Today my muse has left the building, I suspect she snuck off yesterday after my post because I intended to move onto my favourite example of intertextuality. So that shall now wait until monday and by posted in the reviews section where it really belongs.
Rather than staring at the blank screen I had a little scribble in my notebook, wrote what a terrible day it is in my journal and wasted an hour playing games on Facebook. The I stuck a DVD on.
It was one I hadn’t watched since getting it, you know how it goes you read the reviews fancy it but not enough to go to the cinema so you wait for it to come out on DVD only to discover it wasn’t as good as you expected it to be, not terrible but not great either just mundane. For me Forgetting Sarah Marshall fell into that category despite the sexy Russell Brand being in it. (Cue gratuitous clip of Russell…)
But what really struck me was the song over the end credits, a familiar song that even though you cannot understand the words you know each and ever one. It reminded me of a day many moons ago when I accidentally placed a favourite record the wrong way up and fell in love with the spanish version. So for your enjoyment I share the song from today and the one from years ago which both remind me that the sound of words can be almost as important as the meaning. If not we would not write literature we would merely read dictionaries
Because of my back issues I can’t really go to the cinema to watch films and I was gutted not to go see this one and patiently awaited its DVD release.
Now I will be honest when I finally put it into the Dvd player I had mixed feelings, I had read all the great reviews but the certification at age 12 suggests thhis wasn’t going to be that scary.
Sadly I was left disappointed, Radcliffe puts in a creditable performance as Arthur Kipps, a young widower sent to sell some real estate with its own dark hidden past. Infact to be fair the whole cast perform well its just that it wasn’t scary.
I really wanted to love this but I didn’t I liked it and it was a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours it just failed to make me jump. Sadly the ending is also blatently set up for a sequel which leaves the feeling that this was far more about making money than adapting a great book and play. I do want to read the book now there was enough potential in the film for me to see what a good book it should be and a friend of mine that has seen the play on the stage in the West End raved about the stage version.
This has left me wondering if the people making the film held back on the scare factor in order to get the lower rating, I would hate to think that was the case but with the casting of Radcliffe who of course recently concluded his role as Harry Potter the film would naturally attract his fans from that series.
Rating 3.5 stars out of 5 which is a shame as I believe it could have been so much better.
Have you ever wondered why somethings last so well and others date so easily. Is it the topic? The quality of writing? Choice of subject?
Space Odessy2001 still stand ups up fairly well. Orwell’s 1984 is history yet the book still stands as a great. Costume drama’s based on books written lifetimes past still top the viewing lists. The blogging world is alight with reading lists for classic reads. I can read Austen over and over again yet am never likely to go to a formal dance yet most modern ‘chick lit’ is a one off read generally on the beach.
What is it about some books or and even a few films that keep us going back? Recently I introduced my 19 year old and her boyfriend to Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Not the book but the 70’s BBC tv version. While my daughter couldn’t get past the dated graphics her boyfriend listened to the actual dialogue and found it hilarious. So for those in other countries who may not have seen this version a quick clip…
Now of course as with all good ideas someone else had the idea of cashing in on it and a big budget version was made here is a clip from that to compare…
Now although this has far better graphics, and has Stephen Fry narrating I just can’t like it as much as the 70’s version. too many liberties have been taken with the original text which is lets face it the whole reason you want to watch it in the first place. We live in a world of remakes where every idea that has been successful seems to be rehashed, remade and in most cases ruined for the sake of a few more dollars in someones pocket. Okay I get it we have new tecnology to play with but in the midst of creating a greater visual experience we lose what was there in the first place. for me the adaptations that work are not always just the ones that stick religiously to the actual book but those that actually understand what the book is about. There have been very enjoyable versions of Shakespeare plays given a change of setting such as Romeo & Juliet or the David Tenant version of Hamlet. They may have changed the time or location but stay faithful to the message of the book. Anyway enough of a rant today. What do you think is it better to watch a good version that may be a little dated or do you want the shiny new version?