Reviews

I must say I adored this film. I resisted it for a couple of years, just as I often do with romantic comedies (I like to think that I'm somehow "above" enjoying silly fluff films, but I'm usually wrong), and once I acquiesced and rented the DVD, I found that it was exactly as fabulous as I was afraid it would be. For those who say that the science of the time travel was "murky," I say I agree with you, but I don't care. The film set up its own set of rules and obeyed them. . .to a point. The only issue I might take with the filmmaker is a minute one. (SPOILER alert) Kate's skirt in her jump back changed to a more period silhouette, whilst both men's clothes remained as they had been when they jumped. Now, this might be intended as an emphasis that she has "softened. . ." Ok, I miiiight be persuaded on that point. This issue, however, is a minor one, and really didn't dampen my enjoyment of this fun piece. I have been crazy about Meg Ryan since the "When Harry Met Sally" days and I am now officially in love with Hugh Jackman. I must begin his inclusion into my DVD library :)

*Possible spoilers within* The first time I saw this film was in the theater, not long after it opened. I was so scared, I could barely move. My muscles were honestly sore at the end from holding tension in them. It was the best filmgoing experience. ..ever. On the way home, I analyzed it and realized what was so frightening to me was the way it echoed my own personal 9/11 experience. (When I found out, through the DVD extras, that filming started two days after, on September the 13th, I cried.)On that day, more concrete to me than the suffering of the people in the towers, was the fear of the people standing helpless nearby, watching the destruction. And even more concrete than that to me was what felt like a momentary dissolution of our country, the way things are done here, and the possibility of what might come next. I remember the most terrifying aspect of that whole day was hearing the f-word on NBC in some unedited video. ..then hearing that footage again and again and again. Similarly in Signs, the moment that we are "pushed off the edge," so to speak, is the moment that Graham opens the closet door and there's nothing but a test pattern on the television. That moment, to me, spoke of a terrifying "end of the world as we know it," similar to what I experienced on that day. Also, when Graham and the kids come out of the basement, the first thing we hear is the television news report, a clear "return to normalcy." I was put off too, once I saw the actual creature effect, but I was willing to forgive that one transgression, as the rest of the film to me was a beautifully crafted piece of cinema. The direction and cinematography are marvellous and thoughtful, most of the actors have obviously done their homework, the light and indeed the whole production design is beautiful(as a costume designer, I loved touches like little Bo being in her dress-up gown when she is frightened). Sure, it's got its plot holes. Sure some bits of the dialogue aren't as well-crafted as they might be. Ok, M Night Shayamalan isn't likely to win an Oscar for his acting. However, if you can get beyond these little issues and see the film as a whole, give in to willing suspension of disbelief, and buy into the world of the film, I think there's a lot to be learned, both emotionally and intellectually.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Let's preface this by saying: I adore Shakespeare. The language, the pageantry, the story lines. . .the man was unquestionably a genius in all ways. Many people have panned Luhrman's R&J for being too loud, too flashy and untrue to the text. I say that Shakespeare might've taken a little offense to the cutting that was done of his script, but the story itself was intact, the language reasonably well-maintained, the world carefully constructed, and the spectacle likely what a modern Shakespeare would have approved of. Shakespeare did not set out to write art. The man was trying to put food on his table, same as any other artist. The fact that he created art in the process does not diminish its beauty or integrity. Luhrman's R&J is a success because it does just what Shakespeare intended, in my opinion: it entertains, it tells an intact story, and if it gets a group of surly teenagers to read a little bit, I say use Leonardo diCaprio, regardless of his line reading. Now, on to this "adaptation." "Adaptation" is a kind word for what was done to this play. "Butchering" might be a more appropriate term. Some on this message board have said that they were bothered by the juxtaposition of Shakespearean verse against a modern backdrop. This did not bother me, save one choice. I am all for "modernizing" Shakespeare when it works. However, the trouble here is that no one seems to have thought out the full ramifications of the choices made. Having the "To be or not to be" speech set in a BlockBuster Video store. . . The worst choice I can possibly imagine!! I spent the entire of what should be a lovely and tortured moment thinking that he was reading off video titles. There are three movie titles which have been borrowed from that speech and I just giggled (or would have, if I hadn't been so disgusted) every time our surly hero uttered one of them in BlockBuster (the titles, in case anyone missed this reference are _Outrageous Fortune,_ the one which bothered me most 'cause I spent most of the soliloquy thinking of Bette Midler and Shelly Long hanging from a cliff by their fingernails; _What Dreams May Come;_ and _The Undiscovered Country._) Secondly: this modernization doesn't work at all for one simple reason: it's not important. Hamlet's choices don't matter. Ok, so Claudius killed King Hamlet to gain control of his corporation. Fine. Who cares? The scope of the story is so much wider and more important to a large group of people. Here we have a scenario of brother killing brother to gain financial control. Great. Think Bill Gates' brother kills him to gain control of Microsoft. Is this of national or global import? No, not really, not unless you're a stock holder. But imagine if our beloved George W's brother Jeb killed him off to become president and you're getting a slightly closer idea of the stakes in the original story. The story told in this film is important only to those whom we see portrayed in it. Shakespeare wrote a story which is truly a tragedy because of the untold and unseen millions of people which it impacts, the subjects of Denmark. Further, there were ideas that when introduced, I got excited about, but which simply didn't play out. I loved the idea of everyone being on camera all the time. Fabulous! That makes a statement! Also, I really got excited when I realized that Hamlet's "play" was actually to be a film. And I wasn't quite sure how I felt about his soliloquy about "the player" being about James Dean (actually I thought "WWJDD," but beyond making me giggle, I was ok there). But I wanted to see Hamlet making the film, using real people, and talking to them about what he wanted. I love the "Player King" scenes. I also got excited when I saw foreshadowing of Ophelia's death. ..but again, no payoff. I wanted to see her throw herself into Claudius' pool, perhaps with something belonging to Hamlet tied around her to weight her down. But instead we see her think about it, but not do it. And I wondered about having her drown in the fountain. . .semi-interesting, that was where we saw her spurned by Hamlet the first time, yes, but it made me wonder, since it was such shallow water, if someone had done it to her, rather than she herself. Finally (and I'm actually leaving out a lot here, but this is far too long as it is), I despised much of the final duel between Hamlet and Laertes. Killing Hamlet with a gun? Nope, sorry. The sword/foil needs to be poisoned. This continues to implicate Claudius, ties us back to King Hamlet's death, and makes Laertes' complicity more passive. Here, Laertes makes a choice, ostensibly on his own, to shoot Hamlet, which is a very different thing than having Claudius poison his sword/foil, making the smallest scratch lethal. Also, Claudius must be killed by his own device, the same one which killed Gertrude, or you miss so much drama.

In short, I'd have been a lot less upset about this film if the Shakespeare had either been left in it or out of it completely. Either use the text and drama or dispose of it, but the middle ground chosen here is simply that: mediocre.