Comments | sarcaustik: Carry On Wuthering Up The Caribbean

sarcaustik

Carry On Wuthering Up The Caribbean

Oct 06, 2005 21:11

I would say 'Insert Spoiler Warning Here', but actually I could not possibly spoil it any more than it is already and if unwittingly reading the below prevents you from going to see it, then I will have done you a favour.

( Contains extreme Prejudice and very little indeed of which to be Proud )

literary snobbery, film reviews

Comments 59

medusa October 6 2005, 10:34:40 UTC

I am supposed to be seeing it with ankaret at some point soon but have no expectations of enjoying it at all. I am approaching it in rather the same frame of mind as drives me to read the Daily Mail forums.

In other words, I quite deliberately want to be enraged and infuriated. ;)

sarcaustik October 6 2005, 10:35:50 UTC

In that case, it will not disappoint.

medusa October 6 2005, 10:40:25 UTC

Excellent.

siani_hedgehog October 6 2005, 10:35:46 UTC

i'll see it when it's on sky. which probably won't take very long...

nisaba October 6 2005, 10:36:19 UTC

Bravo! Quality ranting, my dear.

I knew there was a reason I was avoiding that movie, and now you've summed it up.

batswing October 6 2005, 10:51:10 UTC

Oh no, what a shame! I was really looking forward to it! It's one of my favourite novels and I love the BBC version!

sarcaustik October 6 2005, 10:54:41 UTC

I knew it couldn't compare to the BBC version and I was prepared to have to bear with it a bit, but I wasn't expecting it to be quite so awful!

dorianegray's review is a little less... uh... one-sided. ;-)

batswing October 6 2005, 11:27:32 UTC

Eek, I just read that! Was going tobully *ahem* take boyfriend but think I may be better going with a fellow lit/Austen geek so my muttering of 'That's not right!' doesn't bother the person I'm with!

sarcaustik October 6 2005, 11:37:26 UTC

*Grin* eddie777 is more of an Austen geek than I am! ;-) I don't think he was quite so damning as me, though.

Thread 7

tvor October 6 2005, 10:54:39 UTC

I'm *so* glad you posted that. I was of two minds whether to see it or not when it arrives here. Now i know to "run away! run away!". I *SPLEEN* when Hollywood decides it has to remake something and bolloxes it up every time! I should say "Modern" Hollywood because the old movies they made in the pre-1960's era were great! cheesy at times and over the top, but great just the same. Take Little Women as an example. The first version i know stars Katherine Hepburn as Jo. The remake in the 50's had a bit more "hollywood" to it with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and Margaret O'Brien as Beth, both the hot young actresses of the day. But the one that played Jo was still very good. So what do they do? Remake it in the 90's with Winony Bloody Ryder as Jo! huh???? Bleh. Winona was the Keira Knightly of the 90's.

I don't have a problem with remakes if it's well done. It's just rarely well done.

sarcaustik October 6 2005, 10:55:48 UTC

Winona was the Keira Knightly of the 90's.

Unfair. Beetlejuice and Heathers were both marvellous!

rhube October 6 2005, 11:13:30 UTC

And she was very good in Looking for Richard. I'd rather say she'd a better quality Keira Knightly - she tends to do teh same sort of thing, and can be a bit blah, but she has her moments.

tvor October 6 2005, 12:09:35 UTC

I'm not objective. I can't stand Winona no matter how good the rest of the movie she's in is. Also dislike Helena Bonham Carter though she was good in Wings of a Dove, or at least the part really suited her.