Thanks in part to this "bomb," it took me awhile to get around to looking at the good film presentation of this famous Charles Dickens story, the one directed by David Lean in the late 194-0s, the one that is actually on the book and not some blasphemous "modernization."
Regardless, the 1946 film was good movie-making; this is crap. That's putting it nicely.
Just listen to the profanity in the first 15 minutes of this movie and tell me you feel like your into a Dickens novel. Come on! I guess that's part of the "modernization" of the his literary classic. The only profanity allowed should be critics discussing this sorry mess. Dickens getting a gratuitous screen credit as an author must have had him rolling over in his grave.
The adventure of the original story is basically in this translation, which is mainly a love story. Since the female interest of "Pip" is not someone to admire or root for, it was better to have her as a minor character as in the '46 film, instead a major one here.
Also, this rich-is-evil story that Hollywood loves is so hypocritical it's laughable. Most of the people who make these films are filthy rich and squander a lot of their money....but preach nonetheless. And....there is not enough difference these days between "old" money and "new" money to base a story around that theme.
The only reason I didn't give this the minimum one star was the beautiful cinematography. That's what kept me going watching the movie. It's beautifully shot and I can only wish the story was half as good as the visuals.
Regardless, the 1946 film was good movie-making; this is crap. That's putting it nicely.
Just listen to the profanity in the first 15 minutes of this movie and tell me you feel like your into a Dickens novel. Come on! I guess that's part of the "modernization" of the his literary classic. The only profanity allowed should be critics discussing this sorry mess. Dickens getting a gratuitous screen credit as an author must have had him rolling over in his grave.
The adventure of the original story is basically in this translation, which is mainly a love story. Since the female interest of "Pip" is not someone to admire or root for, it was better to have her as a minor character as in the '46 film, instead a major one here.
Also, this rich-is-evil story that Hollywood loves is so hypocritical it's laughable. Most of the people who make these films are filthy rich and squander a lot of their money....but preach nonetheless. And....there is not enough difference these days between "old" money and "new" money to base a story around that theme.
The only reason I didn't give this the minimum one star was the beautiful cinematography. That's what kept me going watching the movie. It's beautifully shot and I can only wish the story was half as good as the visuals.