paintbeforeassembly
Joined Jan 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews11
paintbeforeassembly's rating
It may not be fully the equal of the English movie that it is based on, but I think that what sets this movie out as being worthwhile is that it ISN'T just a flat remake; and yet, at the same time, it faithfully carries the whole heart of the original story. This is still a great movie, and worth a watch.
What sets it apart is that it takes one of the original's greatest strengths - the wonderfully woven storyline that created the whole comic setting that the cast plays off of - and then detaches it from typically dry British humour, then pairs it with the more overstated humour of black American movies. It really is a polar opposite style of comedy -- think of the contrast between a black Gospel church and a quiet Anglican church in Oxfordshire. You could complain about its bluntness compared to the English version; but that's the whole point here, and it's what makes the remake worthwhile. This is the same great story, with the same roles, but new characters playing the parts to a completely different beat.
I'm a born and raised Englishman, and I really love the original. It's a fine example of a British comedy movie, probably the best I've seen in many years. But I think that the American version attracts too much of its criticism for not being the English one, and I think that misses the point. This movie isn't trying to be the original. It's retelling the story, rather than trying to carbon-copy it.
And really, it's the only reinvention of this movie that ever COULD have been worthwhile. Trying to copy the original version, bones, style and all, would have been futile and pointless. But this version, instead, gives the same story a fresh rhythm; a rhythm that may appeal to some on whom the original's dryness might have been lost. And I'm quite unashamed to say that while the original, for me, is the fairest in the land, my heart loves them both nonetheless.
What sets it apart is that it takes one of the original's greatest strengths - the wonderfully woven storyline that created the whole comic setting that the cast plays off of - and then detaches it from typically dry British humour, then pairs it with the more overstated humour of black American movies. It really is a polar opposite style of comedy -- think of the contrast between a black Gospel church and a quiet Anglican church in Oxfordshire. You could complain about its bluntness compared to the English version; but that's the whole point here, and it's what makes the remake worthwhile. This is the same great story, with the same roles, but new characters playing the parts to a completely different beat.
I'm a born and raised Englishman, and I really love the original. It's a fine example of a British comedy movie, probably the best I've seen in many years. But I think that the American version attracts too much of its criticism for not being the English one, and I think that misses the point. This movie isn't trying to be the original. It's retelling the story, rather than trying to carbon-copy it.
And really, it's the only reinvention of this movie that ever COULD have been worthwhile. Trying to copy the original version, bones, style and all, would have been futile and pointless. But this version, instead, gives the same story a fresh rhythm; a rhythm that may appeal to some on whom the original's dryness might have been lost. And I'm quite unashamed to say that while the original, for me, is the fairest in the land, my heart loves them both nonetheless.
The Scottish accent is horrible, and obviously a person trying to do a Scots accent instead of someone who actually has one; and some scenes tied to the Scottish side are bad, too. But at the same time, none of the scenes in this film are nearly as boring as many of the scenes in the book, which - though a classic, and rightly regarded as such - suffers badly from age and its role as the "first novel", in that nobody had quite figured out things like pacing just yet.
In short...it's an average movie, not good, and not bad either. Worth a watch if it comes on TV, and not as inclined to bore you out of your skull as the book. And to those who truly love the book...I applaud your patience. As a child of the digital age, my tolerance for descriptions of fence-building is extremely lacking.
In short...it's an average movie, not good, and not bad either. Worth a watch if it comes on TV, and not as inclined to bore you out of your skull as the book. And to those who truly love the book...I applaud your patience. As a child of the digital age, my tolerance for descriptions of fence-building is extremely lacking.