john-lauritsen Reviews

1984 (1984)

John Hurt not right for part of Winston.

[5/10 · 26 December 2021]

Winston in Orwell's novel is 39 years of age. While not handsome, he ought to be at least moderately attractive. John Hurt, who plays Winston, is 44 years old, but his face and body look more like 74. His nude love scenes are painful to watch, with his poor, withered body next to that of 24-year-old Suzanna Hamilton. The other actors are at least adequate. Cinematography prevails over story telling, which is interrupted time and again for irrelevant photographic excursions. By far the best 1984 film is the one done in 1954, with Winston played by Peter Cushing. The 1954 film was done on a small budget, but with top acting and a script and director that concentrated on telling the story.

1984 (1956)

Edmond O'Brien wrong choice to play Winston

[5/10 · 26 December 2021]

This film is flawed by the casting of Edmond O'Brien as Winston. He is too coarse, fat, and unattractive for the part. It is hard to believe when Julia (played by Jan Sterling) hands him a note, "I love you". The love scenes between the two of them are repulsive as well as unbelievable. By far the best of the Winstons is Peter Cushing in the 1954 TV film. Nevertheless, the other actors, including Michael Redgrave and Jan Sterling, are good, and the film stays closer to the book than the 1984 film.

Murder with Mirrors (1985 TV Movie)

Helen Hayes is a wonderful Miss Marple.

[9/10 · 14 June 2021]

I loved this movie. Helen Hayes is perfect as Miss Marple. Her character has depth and range; it can be kindly and understanding, and then hard and logical. Hayes was a great actress in American theater. In one marvelously gratuitous episode, Hayes finds herself on a stage, looking out at the chairs in the auditorium, and is reminded of her earlier days in theater. She then delivers a fiercely dramatic monologue of Lady Macbeth and then segues into Portia's "quality of mercy" speech from The Merchant of Venice, at which point she is almost killed by a falling stage prop. All this lasts only a few minutes, but it is thrilling. When it comes to the scene where Miss Marple explains everything and denounces the killer, Hayes is fine, every bit the equal of Joan Hickson, who is also fine.

A great merit of this movie is that the actors and actresses enunciate. One can almost always understand the words, notably with the superb Leo McKern of Rumpole fame -- unlike the travesties made with Geraldine McEwan, in which most of the words are incomprehensible.

On the whole, Murder With Mirrors is faithful to the Agatha Christie novel. The only real weakness was poor Bette Davis, who was frail and recovering from a series of strokes. Out of mercy, she should not have been cast.

Marple: Miss Marple: Nemesis (2007) Season 3, Episode 4

Incomprehensible mess.

[2/10 · 11 June 2021]

Perhaps a minority opinion, but I consider "Nemesis" to be one of Agatha Christie's finest novels. Miss Marple senses that she is on the verge of senility. Her memory is weakening. Then comes a commission to investigate an old crime. And she accepts the challenge, although there is no clear direction in the beginning. The novel explores lesbianism, frankly and sensitively. There is a viciously evil lesbian, as well as a pair of good lesbians, and perhaps a couple of crypto-lesbians. In the end Miss Marple uncovers the villain and earns her substantial commission.

This movie is an utter travesty, an incomprehensible mess, bearing no resemblance to Christie's novel. I agree with the negative comments that others have made. I'll add that the actors and actresses badly needed a speech coach. Only occasionally could they deliver their lines clearly and meaningfully. On second thought, the script was so bad that maybe it was just as well the words couldn't be understood.

Marple: Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2009) Season 4, Episode 4

Incomprehensible dialogue.

[3/10 · 9 June 2021]

I agree with the negative comments others have made. This movie is a mess and has almost nothing to to with Christie's novel. Julia McKenzie is a fine Miss Marple, but Miss Marple was not in the novel; none of her lines here were written by Agatha Christie. My main objection is that I could not understand most of the dialogue. This is not a matter of "accent" but rather the inability to pronounce words correctly and to enunciate. Efforts of the actors (and especially actresses) went into trying to act, rather than clearly speaking their lines -- and most of them over-acted. Almost every single line was blurted out or hooted out or insouciantly tossed out, as though they were above trying to communicate. Almost never did they simply talk to each other as in normal conversation. On the plus side, the photography was sometimes beautiful But so what?

Poirot: Appointment with Death (2008) Season 11, Episode 4

Travesty of Agatha Christie novel

[3/10 · 15 May 2021]

This film had some good photography of Egypt and an archaeological dig, but the story itself is an incoherent mess. Agatha Christie's tightly constructed plot is abandoned completely, even to the extent of changing the who who dunnit. This is inexcusable. Others seem to like David Suchet as Poirot. I don't -- consider him sinister and creepy, and very far from Christie's Poirot. In this film he is moralizingly obnoxious. Acting ranged from the adequate to the inadequate. Yawn.

National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011)

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[2/10 · 3 May 2020]

First, the fidelity of this film/play to Shelley's novel, Frankenstein. Have those who gave high ratings read the novel and understood it? Everything here is wrong. Two crucial characters -- Robert Walton and Henry Clerval -- are completely omitted. The Creature (aka Being, monster, et al.) in the novel is not only of superhuman size and strength, but also of superhuman intelligence, which makes him both more sympathetic and scarier. In the novel the Creature is swift, lithe, and agile -- whereas Cumberbatch is always flopping and flailing around with his mouth open. The Creature in Frankenstein is superbly eloquent, but Cumberbatch can hardly speak a coherent sentence. This gets tedious. Although much was omitted from the play/film, a lot of stuff was added, most of which was irrelevant. Frankenstein is a novel of ideas: a moral allegory, written in poetically powerful prose by one of the greatest poets in English -- about the evil effects of intolerance, to the victims of intolerance and to society at large. This hardly comes across when the Creature is not allowed to make his own case comprehensibly, and he and Victor Frankenstein always shout, rather than speak to each other.

Second, how good is this film/play in its own rights? The initial twenty minutes, of Cumberbatch rolling and flopping around on the floor, quickly become boring. The climatic episode of the novel -- the confrontation between the Creature and the blind old man, De Lacy -- is treated at length in the film, but wrongly and ineptly. The point of the episode and the tension are lost because the Creature is unable to make his own case. Victor Frankenstein's father and his bride Elizabeth are portrayed by actors "of color". This may be politically trendy, but what is the point? Of the many irrelevant episodes added to this play/film. a few were striking visually, but all were pointless. All in all, this work is botched and boring. A disclaimer: I'm the author of The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein (2007).

In the Bedroom (2001)

Boring, ineptly directed, far too long

[1/10 · 13 July 2019]

It is inconceivable that anyone should rate this awful film more that a "2". I imagine that most of those giving high ratings have never seen a really good movie from one of the great directors: Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, D.W. Griffith, and many others. Or from the dozens of competent directors of the thousands of "B" movies back in the thirties and forties. The director of this wretched film knew nothing about cinematography -- where to place a camera, when and how to cut, how to direct actors, and so on. A good hour of the film is wasted on trivial or meaningless scenes: long, meaningless stares -- humdrum activities, such as mowing a lawn -- long shots of uninteresting rooms, buildings, etc. There's no suspense; things just happen, very slowly. Very, very slowly. The actors move around, smile or frown, and stare a lot. But they don't act, if acting means using the voice. They read their lines with as much conviction as though they were reading from a telephone directory. The best thing about this film is that I rented it from Netflix, and didn't spend money to watch it in a theater. But it wasn't entirely free -- it took away over two hours of my life.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre (1984 TV Movie)

Not the worst BBC Shakespeare

[3/10 · 14 January 2019]

One of the great theatrical experiences of my life was the production of Pericles, directed by Toby Robertson for the Jean Cocteau Repertory in New York City. It won the OBIE for 1981. It was fast paced; the actors enunciated and understood what the lines meant. In contrast, the BBC production drags, and the actors garble the lines. Almost all of the dialogue in Pericles is in poetry -- pentameter. A few of the minor actors did a good job, but most of them broke up the lines and attempted to substitute emotion for meaning. They would speak in a low voice, then yell, then sob, all the while making facial expressions only vaguely related to what they were trying to say. They were trying to ACT, when they should have been trying, above all, to speak their lines effectively. One of the great "recognition" scenes in Shakespeare is that between Pericles and Marina, where he questions her and realizes that she is his daughter, whom he had long thought was dead. In the Jean Cocteau Repertory production, Pericles and Marina were standing, facing each other. They delivered their lines simply and clearly. The effect was shattering. Everyone in the audience, including me, was in tears. In the BBC production, Pericles's face is covered with tears, and he is almost out-of-control with emotion, before he even gets into the dialogue. His words can hardly be understood. Marina is weak. The whole episode falls flat. Pericles is very different from all of the other Shakespeare plays, but it is a great play if directed incisively, with actors who can do justice to the words. I enjoyed seeing Pericles again, but it could have been much better.

Much Ado About Something (2001)

Some interesting scenes, but a failure as a documentary

[4/10 · 7 September 2018]

I looked forward to this documentary, since I am convinced that Marlowe was at least the primary author of the "Shakespeare" plays. But this documentary was a failure -- a real mess. It should have been a straightforward point-of-view documentary. Instead it flitted back and forth between dueling arguments, with none of then made coherently. The director had people trying to talk when they were driving, or riding in a noisy car, or shoveling dirt in the garden. This was pointless. The most articulate person interviewed was Dolly Walker Wraight, author of In Search of Christopher Marlowe and other books arguing that Marlowe wrote the "Shakespeare" plays. Most of the time she was allowed to just sit in a chair and talk. In this controversy, I am convinced of two things: 1) William Shakespeare, from Stratford on Avon, could not possibly have written the plays attributed to him. 2) Marlowe's death in Deptford was faked; he was smuggled out of England, probably to France and then Italy. I think that there was group authorship of the "Shakespeare" plays, but Marlowe was the central genius. For someone new to this controversy, I recommend reading Calvin Hoffman's book, The Man Who Was Shakespeare, which can still be found used or in libraries.

Antony and Cleopatra (1974 TV Movie)

Actors could not deliver Shakespeare lines

[2/10 · 6 August 2018]

First the good: this production is traditional: set in Ancient Rome, with appropriate costumes. Otherwise, it stank. Almost none of the actors could deliver a Shakespeare line. In Anthony and Cleopatra, some lines are rhymes, some are in blank pentameter, and some are in prose. Here it hardly mattered, since the director and actors had no respect for words. The two leads were the worst offenders. Cleopatra (Janet Suzman) was light-weight, shrill, cheap -- far from regal. She would howl out a word or two from a line, letting all the other words fall by the wayside. Always she was mugging for the camera, with limited facial expressions to mug with. She seemed spiteful, silly, and quite frankly unattractive. Anthony was almost as bad, in different ways. He tried to invest almost every line with gut-wrenching emotion -- bawling out line after line, that should simply have been spoken. With lines blurted out, it was hard to understand what was happening, except that the actors were terribly emotional about something or other. Whenever someone told a joke, and there is a lot of humor in A&P, the actors would laugh and laugh. Not funny. It's we, the audience, who ought to do the laughing. None of the poetry came through. The famous description of Cleopatra by Enobarbus ("Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety....") got lost in the noise. There are no subtitles -- which might have helped. Than again, it might have been distracting to see the lines the actors were supposed to be speaking, in contract to what they were actually yelling out or whispering.

As You Like It (1936)

A very mixed bag. Beautiful Olivier.

[3/10 · 29 May 2018]

Some of the actors could deliver the Shakespeare lines well. Olivier was fine in a limited part. Elizabeth Bergner was very wrong for the part of Rosalind -- too old and not able to pronounce English well, let alone do justice to the Shakespeare poetry. With plucked eyebrows and lipstick, she looked nothing like an adolescent youth. Bergner had energy, but the part calls for more complexity and intellectuality than she could muster.

With misgivings, I enjoyed this film.

The BBC Television Shakespeare: As You Like It (1978) Season 1, Episode 3

Most of the actors could not deliver the lines well.

[4/10 · 29 May 2018]

I agree with many of the criticisms made of this film. Unimaginative photography, costumes, etc. The main thing is that most of the actors were unable to do justice to Shakespeare's words. Some of the dialogue is in prose and some in pentameter, but here you could hardly tell the difference. The actors wasted their energies trying to emote, making faces, flailing around -- but they didn't bother to enunciate. In some cases, they didn't seem to understand what the words meant.

Helen Mirren was about the worst offender. She sometimes rattled off the words so fast that they were incomprehensible. And whenever she became emotional, which was often, her voice rose into high soprano range -- not appropriate, when impersonating an adolescent youth. The role of Rosalind is complex and intellectual; her performance was neither. In her dialogues with Orlando, she oafishly joshes around, instead of speaking seriously, boy to man. Rosalind's lines, that no man had ever died for love should have an ironic poignancy to them, but Mirren just clownishly punches them out. In comedy, the actors should be serious, and the audience should do the laughing.

However, a few of the actors were good. Jacques did justice to the "ages of man" speech. The very best was Silvius, when he slowly and movingly spoke his part in the "What is love?' dialogue. Phoebe also spoke her lines well.

Much Ado About Nothing (1984 TV Movie)

Shakespeare's words did not come across

[3/10 · 26 May 2018]

The greatest fault of this performance is that many of the actors could not do justice to the words of Shakespeare. There are no subtitles. Some of the dialogue in Much Ado is in prose and some is in poetry (pentameter), but here one could hardly tell the difference. The actors put all their energies in emoting, making faces, flailing their arms around in meaningless gestures -- but they failed to enunciate. Some were worse than others. The actress who played Beatrice sometimes spoke much too fast, rushing the words together and producing gibberish. She was pretty, but that didn't compensate from her inability to deliver the Shakespeare words. The sound quality was not good, which made things even worse. The sets and costumes were nice enough, and the actors looked good enough, but so what? I'd rather watch a Shakespeare play on a bare stage, where the actors just wore blue jeans and T-shirts -- so long as I really heard the Shakespeare lines.

Happy Days (1980 TV Movie)

Spoiled by the camera

[1/10 · 11 October 2016]

I saw the New York production with Irene Worth and directed by Andrei Serban, and have never forgotten it. Truly memorable theater. Irene Worth is a fine actress and Serban is a brilliant director. This video is ruined by the camera person or people. Without rhyme or reason the camera moves from one thing to another. It goes back and forth, in and out, in long shots, medium shots, closeups, and extreme closeups. Irene Worth is usually a fine and disciplined actress, but here she mugs for the camera. In extreme closeups she looks directly into the camera, males faces, rolls here eyes. It is painful to watch.

In Beckett, the words are important, but here they are lost in the noise of the frenetic camera movements and the facial contortions of Ms. Worth. The sound is poor, and it is often hard to understand what she is saying. The original NYC play deserves 5 stars. This travesty deserves only 1 star.

Happy Days (2000 TV Movie)

Ruined by the camera

[2/10 · 11 October 2016]

I saw the play in New York City, starring Irene Worth, a fine actress, and directed by Andrei Servan, a brilliant director. That was many years ago, but I've never forgotten it. Truly memorable theater.

This video is ruined by the camera person, who, without rhyme or reason moves the camera from one thing to another, goes back and forth from long shots, to closeups, to extreme closeups. Irene Worth is a fine and disciplined actress, but here she mugs for the camera, making faces, rolling her eyes. Sometimes she stares directly into the camera, close up. None of this is appropriate for the play.

The words of the play are all-important, but here they are lost in the visual noise of frenetic camera movements and Irene Worth's mugging. The sound is not good, and it is often hard to understand what she is saying.