1. "Weird Science" falls into that same category as "True Genius": It was probably really funny when it came out, but it's so dated now that it's effectively unwatchable. I guess I missed my chance to enjoy it about 20 years ago.
2. "Summer of Sam" is not your usual Spike Lee joint, and in this case that's a bad thing. It's too long and meandering and just not sharp enough. John Leguizamo has great screen presence, and Mira Sorvino and Adrien Brody were both great, but the whole thing just wasn't tight enough.
3. "P.S." was a huge disappointment. Laura Linney, Topher Grace, Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden... what could be bad? How about a flimsy plot and ridiculously contrived relationships? The performances were all good, but nothing could save this dumb, dumb movie.
4. I needed to rewatch the 1995 version of "Pride and Prejudice" in preparation for the new Keira Knightley one, which I'm prepared to dislike (because I just don't see her as Elizabeth Bennet) but hoping I'm wrong. This production is just untouchable in my mind. I can't believe there could be another Darcy besides Colin Firth. He is Darcy. I found Jennifer Ehle perfect for the role and just delightful; all of the other characters are just as I imagined in the book. I watched this over the course of two nights (it was originally a 5-hour TV miniseries and comes on two DVDs) and was enthralled the whole time. Gorgeous, delicious, romantic, wonderful. I don't have a single complaint.
Perfect timing--have you checked out Boblog (http://kirsty.typepad.com/boblog/2006/08/back.html) lately? She's got photos from two homes used as locations during the filming of P&P.
Posted by: Kathryn | August 16, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Beat me to it!
It's like The Italian Job; if you saw 'the original' first you hate the remake.
If you know anything about Regency England parts of the 2005 version will have you screaming out 'it just *wouldn't* happen that way!'.
I suppose the 1995 version doesn't do the meeting at Pemberley strictly as per the book, but in general it's far more faithful to the book than the 2005 version.
Keira is far too... toothy - and thin to be Elizabeth.
I'll stop now - I've started to rant.
;-)
Posted by: Kirsty | August 16, 2006 at 02:07 PM
I hope you like the Keira Knightly version. I was also prepared to be critical, but ended up loving it..........it's really a different interpretation, so I didn't end up comparing every little thing or every character. I loved the chemistry between the two leads.........was disappointed that "Lydia" was not as well cast as the 1995 version. I love Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland in this. Overall, it was different enough for me to love it. Maybe just as much!
Posted by: Lynn | August 16, 2006 at 03:42 PM
Oh - and Donald Sutherland's accent! Did they bother with a voice coach or just let him do his own thing?
Posted by: Kirsty | August 16, 2006 at 07:34 PM
The new P&P is enjoyable enough in its own way, but they remade it in a Bronte-esque manner and took too many liberties with the characters & their behaviors (men in the bedroom! bare feet! nightgowns on the moors! ack!). Plus, the new ending is atrocious, and two hours is much too short a time to properly motivate the main characters (why does Darcy love Lizzie again?)
Keira Knightley frightens me with that jaw-thrusting thing she does; her teeth look vicious.
I had to go and rewatch the Firth/Ehle version to cleanse my memory :-)
Posted by: Melanie | August 16, 2006 at 08:14 PM
We love the Keira Knightly version of P&P. It's beautiful, detailed, and believable. The sequence with the Bennett family teasing Mr. Collins at the dinner table is priceless.
Posted by: pam | August 17, 2006 at 12:28 PM