gelap sang Phantom, selain Madame Giri. Namun secara keseluruhan, film ini mampu merepresentasikan kisah The Phantom of the Opera dengan baik.

Rating: 9/10

Judul film: The Phantom of the Opera

Sutradara: Joel Schumacher

Pemeran: Gerard Butler sebagai Phantom, Emmy Rossum sebagai Christine Daae, dan Patrick Wilson sebagai Raoul

Trailer film ini:

[Classic Movie] Treasure Island

Buku karya Robert Louis Stevenson yang berjudul Treasure Island telah beberapa kali difilmkan. Kali ini yang kutonton adalah mini seri produksi BSkyB (UK) yang beredar awal tahun 2012. Diproduseri Laurie Borg, miniseri terbaru ini didukung oleh

beberapa nama besar seperti Elijah Wood yang memerankan Ben Hunn (anak buah Kapten Flint yang terdampar di Treasure Island), dan Donald Shutterland yang hanya muncul sekilas sebagai Kapten Flint.

Namun yang tampil paling menonjol di sini menurutku justru Eddie Izzard yang memerankan Long John Silver, si bajak laut berkaki satu dengan burung kakaktua-nya yang kemudian menjadi model bajak laut-bajak laut modern. Dengan ram

but plontos, tubuh atletis, mata tajam dan senyum sinis, Eddie Izzard suskes menghidupkan karakter Long John yang cerdik, tenang, disegani dengan sedikit humor. Ditambah ganteng pula!

penampakan asli Mr. Eddie Izzard

Sebaliknya, si tokoh utama protagonisnya, yaitu Jim Hawkins malah tenggelam dalam pesona Silver. Diperankan oleh Toby Regbo, di sini Jim masih tergambar sebagai cowok alim yang tiba-tiba terseret ke dalam petualangan berbahaya. Masih pas di awal cerita ketika ia ketakutan melihat Billy Bones (orang Jamaika di film ini) datang ke penginapan Admiral Benbow. Namun, ketika Jim Hawkins yang sama bertindak heroik menyelamatkan kapal Hispaniola dari tangan anak buah Silver, rasanya Toby Regbo agak terlalu “feminin”. Dokter Livesey yang di buku terkesan orang yang teguh dan berani, digambarkan agak terlalu feminin juga, serta agak pengecut di film ini. Yang perlu diacungi jempol juga adalah penampilan Elijah Wood sebagai Ben Hunn, yang terus terang saking “anehnya”, aku sampai tak mengira bahwa sosok di balik Ben Hunn yang memakai warna putih di sekitar mata itu adalah Elijah Wood.

Yang menarik (atau mengesalkan?) beberapa hal yang seingatku berbeda dari bukunya. Yang pertama adalah tokoh Mr. Trelawney—si hakim yang berangkat bersama dengan Jim dan Dokter Livesey memburu harta karun ke Treasure Island naik kapal Hispaniola. Di versi miniseri ini, Mr. Trelawney digambarkan sebagai tokoh yang angkuh dan serakah. Bahkan endingnya cukup mencengangkan [spoiler], saat di kapal dalam perjalanan pulang, Mr. Trelawney digambarkan ingin mengangkangi harta yang berhasil mereka angkut dari Treasure Island. Jim cepat-cepat memotong tali jala yang menghubungkan harta karun itu ke kapal, dan dengan demikian harta karun itu terjun bebas ke laut. Dan coba terka, apa yang dilakukan Mr. Trelawney? Ia ikut terjun ke laut, dan saking serakahnya hingga tak memedulikan nyawanya sendiri. Jelas berbeda dengan versi asli bukunya!

Yang kedua, keberadaan wanita kulit hitam yang digambarkan sebagai istri Long John Silver. Di versi aslinya, ia hanya disebutkan sepintas saja, tapi tak berperan di kisahnya. Di miniseri ini, ia dikisahkan berusaha mencuri perhiasan ibu Jim Hawkins yang terusir dari rumahnya yang disita. Rasanya, ibu Jim Hawkins juga tak dikisahkan tersendiri di bukunya.

Secara keseluruhan, versi miniseri ini lebih “dewasa” dan lebih menegangkan dari versi buku aslinya. Adegan-adegan di tengah lautan dan sosok para bajak lautnya juga asyik. Dan bagaimana pun, adaptasi kisah klasik selalu menggiring kita untuk bernostalgia kan? Dengan begini kita justru akan selalu ingat akan kisah-kisah menawan yang terus bergema sepanjang masa dari para penulis klasik dunia!

Trailer miniseri Treasure Island bisa dilihat di sini:

[Classic Movie] Oliver Twist

Kegiatan apa yang paling pas dilakukan di bulan Februari ini dalam rangka Bicentennial-nya Charles Dickens, selain mengapresiasi semua bentuk karya-karya Dickens? Selain membaca buku, aku menyempatkan diri menonton film adaptasi kisah Oliver Twist.

Film yang kutonton di DVD ini adalah versi terbaru yang beredar tahun 2005. Nama Roman Polanski sebagai produsernya membuat DVD film ini layak dibeli. Dan ternyata benar, aku suka banget film ini karena jalan ceritanya sama persis dengan yang ada di buku. Selain itu, suasana abad 19 amat terasa di film ini.

Di jajaran para aktor/aktrisnya, yang paling menarik perhatian adalah Ben Kingsley yang memerankan Fagin. Kupikir, peran Fagin di film ini sangat kuat. Dan percaya atau tidak, sosok si Fagin yang kubayangkan lewat buku, ternyata mewujud dengan persisnya di dalam sosoknya di film. Dan seperti juga di bukunya, di mana Oliver Twist digambarkan sebagai bocah yang lemah dan rapuh, Barney Clark tampil di film ini seperti itu juga. Lemah, rapuh, tampan-imut-cenderung-manis, menimbulkan belas kasihan siapa pun yang melihat.

Yang lebih keren lagi, aku baru menyadari bahwa versi terjemahan Oliver Twist terbitan Bentang yang kubaca, mengambil gambar cover-nya dari film ini! Sehingga saat aku membacanya, memang aku mengimajinasikan sosok Oliver seperti di covernya. Mungkin karena itu, aku langsung merasa "klik" dengan Oliver di layar televisiku.

Secara keseluruhan, aku sangat suka film yang tidak mengubah cerita aslinya seperti ini, dan digarap dengan sangat baik pula. Mungkin anda yang memiliki putra/putri, dapat menggugah kecintaan anak-anak anda pada karya klasik, salah satunya dari film ini.

Trailernya dapat anda tonton di sini:

Judul film: Oliver Twist
Produser: Roman Polanski
Produksi: Sony Pictures
Screenplay: Ronald Harwood
Pemeran : Ben Kingsley (Fagin), Barney Clark (Oliver Twist)
Beredar: 2005, di DVD 2006