It's interesting to see Shakespeare works told in a modern way. Especially when they are as conscious of it as the BBC version of Much Ado About Nothing. There were many hints and references to Shakespeare's time period and his other works, making this retelling even more fun than it already was.
Changing the language to a more contemporary one was a good idea. As good as the Joss Wheadon adaptation was, it still is a bit odd hearing people in a contemporary setting not speaking contemporary English. Even if the dialogue wasn't exactly the same, it still worked and told the same story. It's a testament to Shakespeare's stories and characters. You can literally remove all the dialogue, change the setting, and even modify character names but the story and way the characters act can stay the same and still work.
It's great seeing an adaptation like this, of a Shakespeare work, that works so well. It is made accessible with the language change and setting modification, and in that a whole new audience can learn to enjoy it. The audience daunted by reading Shakespeare can find a great version that is easy to understand and great fun all the way through.
Clueless is a romantic comedy that seems completely aware of how ridiculous the 90's were. There are times where it makes fun of what is popular and how people act, and also breaks some conventions. Like the novel it is influenced from, Emma, it seems to have the main character end up with the person you would really not expect normally, but they make it work. It's a fun comedy that is hard not to love.
It's always fun when a movie seems to make fun of itself. Not only that, but when it makes fun of the era it takes place in. There are those jokes that everyone seems to be in on, but not the characters we are watching. Clueless seems to pull this off fairly well and deserves to be recognized as a very clever comedy film in this aspect.
The film never seems to take itself too seriously and is fun throughout. I think the core of what it really is about it trying to simply be fun and poke fun at era it was filmed in. The 90's were ridiculous in so many ways, and they are all portrayed in this movie. From the valley girl dialect to the wardrobe, everything screams 90's. Somehow, this doesn't age the movie the way you think it would. You can still watch it over a decade later and notice the heavy amounts of social commentary.
In the end, the relationship between Cher and Josh was what mattered. It was almost unexpected, but only because of the fact that they were step-brother and sister. It was smart of them to downplay that whole aspect of the relationship, and making sure we knew that they didn't grow up together and were hardly close enough to be considered brother and sister. By the time the kiss happens between the two, we are hardly surprised that they end up together. They seem to be almost perfect for one another and are set up that way throughout the film.
Memento is a mind bending thriller from director Christopher Nolan, based off the short story Memento Mori by his brother Jonathan Nolan. It follows a man who has lost the ability to create new memories while he is on the quest to avenge his wife's death.
This is one of those films that can be used in the argument that sometimes the movie is better than the original story. The original shot story by Jonathan Nolan was good, but didn't seem to give enough context as one would like. However, the feature film expands on this idea Jonathan had and creates something better in the sense of more context. The visual aspects of the film help a lot as well, giving us a more clear cut difference between the scenes that are happening and the black and white scenes.
The idea to do the story backwards is an original one, and it's hard to imagine it working any other way. If you look at the film chronologically from the story standpoint, you would know far to much too soon. Somehow working from the conclusion to the actual beginning of the story brings along more twists and turns than would have been. Christopher Nolan does a great job with this, and delivers a great mystery as per usual. He somehow tows the line between over-the-top mystery and something that would induce an eye roll with his stories(i.e. M. Night Shyamalan, Grant Morrison) to make a great puzzle story that leaves everyone talking long after the credits roll.
I think it's important to note that aspect, we are all left discussing it. With stories like this, we aren't meant to necessarily have a clear cut answer to every question raised. The creator wants us to talk about it, and each have our own interpretation of what may have happened. Yes, there is a clear cut ending for the most part, with facts laid out by the movie at the end. However, it seems we are almost like Leonard himself, writing down what we know to be a fact and leaving the other points to either forget or change to our own liking. This approach is the backbone of any great puzzle story, and is in the likes of narratives such as the television show LOST and video game Bioshock Infinite. All these answer main questions, but leave a set to the viewers imagination. It's something that seems to be a preferred method, considering how much hate someone like M. Night Shyamalan receives for giving an almost clear cut twist and answer to the entire story that can easily be described in a sentence or two. I would challenge anyone to describe the ending to this film in the amount of effort it takes to say "Bruce Willis is dead", "the old lady is the Devil", or "the aliens weakness is water".
In the end, I think it's good we are discussing it, because that's what the artist wants us to do. We aren't meant to have the answers to everything laid out to us, we are supposed to form our own ideas from the information given. This is the characteristic of a piece of work that will live on for years and years to come, as we see it already has. Everyone who hasn't seen this movie is more likely to recommend it to a friend, just so they can talk to them about it.
The Great Gatsby is a novel that has been made in to a few different movies. Each time, it seems as though the adaptation falls short a bit. Why is that? Is the book simply one that is impossible to translate into film? Sadly, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
When it comes to the most recent version starring Leo as Gatsby, it seems they decided to take a more literally approach at most of the things mentioned in the book. The way we are shown the stories being told with flashbacks is something the Redford version didn't have. Certain scenes are almost completely ripped from the pages of the book, dialogue and all. One specific scene that comes to mind that does this is the first time Gatsby meets Daisy on screen. How nervous Gatsby is portrayed, and the actions with the clock, including what the characters say to one another, are a direct adaptation. Another scene is when he is driving too fast, about to be pulled over by the cop. Of course, the cop doesn't pull him over after he sees his card. Scenes like this are faithful to the source material, unfortunately it seems as though sometimes they are too faithful, and certain things don't translate on screen.
Some scenes were comically over the top, including some dialogue and way the characters spoke. When Myrtle is hit by the car, she is shown flying through the air. The way the scene is shot, how high she is shown doesn't make sense. Also, she looks terribly digitally put into the scene. A moment where I laughed at the accents or dialogue was right before Nick meets Gatsby for the first time. He is told "don't you know rich girls don't marry poor boys", and the way the line is delivered is so cheesy. Other times things are just silly when they are clearly not intended to be, like when the words Nick is writing come up on the screen and fade away.
The visuals, something director Baz Luhrmann is famous for, of the film really do help bring you into the story and expand it. You also see the extravagant parties and lifestyle being lived by the characters in a more extraordinary manner. However, as mentioned before, some things are so clearly CGI that it removes you from the moment. The same can be said for a lot of the music choices. The soundtrack isn't bad, but at first viewing it is a bit jarring hearing the Jay-Z song Izzo, which was released in 2001, being listened to by a group of people in the 1920's.
The main problem lies within how personal the book is. When reading it, you feel a bit more connected to the characters and their story. However, when it is changed to a film format this seems to be lost. This version did a good job of connecting a bit more with the added story of Nick writing the book, but it didn't do enough. In the end, we are given something that isn't bad, but can't do the source material near enough justice.
There is a lot to say about a film like this, one that has so many layers it is hard to pick it apart after only one viewing. The writing itself is superb and original as most of Charlie Kaufmans work is, and I would argue this is his masterpiece. The amount of reflection in the opening monologue alone is impressive, giving us not only an incite into this character that shares the same name as the films writer but also into the real writer himself. It is interesting to see him stress over adapting this book into a film, and it makes you think how much of this was a true experience he had at the time. Was he struggling to make something original that didn't hold to the norms of a typical Hollywood movie from the get go, and in the end came to the conclusion we are viewing?
Taking the story from the essay we read, we are shown LaRoche walking through a swamp looking for an orchid. This scene, which is narrated by Orlean, is about as much of the essay we see adapted. From that point on most of the stuff seems to come from the actual novel, of course until the turning point in the film. The second Charlie allows his twin to look at his script for advice, we get all the Hollywood cliches one after another. Not only does the movie play with it well, but on the surface makes it seem as though they aren't even making fun of them all. The events happen, and even though a few seem a little over the top, it feels more like a movie general audiences would expect. From things like car chases, drug use, character death, and some moving revelation, it's all there. It's amazing how Kaufman is able to integrate these cliches as to parody them but make them fit with the story.
This is one of the best written movies I've seen. Also, it is one of the few movies Nicolas Cage is in that he does well, and he deserved the Oscar nod. It has an interesting mix of real life happenings and fictional characters/events. Adaptation is the kind of movie every screenwriter needs to see, whether they plan to adapt something or not. Kaufman delivers one of the most original and self-observant films in recent memory.
