Change Your Image
Ridicully
Reviews
Much Ado About Nothing (2011)
Not perfect, but incredibly fun, I couldn't help but love it
This is the third filmed Much Ado About Nothing I've seen, and I have to say I enjoyed all three more or less equally. All of them had some parts that didn't work for me and some excellent parts that became my particular favourites.
Turns out this one has delivered my favourite don Pedro and Benedick. I thought Adam James brought extra nuance, warmth and a certain sense of melancholy to his part - of course in addition to sense of fun. I also felt that he had amazing rapport with Benedick and Beatrice, interactions with these two stood out to me chemistry wise. He was fine with others as well, but not as sparkly (this might have also been determined by how the play itself was written, I'm not sure). Actually, he was probably my favourite in the first part, in the second part Benedick unquestionably took over.
As for Benedick, I just loved David Tennant in this role. Not gonna lie, I went to seek out this version because of him, and he didn't disappoint in the slightest. In fact, this part probably turned me into a proper fan. I wanted to check out his Shakespeare work after watching the latest Around the World in 80 Days - can't say I loved this adaptation as a whole, but I was incredibly impressed with his Phileas Fogg. I thought that despite a rather weak script and clunky lines he managed to portray an almost Shakespearean character, so incredibly nuanced and powerful that I just wanted to see more of him (I've seen and liked him in other stuff before but somehow never bothered to look into his work properly). His Benedick is a delight - fun, dumb, almost innocent at times, infuriating, moving, capable of baring his soul, empathising and admitting responsibility etc. And all in a very nuanced yet seamless and natural way. A very charismatic performance.
Have to admit, I never liked Branagh as Benedick much - he and ET had amazing chemistry, but on his own as Benedick he lacked certain charm and lightness for me, he didn't soar, everything about him felt a bit heavy-handed. Denisoff in Whedon's film was more cerebral than usual, I liked that he was different, but no wings in sight as well. Tennant had all that and more, I think he'll remain my favourite.
I also want to praise Tennant's diction. As not a native English speaker I was worried about watching Shakespeare undubbed (never done this before), but I had absolutely no trouble following his lines, despite his rather strong Scottish accent, I rarely even had to check the subs. I amazed myself with that, lol.
I wasn't quite as impressed with Catherine Tate, at least not always. The way she delivered her lines sometimes felt like she was reciting a lesson in school (not always, but on occasion) and I had to check the subtitles quite often. I saw some people weren't enthused with her dangling act, and I have to agree. Of course it was the director's decision, but I felt that Tate's acting in that scene didn't help as well - too one-note and broad. I think I understand the idea - to play it more circus-like, but to me it felt way too long and stopped being even slightly amusing in about a minute. Well, you can't catch them all.
I loved CT's scene with don Pedro during the ball and all her scenes with Benedick (I see some criticised her acting in the declaration scene, but I thought her going from hysterical to giddy to almost awed was perfectly natural, I bought it, the "eat his heart" monologue was also well done, imo). She did pretty well with comedic scenes in general (except for the dangling bit).
I haven't seen a lot of Doctor Who, but I remember watching a couple of episodes when Tennant's Doctor was paired with Tate, and I thought they sparkled together. Their chemistry here was also pretty great, though a bit different. It wasn't more sexually charged (I don't really think it's a necessity in Much Ado, sorry, the sense of play and genuine affinity between them is way more important), but it sparkled nonetheless. That said, to me it seemed that CT played practically the same character as she did in Doctor Who, as little as I've seen of it, while Tennant played Benedick as a different character. Can't help but wish she tried to go in a bit of a different direction with Beatrice as well, I don't think their chemistry would've suffered as Tennant seems like a very accommodating, elastic sort of actor, but overall the play would've gained more nuance and balance. Emma Thompson stays as my favourite Beatrice, but I still liked Tate's take, she didn't spoil anything for me (I'm stating it specifically as I feel that this part is the lynchpin - uninspired Beatrice would kill the whole play dead).
In fact no one here spoiled this interpretation for me, everyone else was from good to all right. I doubt anyone ever unseats Nathan Fillion from Whedon's Much Ado as my favourite Dogberry (with Tom Lenk's Verges) - in fact, the only Dogberry I properly enjoyed, who's shown me this character can actually be an asset in the play all on his own. Sorry, wasn't a fan of Keaton's take (and I like the actor). This Dogberry was all right, and I actually loved his last scene, it was well done.
Don John was properly sinister without much of a reason and socially ill adjusted (not a blight on the whole production like sweet Keanu, God bless him), the actor did as well as he could in this thankless part. My favourite Leonato also comes from the Whedon's film (Clark Gregg), but this one was OK. Claudio was a proper doofus with underdeveloped teen sensibilities, I liked RSL in the Branagh film better, but again, not bad at all. Imelda Staunton is still the best Margaret.
As production and direction go (in my judgement as a "naive reader"), I quite liked the setting, stage design and all the costumes, as well as music. I thought it was well thought out and merged together for the most part, and had a unique style. I think I liked most of the directorial decisions (except for that unfortunate dangling of course): how the ball was done, that keyboard thingy Benedick played, the paint panto, the chairs in church, can't think of anything I really disliked. I am also a fan of "the boy" and his different appearances, how he was used throughout the play.
Overall, this production left an aftertaste of something light and fresh, a little bitter-sweet (like the play itself). It wasn't perfect, but it was fun, at times moving, VERY enjoyable, and I will certainly rewatch it more than once.
Dune (2021)
Bit too long, but, oddly, I wasn't bored
I've never managed to make myself watch the Lynch film, it just looks too 80s for me and stylistically this is the period I like the least. Heh, even if it had been made a decade earlier I'd have probably watched it, this kind of retro is far less cringy to me than the stench of the 80s. Sorry to any fans of that time or of that film. I just plainly didn't give it a chance. I've seen the miniseries with Willian Hurt and remember liking it, the book was still fresh in my mind then (I haven't reread it since my teen years).
I did have some problems with the book: imo, it's a very cool concept, scratch that, there is actually an incredible amount of cool sci-fi concepts in there, but it's written rather poorly from the literary point of view. A bit like the Harry Potter series or Jules Verne - the author has an incredible imagination and mental discipline capable of turning these vague ideas into actual working concepts and plot points, but doesn't have the language or character skills on high enough level to fully realise the potential greatness. It's only my taste and opinion of course, if fans of above-mentioned titles ever read this review, don't get mad please.
Anyway, because of my fascination slash dissatisfaction with the Dune books I always thought that the way to overcome these shortcomings would be to properly adapt it for the big/small screen, because when they're done well adaptations tend to fill those character voids. Actors naturally seek to flesh out their parts and good directors usually support them in this endeavor.
Now, as for this particular adaptation (at last I come to it, lol), have to admit that I haven't really gotten the feel of the characters yet, they're not quite distinctive enough. For such a long film it really is a bit of an underachievement (I think in this same length of time the miniseries already fleshed out at least duke Leto, lady Jessica and baron Harkonnen much better - Paul is always tricky, he's too conceptualized to be shown compellingly human).
Oddly, I wasn't bored though as I was during "The Hobbit" (I only managed the first one, what a horrible and unnecessary bore!), despite my love for Jackson's LotR. But somehow it all gelled here. The music wasn't anything to write home about on its own (Zimmer didn't go the greatest hits route here), but it complemented the action and general atmosphere. The characters weren't (so far) developed better than in the books, but for some reason, when taken together with the beautiful cinematography and CGI, it didn't really matter to me. Lol. Mainly, I guess, I simply took this film as an introduction to the world, a necessary tool of world building before the REAL stuff starts, so I welcomed the slow pace. Granted, we probably won't see Leto anymore, and ASFAIR William Hurt departed the miniseries a much better developed character than Oscar Isaac has, but oh well. May be others will compensate for that, who knows. I was OK with Chalamet - it's doubtful Paul will ever be anything more than a walking destiny, but the actor was natural enough and I'm looking forward to seeing what he'll be doing with the part further.
Basically, guess what I'm trying to say is I enjoyed it. It did absolute justice to the source visually and (as far as I remember, haven't read it for many years) plot wise, it did nothing better (so far) with the characters, but simply by the grace of being competently "materialized" on screen they already feel more alive than in the books. I wasn't disappointed, and I'm looking forward to the next one.
Around the World in 80 Days (2021)
Not without cringe, but good overall with a dose of absolute win
(No spoilers) First, I have to admit that I gave this show a slightly higher rating than the one I would have given it, if I didn't see this unnatural onslaught of 1 stars, which was clearly driven by political disagreements about 'wokeness', and at least some of it definitely feels coordinated. I'm not sure most people who gave this show 1 star have even managed to watch it as it has not been widely released yet. Anyway, I don't like it when things are not given a fair shake based on silly agendas, so I give it a 9 to compensate a bit, even though I'd probably have given it a 7-7,5 in normal circumstances. Not fair? But at least I have seen it, and I can confidently say it's not a 1 star show, very far from it. So there, be mad.
I am actually not a big fan of so-called 'wokeness' and 'cancel culture', in case you thought I'm a SJW on a mission. I do think that all historical eras and figures should be looked at with their own moral standards in mind, not with whatever is the current social flavour, and I am strongly against tampering with the literature classics and the like in order not to offend modern sensibilities. I think this is the way to entrenched madness and cultural amnesia, and it can't be healthy.
I also don't think that reevaluation of the past is worthless or is something new and specific to our time, that never happened before and shouldn't happen again. I think certain questions need to be raised and discussed, and certain changes made. The problem is there is not much discussion going, people just shout insults at each other and abandon all facts and nuances if it serves their opposite agendas, like with these 1-star ratings here.
Bad
- So, as most things that strive to balance modern PC views and actual entertainment (so far, I'm sure we'll work out the algorithm eventually), story wise it does feel clunky sometimes - from moderately to cringeworthy. Some stuff is downright laughable (on the other hand, some of Verne's takes are also laughable/cringe now, simply in the opposite way), but what can you do. Actors usually sell it just fine, sometimes even beautifully, so you move along swimmingly most of the time.
- I'm not big on visuals, I thought the cinematography and special effects looked fine overall, except for one scene (I'll only say that it's in the open sea) which looked so fake to me that I actually laughed. I really usually don't notice these things much, so if even I laughed, it must be bad.
Average
- A lot of the dialogue. Just not very inspiring overall. But again, actors usually sell it (unless they don't, which brings me to...)
- Ibrahim Coma. He wasn't bad, but I thought he could do a lot more with his part, at least everyone else did, so why not him? This character is very stretchy, and IMO a good actor should enjoy filling all its nooks and crannies with as much life as possible (just look at Jackie Chan, who is not an acting genius, but has a ball in the part and takes you along for the ride). I thought he sold his lines not as consistently as everyone else, didn't shine in the moments he could've shined in, and I'm afraid, to me, he doesn't have enough charisma for this inherently charismatic part.
Good
- The entertainment value was from average to good, for me. So, not bad and not excellent, but just enough for a modern adaptation of an old book that I've read more than once as a kid. Not a lot of suspense in these circumstances, you know. But overall, I can't complain - so many details are changed that you do kind of wonder what's next.
- Cinematography.
- Music. It does feel like Zimmer made a bit of a potpourri of his best stuff, but I still liked it a lot.
- Title sequence. Loved it, it goes very well with the musical theme.
- Leonie Benesch. Haven't seen her before in anything, but I thought she was very good here. Even if some of that was a bit cliche and a standard 'plucky girl making her way in the big world' fare, she mostly made it sound and look fresh. She helped to glue the story together and forget the clunky bits, which is, frankly, your main job as an actor (live and learn, Ibrahim). Btw, I thought any chemistry Passepartout and Abigail had was also mainly due to her trying her best.
Excellent
- The fact that some characters were completely rewritten and new ones were added. Seriously, would anyone argue and claim that Jules Verne didn't suck at writing believable characters? He was a genius with other stuff, but his characters are so flat and cliché that it's impossible to reread his books after the age of 10 and not feel severely underwhelmed at every turn. It's either bad baddies or good goodies, and a couple of 'tortured souls' (Nemo, Ayrton) so standard that your teeth ache. All Verne adaptations should be made this way - leave the atmosphere and the adventures alone, but rewrite characters mercilessly. Anyone who's ever felt remotely alive to me was Jacques Paganel, and I doubt anyone would ever mess with his characterization - you know it's good when it's good. I also don't see any problem with Passepartout's changed race, he could absolutely believably be black at the time (now, if they made Fogg black that would've defied belief), as well as with changing (very bland) Fix and making him female (Nellie Bly anyone?).
- David Tennant as Fogg. I knew the actor and I knew I liked him. I've seen him in 5 things previously (several eps of Doctor Who and Jessica Jones, 1 season of Broadchurch, Good Omens and Staged). I thought he was very different in all of them and that he elevated the material, as an actor should. I know he's done a lot more and hope to check out some other stuff in the near future, maybe even Shakespeare (I'm not a native English speaker and the Bard is quite hard for me to understand), but meanwhile, I thought he was a freakin genius here. Honestly, the whole construction is carried on his not very wide shoulders and without him (or an actor of similar caliber) would've gotten that same 1 star rating from me (so, + 1 star for some of the other stuff listed above and + 5 stars for David Tennant, that's how much of a difference he makes).
Maybe a lot of it is due to his character also having been rewritten as the only pillar of the story, with all possible ups and downs, practically all emotions known to man. Maybe it's just that the material and some of the other actors around him were less on par, than in other things I've seen him in (in which he also was very good, but not as towering and pillar like, lol), but he was really fascinating to watch, absolutely compelling in all circumstances, in all shades and nuances of feeling, and made this show totally worth watching for me. I will probably rewatch it soon and try to unpick what exactly in his performance made it so thrilling to watch, but so far my impression is that he sort of did make it feel like a true Shakespearean part, despite some clunky lines and cringey stories, and that's awesome. So even if the way Fogg was rewritten makes it sound like he "fell victim to PC culture" and should be a walking-talking agenda, the reality is - through the blend or writing and (especially) acting he became a truly compelling character, which he wasn't in the book.
So, you may have not understood it from my piece, lol, but I in fact enjoyed the show and plan to see it again. Give it a try when you can (first couple of episodes are a bit more disjointed, it picks up steam as it goes).