|
|
Rating:  - Fantastic
To anyone considering seeing the film, let me just say from the start: I loved it. I had not seen the 1972 version prior, and I'm glad I hadn't. The 2007 version is a very stylized work of art, like one of Wyke's sculptures. At first I found the direction and cinematography distracting, as everything seemed to be happening offscreen, but as the story developted, I felt that it added a very cool layer to the story, especially in relation to the final scenes of the film. I LOVED the characters by the end of the film, especially Jude Law's Milo. Both characters had moments where you can sort of sense the artifice....and you come to realize that that's excatly what it is. Overall, a great mystery and a dynamic character piece.
As for the DVD, I highly reccommend purchasing the complete DVD if you want to see this film. I was considering purchasing a digital download, but I am so happy to have been able to view the director and actor interviews and commentary after watching the film. They answered a lot of the questions I had, and explained a lot of the choices that they made. Let's just say, you see a lot more the second time around.
Absolutely 5 stars, but it's clearly a movie for those who want "intellectual excitement. Intellectual...stimulation."
Rating: - A mixed bag, but worth seeing
Jude Law's double role as the Scotland Yard inspector is worth the whole movie. Watch it for that, if nothing more. The Harold Pinter script is clever at times, but the end is ambiguous. It's a very talky movie, and the gay angle towards the end is just weird. Who is in charge is the movie's central plot theme. There's a lot of witty banter. Michael Caine is great, as usual. It's like a play because it's based on one. See it.
Rating:  - Good, but Different
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: From the Secret Files of Harry Pennypacker
Shadow Watcher
Nobody Drowns in Mineral Lake
This remake of the 1972 filming of Anthony Shaffer's 2-person stage play is as good as the original, just different. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine were the stars of the original picture. In this version, Caine assumes the Olivier role and Jude Law takes on the part Caine played in 1972.
Screenwriter Harold Pinter follows the general plot outline of Shaffer's play, but the smart, witty dialogue is all his and he also does a major re-working of the third act that, once again, may be different from the original, but I'm not sure if it's any better.
The play is set in best-selling author Caine's isolated English manor house where hairdresser/aspiring actor Law comes to discuss Michael's wife, the woman both are bedding. What begins as a genteel conversation quickly escalates into a potentially deadly game of cat-and-mouse where one cannot tell what is real and what isn't.
Kenneth Branagh, whose visual stylings are reminiscent of Orson Welles, directed the drama in such a manner that one is mesmerized, even though you are familiar with the play and know it's gimmick.
Caine and Law are both at the top of their game.
© Michael B. Druxman, author of ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD
Rating: - Blown away....
O.k so these are two brilliant and skillful leads.....BUT what a performance. It had me on the edge of my seat both with suspense and uncontrollabe laughter. It's amazing the way the seemed to switch roles as the plot thickened... sort of like an elevated form of Daffy vs Bugs bunny. Truly a brilliant performance by both men.
Rating:  - Different View
I look at this movie in a different way. Jude Law was a producer on the film. He has been compared with Micheal Caine. Hey "Alfie"? Possibly it was a slip or intended that the hairdresser was an actor was a hairdresser. How can you remake something? Maybe it is just different? There is context and distraction from the vantage of new technology that interlaces the film. It was a play and that was dialog. Now its video tech?
Micheal Caine at his worst is always good. Jude law could have been more subtle, and let me process this situation more. If you watch both films, and just watch you may see humor in the contrasts? Maybe not?
There are a number of reviews here and I am in the middle. It may be overstated.
This film left me with questions. It wasn't "wow, I want to see that again. "
|
|