Change Your Image
bgrot
Reviews
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
A fine musical... ruined.
The duet of Tim Burton & Johnny Depp is always a pleasure to behold. Unfortunately, this time the creepy fairy tale for adults has gone too far with superfluous gore, blood, and neck-slashing. Wonderful cinematography, spectacular costumes and strong acting in the first part of the movie are eclipsed by the fountains of blood in the second half. The gore is hardly necessary, as it doesn't add anything to the movie, but it seriously detracts. More than once, we found ourselves turning our heads away from close-up shots of necks slit open by a razor, and with each time we were less inclined to look back at the screen. It's sad to see an old master like Burton caving in to what appears to be the norm in Hollywood with respect to graphic violence and high body count.
Charodei (1982)
Great movie for New Year's Eve or a lazy Sunday afternoon
Yes, the movie is not at all faithful to the book. Yes, it has a cheesy plot, low-budget cinematography and 19th century special effects. But none of these things can take away from the charm of this picture. The acting is simple and the actors are adorable (young Abdulov rocks!). Many of the lines from the movie have since become everyday phrases (eg: "Nu ktozh tak stroit!") and several of the songs immortal ("Pesenka pro kostyumchik," "Tri Belix Konya"). And the sentimental value of the good ol' Soviet rudeness and bureaucracy is immeasurable.
If you understand Russian, have spent any time in USSR, and love fairy tales for adults, you'll love this movie.
Lolita (1962)
Another Lolita (SPOILERS!)
Admittedly, I am much younger than this movie, and having been born and raised abroad, might not be in the best position to comment on the authenticity of America as presented in this film. More importantly, I don't know what the acceptable norms were for films dealing with sexuality, especially adult-child relationships (still a highly contested subject).
Having made this disclaimer, I must say that I was genuinely disappointed by the movie, as Kubrick made no effort to capture the spirit of the book. In fact, the book has many spirits - the physical, the metaphysical, and the surreal, none of which are captured by this film.
In some sense, the movie doesn't pretend to be faithful to the novel - Quilty has a central role, Lo is much older than she should be, and so on. But without dwelling deeper into the mind of H.H., without focusing more on the *subject* (not the object) of his obsession, without getting us to see Lo through Humbert's sick yet loving eyes the movie is a hollow shadow of the book, bearing little in common other than the name.
Under no circumstances can I recommend this movie. For those who have not read the book (DO read it!), the movie will, at best, be mildly entertaining thanks to Peter Sellers; to those who have read it (and have understood it on at least one of the three levels), it will be painfully disappointing.
There has been a good deal of comparison between this version and Adrian Lyne's remake. To me, there is no comparison. While I strongly believe that no single movie can fully capture the full scope of the novel, Lyne largely succeeds at the physical level and makes an effort at showing the surreal. Kubrick fails on every level.
Last bit of advice: if you saw the inner beauty of the novel, if you grew to love Lo as H.H. did, if you were happy, disgusted, ill, thrilled, and paranoid along with Humbert, save yourself the disappointment of having a hard script and real faces super-imposed on your mental picture. Rather, pick up the book, and read it over - you will pick out things that you missed on the first (second, third...) read, relive the drama, laugh at the comedy, all in glorious color of your very own imagination.