Being Overly Critical

Look- I enjoyed this. I recall enjoying the mini-series in 2003 as well. It's a fascinating concept, and as such should be open to interpretation and retelling. I think it's a credit to the source material that it provides so much inspiration for retelling.

It's like Shakespeare, you can draw inspiration and retell the themes and use the basic constructs without being completely beholden to the material slavishly. Think for a moment of all of the movies that have been based on the themes and structure that Billy Shakes created in his stories. Oh Brother Where Art Thou?, 10 Things I hate about you, West Side Story; just three contemporary examples.

You roll the dice, and sometimes people will enjoy the new even more than the original, sometimes the audience is split. So incredibly rare is the work (in any form of art) that manages to appease an audience across the aisle. I know people who adore the Forrest Gump book, and swear by it. And those that think the movie is a masterpiece. It's the theme, the idea. And different approaches appeal to different audiences. (For the record- I HATED the book, but loved the movie)

Face it- if they were completely faithful to the book- clearly some things would not translate. And invariably- something would deviate from what "you" envisioned when reading the story. And "you" would find fault with that.

My equation is simple- was I entertained? Did I want to learn more about the world I was shown? Did characters shown to me capture my imagination and provoke reactions? If I can get at least one of these- I consider it to not be a waste.

So, "you" weren't a fan of the the series- either one; consider the reason. Was it because Burton was an antagonist? Because a character you enjoyed wasn't envolved? New characters created? Or was it something valid? Because, I can accept it wasn't your brand of chamomile, but don't discredit something for having no benefit whatsoever. Because, clearly, some people really enjoyed both movie versions of this.

Now, this comes from the view point of someone that has NOT read the books. Don't slam me and say my opinion means nothing, not reading the material. I am a decently read adult, and have experience on both sides of this. I am solely judging this movie (and it's predecessor) on it's own merit. I do intend to read the books, and hopefully that will only deepen my appreciation for these movies and give me deeper insight into the world that has piqued my curiosity.

I don't remember many specifics fromt he first movie- but that I hated Nero with a passion and absolutely adored Sam Clemmons.

As for this movie- Matt was interesting and would have enjoyed seeing him fleshed out. As it was- he a bit two-note (charming and angry). But The Japanese Warrior (forgive me for not going back a page to catch the name) was amazing, and a deep well to drink from given more time. As it was, I felt she was deeply interesting. And I loved her arc in the story.

Who couldn't love Sam Clemmons? The real man was incredibly interesting, but the fictionalized character was such a joy, you couldn't not watch him in any scene. His character was so well balanced using public knowledge of the man, and a very fun performance- that in an ensemble film he was able to stand out and be truly larger than life.

And, I hated Burton. I wanted to see him get jacked, badly. Just an utter ass. He was incredibly effective.

My only real issues with this were; Alan Cumming- there is just something about him that bugs me. And I can't put my finger on it. Personal taste. That and characters were dropped and nothing more was mentioned (particularly the husband and wife, and max- antonio's man). I found it a bit jarring to have it occur to me 20 minutes later "um...what the hell happened to...?"

But for the most part I enjoyed the movie, and was deeply intrigued by the world this story was set in and wanted to learn more.