apteryx-1
A rejoint oct. 2001
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires12
Évaluation de apteryx-1
This movie reunites Peter Jackson (not as director, but as co scriptwriter, and also credited as 2nd unit director) with Lionel from `Braindead' (Timothy Balme in the title role here), and has Jackson's special effects company Weta providing the effects here. Can't be bad, huh?
Well, not so fast..
One critic actually suggested that this might be the worst New Zealand movie ever made. In doing so, he exposed his lack of familiarity with many early '80s NZ movies, in the era when if a NZ movie was too good, it risked making a profit, thus destroying the tax losses its investors hoped to gain. But this is not a movie for film critics. In fact, critical faculties of any kind are best checked at the door when approaching it.
The story involves the spirit of a 10th century monk named Elmer who died in a failed attempt to fly, and who now stands to be damned eternally for suicide unless he can prove within 1000 years that unpowered manned flight is possible (his is a God who believes in results rather than intentions). He inhabits the `brain-pan' of the title character, who has invented a `power amplifier' that amplifies any force input to it. They realise that this might allow a man to fly.
But can Jack accomplish this and save Elmer's soul before his invention is taken from him by his employer who sees only the financial gain of a quick sale of the device, or by the campy villainess, who also quite likes finance?
It is certainly possible to enjoy this movie. But you do have to be in the right mood, and to work with it, rather than sitting back and waiting for it to entertain you.
I'm not sure of the nature of Peter Jackson's involvement with this movie. I don't know whether Jackson and partner Frances Walsh essentially wrote it intending Jackson to direct it, but passed it on to friend Tony Hiles to direct when Jackson became too involved in other projects. Or whether Jackson just lent his friend a helping hand on a film that was always largely Hiles's own. The film does have something of the humour and amateur enthusiasm of the early Peter Jackson movies (but -one scene excepted - without the gore). It would have been interesting to see what Jackson might have made of it if he had directed.
Well, not so fast..
One critic actually suggested that this might be the worst New Zealand movie ever made. In doing so, he exposed his lack of familiarity with many early '80s NZ movies, in the era when if a NZ movie was too good, it risked making a profit, thus destroying the tax losses its investors hoped to gain. But this is not a movie for film critics. In fact, critical faculties of any kind are best checked at the door when approaching it.
The story involves the spirit of a 10th century monk named Elmer who died in a failed attempt to fly, and who now stands to be damned eternally for suicide unless he can prove within 1000 years that unpowered manned flight is possible (his is a God who believes in results rather than intentions). He inhabits the `brain-pan' of the title character, who has invented a `power amplifier' that amplifies any force input to it. They realise that this might allow a man to fly.
But can Jack accomplish this and save Elmer's soul before his invention is taken from him by his employer who sees only the financial gain of a quick sale of the device, or by the campy villainess, who also quite likes finance?
It is certainly possible to enjoy this movie. But you do have to be in the right mood, and to work with it, rather than sitting back and waiting for it to entertain you.
I'm not sure of the nature of Peter Jackson's involvement with this movie. I don't know whether Jackson and partner Frances Walsh essentially wrote it intending Jackson to direct it, but passed it on to friend Tony Hiles to direct when Jackson became too involved in other projects. Or whether Jackson just lent his friend a helping hand on a film that was always largely Hiles's own. The film does have something of the humour and amateur enthusiasm of the early Peter Jackson movies (but -one scene excepted - without the gore). It would have been interesting to see what Jackson might have made of it if he had directed.
Having just re-read the book, I thought it the ideal time to view each the two BBC mini-series I have on video to see which came closest to capturing the spirit of the book. It is not this one.
That may seem a harsh judgment, since so much more money has clearly been spent on this than on the 1979 production, and as a result, it is far superior in all the essentials (costumes, sets, cinematography), and inferior only in trifles (the accurate depiction of the characters created by Miss Austen). Since this production is aimed at a mass market, I understand perfectly the need to make gross caricatures of those characters intended to be ridiculed (Mrs Bennet, Lydia, Mr Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh); otherwise, how would people know that they were meant to be ridiculed? And since the key target audience is female, I also understand that the male lead cannot be allowed to appear stuck-up, and so Mr Darcy's initial pride is sensibly converted to a more fashionable cynical disdain.
Unfortunately (given the title of the work) this leads to a deficiency in pride, which the director can only make up by presenting Elizabeth with such overbearing smugness, as to cause the viewer to conclude that Darcy's initial assessment of her as `tolerable' is in fact extremely generous. As with Mr Darcy in the book, Elizabeth becomes much more agreeable after his first proposal to her. Presumably her pride is mortified by the discovery that she has been wrong in her apportionment of blame between Darcy and Whickham, no doubt the first time she has made such a discovery. But she remains essentially a robust 90s chick in Regency garb, pretending to be Elizabeth Bennet. Jennifer Ehle blesses her with such self possession as to make it impossible to believe several of the incidents recorded of her (the she accepts Darcy's invitation to dance at Netherfield against her wishes, because she is so taken aback by it; that she twice allows men to make unwelcome declarations of love to her without interruption until they reach their natural conclusion in proposals of marriage; that she blurts out Lydia's disgrace to Darcy, the last person she wants to know it; and that she is unable to look Darcy in the eye when she tells him that her feelings have changed).
So formidable is this Elizabeth, that is hard to imagine anyone, even her father, having the temerity to address her to her face as `Lizzy'. And whereas in the book, we admire Elizabeth's courage in standing up to Lady Catherine de Bourgh when the latter attempts to warn her off Darcy, here we are rather left wondering at Lady Catherine's courage in making the attempt.
The depictions of Mr Bennet and Mr Bingley are excellent, and that of Mr Whickham tolerable. And the film recognisably tells the story of Pride & Prejudice, and so is worth watching. But I prefer the 1979 BBC production.
That may seem a harsh judgment, since so much more money has clearly been spent on this than on the 1979 production, and as a result, it is far superior in all the essentials (costumes, sets, cinematography), and inferior only in trifles (the accurate depiction of the characters created by Miss Austen). Since this production is aimed at a mass market, I understand perfectly the need to make gross caricatures of those characters intended to be ridiculed (Mrs Bennet, Lydia, Mr Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh); otherwise, how would people know that they were meant to be ridiculed? And since the key target audience is female, I also understand that the male lead cannot be allowed to appear stuck-up, and so Mr Darcy's initial pride is sensibly converted to a more fashionable cynical disdain.
Unfortunately (given the title of the work) this leads to a deficiency in pride, which the director can only make up by presenting Elizabeth with such overbearing smugness, as to cause the viewer to conclude that Darcy's initial assessment of her as `tolerable' is in fact extremely generous. As with Mr Darcy in the book, Elizabeth becomes much more agreeable after his first proposal to her. Presumably her pride is mortified by the discovery that she has been wrong in her apportionment of blame between Darcy and Whickham, no doubt the first time she has made such a discovery. But she remains essentially a robust 90s chick in Regency garb, pretending to be Elizabeth Bennet. Jennifer Ehle blesses her with such self possession as to make it impossible to believe several of the incidents recorded of her (the she accepts Darcy's invitation to dance at Netherfield against her wishes, because she is so taken aback by it; that she twice allows men to make unwelcome declarations of love to her without interruption until they reach their natural conclusion in proposals of marriage; that she blurts out Lydia's disgrace to Darcy, the last person she wants to know it; and that she is unable to look Darcy in the eye when she tells him that her feelings have changed).
So formidable is this Elizabeth, that is hard to imagine anyone, even her father, having the temerity to address her to her face as `Lizzy'. And whereas in the book, we admire Elizabeth's courage in standing up to Lady Catherine de Bourgh when the latter attempts to warn her off Darcy, here we are rather left wondering at Lady Catherine's courage in making the attempt.
The depictions of Mr Bennet and Mr Bingley are excellent, and that of Mr Whickham tolerable. And the film recognisably tells the story of Pride & Prejudice, and so is worth watching. But I prefer the 1979 BBC production.
A dumbed-down `La Traviata' meets a dumbed-down `Gold Diggers of 1933', at 80 mph. There were no survivors.
For a while I tried to see it as a satire of recent Hollywood movies, puerile stories papered over with million-dollar production values. But I realised by the end that it just was a puerile story papered over with million-dollar production values. You can't call it a triumph of style over substance, because there is no triumph here. It is just an unsuccessful assault by style on substance. I'll give it 2/10 because bits of it would have made a good rock video.
For a while I tried to see it as a satire of recent Hollywood movies, puerile stories papered over with million-dollar production values. But I realised by the end that it just was a puerile story papered over with million-dollar production values. You can't call it a triumph of style over substance, because there is no triumph here. It is just an unsuccessful assault by style on substance. I'll give it 2/10 because bits of it would have made a good rock video.