Change Your Image
sthrnfilly
Reviews
The Hound of the Baskervilles (2000)
Okay, But Not a Keeper
This version was okay to watch, but not to buy and keep in a DVD library. The story line deviations were acceptable, for the most part. Filming and atmosphere were also okay.
Sherlock was played too "over-the-top." He was "in-your-face" SO superior to everyone else. Yes, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was brilliant, but he was also subtle and stylish. Frewer's Sherlock dismissed just about every comment with sarcasm and ridicule. Yes, he was silently plucking out the bits of relevant information that would convince him this was more than just a ghost story, but it was very irritating. Watson's extreme dislike to pipe smoke was more a modern politically correct addition. Please.
Sir Henry was fine. The Barrymores, while trying to be mysterious, seemed wooden. The best character was Stapleton. He was excitable and energetic. He didn't seem to get on my nerves like the energetic Holmes. Maybe it was because his manner didn't openly disrespect everyone else.
The best choice is Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. His "Hound of the Baskerville's" is definitely a buyer and keeper.
Oliver Twist (2005)
How Very Disappointing...
I was hoping that this version would be one that teachers could introduce this generation to the exceptional world of Charles Dickens. Polanski had a wonderful opportunity to do so and missed the mark. This comes mainly from the pace, acting, editing, plot changes and plot omissions.
Overall, the film was mediocre and slow. I think Polanski was aiming for dramatic. What he achieved was boring. In some parts the editing seemed choppy.
London was too clean to be believed. It looked like what you'd see on a film set or on a stage. When you see Oliver in London for the first time, the streets look like cobblestone streets with some hay scattered around.
Ben Kingsley was unrecognizable as Fagin (good), but he looked almost like a carbon copy of Ron Moody in Oliver! even though he played the character differently.
Barney Clark was okay sometimes and not okay sometimes. Yes, he is, after all, a child, and I don't expect an Oscar winning performance in one so young. That is unrealistic. However, there was nothing about him that made him stand out when he was in the scenes with the other boys. Sometimes I simply couldn't remember what he looked like.
The Dodger was good, especially when he stood up to Sykes. But, overall the boys didn't look abused enough. Though, I did like the fact that they had the boys smoking. (Oh, how un-PC!). One would expect that.
Sykes could have been so good. The actor physically looked like he could be just that mean, but most of the time there was no intensity or drama while making his threats.
Toby Crackit was great fun! Odd, but fun! Nancy was okay, but not rough enough around the edges. As someone else wrote, the devotion and love she had for Sykes wasn't evident. One who didn't know her would wonder why she stayed with him.
I like Edward Hardwicke and he did a fine job as Mr. Brownlow.
My biggest problem with this story is the plot changes and omissions. How could Polanski not include the resolution of Oliver's parentage! I waited in vain to hear Bumble's banter as to why he was not responsible for his was-not-then-but-now-is-his wife's crime of keeping the evidence to the identity of Oliver's mother. This is some of my favorite Dicken's dialog. In Polanski's film Oliver ends up living with Brownlow because Brownlow was a nice man and wanted to really help Oliver. Oliver needed the added security of knowing Brownlow was his grandfather. He did not complete the story.
I left this film feeling cheated.