| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 07/16/2008 : 02:16:44
|
Waugh's classic arrives in a feature-sized version directed by Julian Jarrold. I've never before seen this piece performed, not even Jeremy Irons's famous turn in 1981. But I can nevertheless attest that this one's gorgeous to look at, yet difficult to swallow.
I found it rather cold and bloodless, rushing toward its inevitable climax at times, and at other times seeming to take an attenuated stretch to get there, like an anxiety dream of racing down a neverending corridor. There will certainly be devotees of the novel who'll complain that the whole thing flits by too quickly to illuminate Waugh's languid prose; I can understand that point of view as well, it's all in the perspective, which in this film keeps changing.
Many performances are very fine [special kudos go to the estranged master and mistress of Brideshead, ice queen Emma Thompson and the ever-engaging Michael Gambon], but frankly it's the breathtaking locations -- Oxford, Venice, Marrakesh, and an especially beautiful job by North Yorkshire's Castle Howard in the role of the titular manor -- that keep one staring. But as the old theater proverb has it, you don't go home whistling the sets. Three stars: there'll be more for you if you really love the source novel. |
Edited by - randall on 07/16/2008 02:18:32 |
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 03:56:57
|
I was fascinated by the Jeremy Irons mini-series version, and I also found the novel to be intriguing.
I ought to go back and read the novel again, with the maturity and understanding that I have now. Were there any undercurrents between the principal characters that went over my head?
I credit the novel for adding 'dypsomaniac' to my vocabulary. |
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 05:10:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
I credit the novel for adding 'dypsomaniac' to my vocabulary.
And the word is faithfully replicated in this movie! |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/16/2008 : 06:46:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
I was fascinated by the Jeremy Irons mini-series version, and I also found the novel to be intriguing.
I ought to go back and read the novel again, with the maturity and understanding that I have now. Were there any undercurrents between the principal characters that went over my head?
I credit the novel for adding 'dypsomaniac' to my vocabulary.
Agreed.
Agreed.
And I never thought of that, but I do want to see the new movie as well. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 08/10/2008 : 04:09:13
|
I understand the Irons miniseries was gayer than gay, but in this one Charles Ryder is just going through an experimental phase, and that may be a key into why this one is such boring, bloodless, by-the-numbers bullshit. Costume dramas and literary adaptations, just like action movies, keep getting better made, but not better.
I think the main problem is Matthew Goode. I didn't know it was him until I saw the end credits, but even before then I was thinking of his role in Match Point. Match Point kept its main character at arm's length and for damn good reason. Brideshead Revisited does the same but only because it fails to get into Charles Ryder's head. Goode is excellent at playing creepy opacity, and he was brilliantly cast in the upcoming Watchmen, but they should've gotten James McAvoy if they wanted someone sympathetic, which apparently they did. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Brideshead Revisited
