MovieChat Forums > adams5905
adams5905 (14)
Posts
Replies
In no way is this 'true to the original'. In fact, I have had to walk away and start again, how apoplectic am I!.. I own a complete set of the original works (including that late addition in 2007), and cannot believe this travesty is being marketed as 'original'-it's simply awful... Paddington bear was reared in an unpretentious North London suburd in post-war London-in thoise days, going 'up West' to see the Christmas lights was a treat. Why should elevenses with Mr Gruber feature in a modern world-why should Paddington's gentle jousting with Mr Curry figure at all?.. Why was this whole scenario not set in 1950's post-austerity London?.. The whole thing is a mess, and best avoided... I shall now make myself a flask of cocoa, some marmaleds sandwiches, retire to the log burner with a collection of Paddington's best, and laugh myself silly... I know Michael Bond was involved with this production, but he should have run away-much better, for younger viewers, is the BBC series with Michael Horden... They captured the whole ehos of the original stories... This is just a mess.
Unlike most of the posters here, I had the unfortunate experience of watching the DC first, and then years later, and looking forward to re-watching it, sitting down to the TC instead, and thinking-where was ..., and ..., and am I going senile and imagining things?.. I wasn't even aware, until I looked into it, that the DC and TC were so very different (after all, if you watch the two versions of 'Aliens', for instance, you hardly miss/gain a lot, do you?).. This is different, however. There is a wealth of extra layering, imagery, abstract allegory and symbolism in the DC which not only enrichens the film, but goes a long way to explaining other questions-I don't want to get bogged down in detail here, to spoil things for those who've still not seen it... I should agree with the majority, and say avoid the TC like the plague-there's an easy trick to know which version you're watching, if it's not been made clear: in a very early scene (within the first couple of minutes), the priest (Michael Sheen) bites into an apple. If this is all you see, you're watching the TC, and should turn it off... If you see him look down at worms wriggling in the apple's flesh, you're watching the DC, and all is well... Sit back and enjoy... The next three hours will fly by... Whether or not you prefer either version, one thing we must all agree on, and is abundantly clear-Orlando Bloom cannot act to save his life-this is brought home in sharp perspective when you see him alongside Jeremy Irons, David Thewliss and yes, even Liam Neeson... A preposterous piece of miscasting, that can only have been forced on Ridley Scott by the studio-he's just too much of a perfectionist to allow it otherwise...
... (Sorry-I ran out of space) So, it is likely that older teenagers and adults would have some English, although far less likely in rural Normandy, despite the fact that it is geographically closer to England-I think, however, that for the ease of the audience, because so many people would be put off by subtitles, we should assume that all conversations outside their home, and with the FBI were actually conducted in French... The family has just relocated from the French Riviera, where English would be more common (it's the Lingua Franca in Monte Carlo), but the children would have attended French schools, and the whole family would have been encouraged to speak French, so as to draw less attention to themselves... This is underlined when Fred actually speaks on-screen French-his accent is atrocious, and yet I believe De Niro actually speaks fluent French-even if he doesn't, he obviously has an ear for language-his Sicilian in Godfather II was faultless, and yet it was all coached!..
This point has been made elsewhere, but I think it's worth emphasizing... I was brought up in Brussels, and (Bruxellois) French is my first language. I now spend anything up to six months every year in France, mainly in rural areas...
Especially in Paris (and other metropolitan centres), it's important to distinguish between can't and won't speak English. There is also a marked difference in attitude between different generations. We Brits (and to a lesser extent, Yanks as well) have an abysmal reputation abroad of refusing to use or learn the local lingo, and, when met with no response to enquiries made in English, simply shout louder... If you do this in Paris, you will be met with a typically Gallic shrug of the shoulders, and then be studiously ignored-this despite the fact that the individual concerned will almost certainly have some English... But why should you assume this, and why should they respond in your language?.. You, after all, are guests in their country, not the other way around. When I travel to Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia etc., I make a fist of an attempt to (at least) address them in their own language-mauling it badly in the process... Once you've made that initial attempt, invariably, their attitude completely changes, and they will bend over backwards to help, almost always lapsing into broken English to do so... The younger generation tend to be more approachable in English, partly because they enjoy showing off, but also because they have been exposed to English through the media, and don't necessarily feel the same degree of 'language nationalism' that is felt by older generations...
I beg your pardon-nicely corrected... I really ought to sit down and watch them both end-to-end... It's been a while... The trouble is, they're in a box (not sure which box), in the attic, along with about a million other films on disc... I should bite the bullet and donate them all to charity... I now watch everything through streaming, and have a dedicated 5 Tb hard drive, which is slowly filling up... But no Kubrick as yet...
it's a while since I've watched it, but isn't it 2001 rather than 2010?..
If I've ever seen it, I've forgotten it, but I shall look out for it!..
Having taken all this on board, I was still shocked when I heard the same word 'bollix', used in the same context, by Harry Archer (Daniel Baldwin) in the 1993 remake of 'Attack of the 50 Foot Woman', at 1500-ish today...
I think that's a rather naive assumption, if I may say so, but there would be a police procedure for this. In Belgium, an accused is assumed to be guilty unless they can prove their innocence. Nancy would appear in front of a police magistrate charged with the historic offences for which she had been arrested, and, this magistrate, working in collusion with Danni and Nick, could arrange for her to be released under caution, if the two police officers were able to persuade the magistrate that they had sufficient evidence to bring her back in to face more serious charges, and explained Nancy's threat of withholding further pertinent information until her release. Once released, Nancy would head back to the farm, where she could untie and take care of Bjorn. She would then contact Nick, intent on relieving him of his €3000, and he could lie about having destroyed the bag of videos. Nancy would then tell Nick about his brother, who would be taken into protective custody, and she would then be charged not only with the paedophile offences associated with the bag of videos (rather more serious than the original historic charges she was arrested for, as those films only showed her in the 'title pages' of the video, whereas the b/w videos show her conniving to abuse and imprison a number of young boys), but she would also then face multiple charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment, and maybe even manslaughter. These charges, together with the evidence of the bag of videos, should be enough to put her away for life...
View all replies >