passingview

Sorry, but if you have seen the 1977 version with Nicola Pagett and Stuart Wilson, you have seen the best. It does take a serial installment versus a movie rendering to give this vast story justice. This updated version attempts that, but lacks the authenticity of the superior qualities of casting, direction, acting and storyline found in the 1977 offering. This 2000 version is quite crude by comparison, only surpassing in the more up-to-date production techniques available. Who care about those when dealing with a classic work, and who misses them for the vast difference in foundational qualities. This is the cruder offering in every sense of the word. The leads are weak, ineffectual and even far less attractive. The age factor is disregarded as Anna appears older than either her husband (who is 20 years her senior in the book) and her lover. This project is much weakened by the gratuitous and tasteless animal sexual element ascribed to the principals to the expense of heart connections. Untrue and violating of the classical source material. Disgusting contribution. Even the earlier shallower movie contributions avoided the offenses of this shoddy offering.

I will cherish my lst and 2nd season DVDs of DA, but will buy no more. Why they thought they had to hype the 3rd, who knows, but hyped it was. Now with the entrée of the 4th season, the skids are actually in sight unless they pick it up from those first two wretched hours. We're talking a loss of zest and vital connection that made DA the blockbuster hit it became. This applies to the writing, directing and even the acting. This stellar cast could not overcome insipid and recycled themes and some were actually wooden, especially noticed in the kitchen sequences with Ms. Patmore (who always rang the chimes) and Daisy. Some of their exchanges were like a high school play reading. It was just overall flat - really off. However, in reading reviews of some who have seen the UK complete season say it starts slow and picks up. Man, does it really need to.

As is my custom with favorite actors or actresses, I select titles at times in which they have contributed. This time it was Peter Egan. Saw him first in "Lillie" with Francesca Annis, and it looks like there's nothing comparable to that marvelous part and portrayal as Oscar Wilde. I heartily agree with the reviewer who warns one off this dull-as-ditch-water vehicle. In my experience, one can satisfy curiosity and interest in a poor adaptation if one has enjoyed the author and the source material. I have managed to at least watch with interest mediocre films of favorite authors just to see what they did with it, however just that one time. Nothing here invites a re-visit of this series.

Sought out this film for an Ian Glen performance. Could not stomach it even to get to his scenes. I am just sorry that such a good and interesting actor as Iain Glen has not been better taken up in film, with better parts. He is such a distinctive character, sensitive and having strength as well. This movie is just a mass of confusion and his contribution to it surely did not enhance his career. I credited his performance in Downton Abbey, Wives and Daughters and a smattering here and there. Sorry for him that he had to be involved with this turkey. He seems to have done well in "Thrones," a television vehicle. The lead female character here (not Carla herself) is a cow, unsympathetic and unattractive. Surely a low budget vehicle. Avoid.

There's a lot of back and forth on this one, comparing the cast, comparing movie to stage, a lot about Streisand being too young. Even on the Hello Dolly reviews, you get that. I wonder if people didn't know how old Barbra Streisand was if they would still say that. I also wonder how different people's reviews would be if they didn't have the chance to read others'. And, just because someone's been on stage, doesn't make them a demigod. When I saw Hello Dolly, it was love at first sight, along with a lot of other people. Probably those who didn't know all the background and about other productions. Ignorance can be bliss maybe. Probably more like too much information is just confusing. There's even some outrage that someone dared remake their little gem. Well they dared and did and kicked it up a notch, which was needed.

The musical version rocked the house from start to finish. The songs stay with you. The scenes come alive and have greater interest. Mathau was a fine curmudgeon, really funny. Streisand was that Levi woman, age immaterial. She had a full figure and easily passed for a middle aged widow. She came up to what is a strong part. Her outrageous handling was sheer delight. Her more alive and youthful aspect was much better than that rather tired old lady. If you're going to pick on age, I think it's more like Shirley Booth seemed too old for the part. This current movie under review seems kind of tired to me in general, like players doing their umpteenth performance at the end of a run. Phoned in. I never saw Shirley Booth on Broadway, and with what I see here, no regret. She's better cast as Hazel on television.

Streisand stood up and put some bump into this grind. Whoever did Hello Dolly was a real movie maker who took the same stuff to another level. In my view, it made a much more solid contribution to the movie world than Match's rather slow and odd mix of things.