Movies that would've been fantastic if not for...

PaulB1984

Examples: Romeo + Juliet - Brilliant story, direction is superb, fantastic soundtrack, both Leo and Claire are top notch, as are the entire supporting cast. I mentioned even on Twitter that it just might have been one of the best movies ever made, if not for the horrific fact that it was decided to keep the original Shakespeare dialect intact, which completely destroys the movie and is the sole reason i've only ever sat through it in entirety once.

Another example: The new Dredd movie. Brilliant, great fun, very well made, but

no finale whatsoever, to end without one finale hurrah almost made me dislike the entire movie, that although it stars as fun, begins to decline through it's running time to that disappointing ending

There's plenty more i can think of, who else has some?

siblers

Never really got into Romeo and Juliet due to the reason above, but I loved Coriolanus and would watch it again. Just found the language more accesible for a film like Coriolanus

Topper Harley

Ralph Fiennes did the same in Coriolanus. Set in a modern era, fine, but I actually found the original Shakespearean dialect to be distracting.

I didn't find it find it quite so distracting in Romeo & Juliet but that's probably because that play had been spelled out for me while studying it for the junior cert.

However, I felt there were other aspects of Coriolanus which didn't transfer well to a modern setting, although I appear to be in the minority with that opinion.

Kinski

Topper Harley wrote: »

Ralph Fiennes did the same in Coriolanus. Set in a modern era, fine, but I actually found the original Shakespearean dialect to be distracting.

I didn't find it find it quite so distracting in Romeo & Juliet but that's probably because that play had been spelled out for me while studying it for the junior cert.

However, I felt there were other aspects of Coriolanus which didn't transfer well to a modern setting, although I appear to be in the minority with that opinion.

Coriolanus didn't work at all. John Snow reading the news in verse? 'Twas just silly.

Kurosawa's Throne of Blood ditched the original text and is arguably the best (quasi-)adaptation of Shakespeare that cinema has produced (though I do also really like Peter Greenaway's highly-experimental Prospero's Books, but then I'm a big fan of The Tempest).

Topper Harley

Kinski wrote: »

Coriolanus didn't work at all. John Snow reading the news in verse? 'Twas just silly.

Ditching the original dialect and a couple of other minor changes and it could have been great. But that's just my opinion. Obviously there are people who think it is great the way it is and they'd have hated any more changes, no matter how small. But keeping the the Shakespearean style dialect meant that the characters' interactions with one another sometimes felt very awkward.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, it was well received by critics but not so much by audiences, I'm sure due to the dialect. 94% rating compared to 58%.

event

Keeping the Shakespeare original language made the film better IMO. If a screenwriter tried to change it, they would have made a balls of it.
I dont know how people didnt like it

juan.kerr

PaulB1984 wrote: »

I mentioned even on Twitter

:rolleyes:

PaulB1984

Topper Harley wrote: »

Ditching the original dialect and a couple of other minor changes and it could have been great. But that's just my opinion. Obviously there are people who think it is great the way it is and they'd have hated any more changes, no matter how small. But keeping the the Shakespearean style dialect meant that the characters' interactions with one another sometimes felt very awkward.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, it was well received by critics but not so much by audiences, I'm sure due to the dialect. 94% rating compared to 58%.

That's how i felt with Romeo + Juliet, the dialect is the one thing that completely ruins the performances. Had it been set in the original time of the play, the dialect may have worked (Still wouldn't watch it though), but it's a modern day telling which they chose to ruin. How difficult would it have been to chop "Where for art thou Romeo?" to "Where are you Romeo?". They ruined something so great with something so horrible. Didn't realise they'd made another modern day Shakespeare movie using that dialect, couldn't sit through it.

PaulB1984

juan.kerr wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Rolling eyes because someone has a Twitter account? Wow.

S.M.B.

Saying that the use of Shakespeare's original dialogue ruined Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet is a very subjective opinion to have.

Any by subjective, I really mean wrong.

That dialogue alone raises it from a very solid film to something a bit special.

ceegee

PaulB1984 wrote: »

That's how i felt with Romeo + Juliet, the dialect is the one thing that completely ruins the performances. Had it been set in the original time of the play, the dialect may have worked (Still wouldn't watch it though), but it's a modern day telling which they chose to ruin. How difficult would it have been to chop "Where for art thou Romeo?" to "Where are you Romeo?". They ruined something so great with something so horrible. Didn't realise they'd made another modern day Shakespeare movie using that dialect, couldn't sit through it.

Changing it to "where are you Romeo?" would make no sense as it is a completely different question. She is asking WHY he is Romeo (ie why the man she loves has to be a Montague) not where he is

PaulB1984

S.M.B. wrote: »

Saying that the use of Shakespeare's original dialogue ruined Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet is a very subjective opinion to have.

Any by subjective, I really mean wrong.

That dialogue alone raises it from a very solid film to something a bit special.

For me, everything about it screams perfection, until i hear the cast talk. I know others will think i'm wrong, but that's ok, that's just my opinion.

Topper Harley

PaulB1984 wrote: »

How difficult would it have been to chop "Where for art thou Romeo?" to "Where are you Romeo?"

Actually that would have changed to "why are you Romeo?" or even "why are you part of a rival family?"

So that kind of thing would have made a lot more sense to most of today's audience.
[EDIT: ceegee - beat me to it ]

But part of the appeal of Shakespeare's plays is it's use of long speeches with loads of ridiculous metaphors. But the use of these confines these modern films to niche audiences which I'm sure is what these filmmakers are going for.

PaulB1984

ceegee wrote: »

Changing it to "where are you Romeo?" would make no sense as it is a completely different question. She is asking WHY he is Romeo (ie why the man she loves has to be a Montague) not where he is

It's just an example. Like the question really is, how about "Romeo, why do you hang around with scumbags?" instead? It upsets me to see something that would appeal to me on every level be so horrible to listen to. Skinhead nazi types talking Shakespeare is pure torture.

PaulB1984

Topper Harley wrote: »

Actually that would have changed to "why are you Romeo?" or even "why are you part of a rival family?"

So that kind of thing would have made a lot more sense to most of today's audience.

But part of the appeal of Shakespeare's plays is it's use of long speeches with loads of ridiculous metaphors. But the use of these confines these modern films to niche audiences which I'm sure is what these filmmakers are going for.

Spot on. As someone who doesn't appreciate Shakespeare like others do, it's unbearable to hear that dialect instead of what could have been a very good modern day script. The script even clashes with the soundtrack. A bunch of great songs sang in proper language mixed with Shakespeare talking characters is horrid.

S.M.B.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

For me, everything about it screams perfection, until i hear the cast talk. I know others will think i'm wrong, but that's ok, that's just my opinion.

Well to me, the juxtaposition between the original dialogue and Luhrmanns OTT direction and use of music is what makes the film stand out.

I couldn't even imagine the film with a rewritten script.

I'm actually going to rewatch it again after seeing this thread. I haven't seen it in years!

Kinski

WHY R U A MONTAGUE THAT SUCKS

johnny_ultimate

There have been dozens of 'non-literal' reinterpretations of Romeo & Juliet - from West Side Story to Tromeo & Juliet. Luhrmann's version stands almost alone in its bold contrast of the original text and modern iconography. It's an effective, compelling mix that cleverly modernises while remaining steadfastly loyal to Shakespeare's work. It's also the best film Baz has ever made, by quite a significant margin. Wouldn't really change a thing about it, TBH.

Mickeroo

Wasn't a fan of the film myself either(might appreciate it more now though) but the only reason that film was in any way fresh or interesting at the time was because they left in the original dialogue. Pretty sure nobody would be talking about it now if they had just used the basic plot nothing else.

As for films that would be better but for something, then I'd have to pick King Kong, the Peter Jackson one. I still liked the movie, but most of the first hour on the boat should have been cut. Nearly kills the film before it even starts.

FloatingVoter

Movies that suffer from bad villain syndrome 2012

Skyfall - some computer geek with a bad haircut.

Batman - Bane, a soccer hooligan in a silly mask muttering.

Not saying they could have been fantastic but they certainly would have been more entertaining with a little creativity added.

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There have been dozens of 'non-literal' reinterpretations of Romeo & Juliet - from West Side Story to Tromeo & Juliet. Luhrmann's version stands almost alone in its bold contrast of the original text and modern iconography. It's an effective, compelling mix that cleverly modernises while remaining steadfastly loyal to Shakespeare's work. It's also the best film Baz has ever made, by quite a significant margin. Wouldn't really change a thing about it, TBH.

Thing is, i'm can't stand Shakespeare's work, i can't listen to that dialect. There are actually people in my personal life who speak to me like that just to wind me up. To me, as a long-time movie fan, Romeo + Juliet is flawless is every way as a movie, but completely destroyed as the dialect ruins the movie, ruins everything there is to be loved about it (And by Jaysus, there's a lot to be loved about it), i just can't stand listening to it. The story is brilliant, why not just use the human dialect as opposed to something one man envisioned to be the new English language?

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wasn't a fan of the film myself either(might appreciate it more now though) but the only reason that film was in any way fresh or interesting at the time was because they left in the original dialogue. Pretty sure nobody would be talking about it now if they had just used the basic plot nothing else.

As for films that would be better but for something, then I'd have to pick King Kong, the Peter Jackson one. I still liked the movie, but most of the first hour on the boat should have been cut. Nearly kills the film before it even starts.

We wouldn't be talking about it now fair enough, but it'd be one of the greatest movies ever made.

Couldn't agree more on King Kong, fantastic movie, but the first hour is a chore to sit through. Bunch of people talking on a boat, give me Master & Commander instead, better script.

S.M.B.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Thing is, i'm can't stand Shakespeare's work, i can't listen to that dialect. There are actually people in my personal life who speak to me like that just to wind me up. To me, as a long-time movie fan, Romeo + Juliet is flawless is every way as a movie, but completely destroyed as the dialect ruins the movie, ruins everything there is to be loved about it (And by Jaysus, there's a lot to be loved about it), i just can't stand listening to it. The story is brilliant, why not just use the human dialect as opposed to something one man envisioned to be the new English language?

Yeah Baz should have had the decency to modernise the dialogue considering you have a personal gripe with Shakespearean prose.

How selfish is he? Never mind the millions who adored the film as it is.

PaulB1984

S.M.B. wrote: »

Yeah Baz should have had the decency to modernise the dialogue considering you have a personal gripe with Shakespearean prose.

How selfish is he? Never mind the millions who adored the film as it is.

And to hell with the millions who either hate it or haven't watched it because of the dialogue? Fair enough.

FloatingVoter

Its called Romeo and Juliet. By William Shakespeare. When Baz makes Frank and Mary by Baz Luhrmann you should go see that one.
Alternatively as an above poster said, West Side Story is a good alternative.

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

And to hell with the millions who either hate it or haven't watched it because of the dialogue? Fair enough.

The film was a massive success both critically and in terms of how much money it made.

S.M.B.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

And to hell with the millions who either hate it or haven't watched it because of the dialogue? Fair enough.

Yeah, exactly. It was a very conscious stylistic decision by Luhrmann to use the original dialogue.

Baz Luhrmann wrote:

With Romeo and Juliet what I wanted to do was to look at the way in which Shakespeare might make a movie of one of his plays if he was a director. How would he make it?

It's integral to vision he had when he started developing the movie.

The movie was not made for people who have issue with Shakespearean dialogue. Go watch O and see how lacklustre that is.

Dozen Wicked Words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EfFEdDU5ko

Finest rendition I've seen. BANG!

juan.kerr

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Rolling eyes because someone has a Twitter account? Wow.

No, it's the 'even'. How is you mentioning it on twitter relevant? Does it give your point some additional legitimacy or something?

Da Shins Kelly

PaulB1984 wrote: »

And to hell with the millions who either hate it or haven't watched it because of the dialogue? Fair enough.

What were you expecting when you went to see Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare? There are plenty of 'versions' of Romeo and Juliet out there that don't use Shakespearean language. This version is made all the better for remaining loyal to Shakespeare's text, in my opinion. It would have made absolutely no sense for Luhrmann to make Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare and then completely scrap the original text, not to mention the fact that there's not a single writer in Hollywood who could have written anything that could have been an acceptable substitute. Re-writing Shakespeare's work? Please.

Also, Shakespeare's language was not his own vision of what the English language should be. The English he used was Early Modern English, one linguistic generation away from what we speak today. Maybe it would have been more accessible if there was modern English used, but it would have made no sense in what Luhrmann was trying to create, and it would have been to the detriment of the film to change it. The film is made fantastic by the fact it remains true to the original, in my opinion.

pixelburp

To hate the dialogue of Romeo + Juliet is to miss the whole point of the exercise in the first place; it defeats the point of transposing the plays setting to modern times if you then junk a core component that make this and Shakespeares other plays timeless - the lyrical, poetic prose.

Yeah, the dialogue is archaic against the setting, but the power, artistry & emotion is in the language, not the setting. Lose that and your vehicle is just an uninteresting & loose ripoff the source material

Daemos

I watched Romeo + Juliet as part of my Junior Cert, and thought it was quite good, actually. Been tempted to buy it and watch it again.

If you want to see a poor attempt at a modern-day Shakespeare with ye olde language, watch Titus. It should have been as good as R+J, but the director, for some bizarre reason, decided to combine modern technology with ancient customs, which makes it way more jarring than simply the language

Gamayun

Kinski wrote: »

Coriolanus didn't work at all. John Snow reading the news in verse? 'Twas just silly.

Kurosawa's Throne of Blood ditched the original text and is arguably the best (quasi-)adaptation of Shakespeare that cinema has produced (though I do also really like Peter Greenaway's highly-experimental Prospero's Books, but then I'm a big fan of The Tempest).

I love Throne of Blood but something tiny always annoys me when I watch it and that's that they refer to the castle as Cobweb Castle, sounds like a place from a children's story.

Over repetition of a musical theme in a film can be annoying too, especially on repeat viewings. Eg. The Concerning hobbits theme in LOTR, and the themes in The Mission (1986) and Jeanne de Florette. Great themes, but overused (IMO).

quickbeam

I loved Baz's Romeo & Juliet and loved that he kept the original language. Ditto for McKellen's Richard III. I've not seen Coriolanus but whatever its faults, I can't imagine having it in original language is its problem.

I'll admit watching a film in original Shakespearean language does take a bit of concentration, so like a film with subtitles, it's not something I'd just throw on and watch with the brain switched off. I'd need to be in a special mood to watch both. But once seen, it is so worth the effort.

If it's not for you, then fair enough but it's a shame to miss out on great films just because of the dialog used.

DirkVoodoo

Ok, I was/am a big Michael Crichton fan and after reading Timeline, I remember thinking "this could be a great movie if they capture the gritty and unforgiving medieval tone".

Then I saw the movie.

So much potential from that novel totally wasted by:

1) Awful screenplay

2) Awful directing

3) And most of all...Paul Walker!

How does this guy get work? Stick to modelling underwear or whatever else you used to do, I'm sure you can make a healthy career out of every Fast and the Furious sequel without having to pollute other movies.

Wooden? If I didn't know better I would swear that Paul Walker is just a Cardboard cutout of a "What women want in a man" composite.

He is pretty much a testament to everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Zero acting ability, but sure he takes his shirt off and has pretty eyes.

Kinski

Gamayun wrote: »

I love Throne of Blood but something tiny always annoys me when I watch it and that's that they refer to the castle as Cobweb Castle, sounds like a place from a children's story.

That was the actual name of the film in Japan, Kumonosu-jō, which might have been translated as "Castle of the Spider's Web." Cobweb Castle does sound juvenile.

wandatowell

PaulB1984 wrote: »

The new Dredd movie

no finale whatsoever, to end without one finale hurrah almost made me dislike the entire movie, that although it stars as fun, begins to decline through it's running time to that disappointing ending

Sound like my sex life tbh

krudler

I really want to watch Romeo + Juliet again now...

speedboatchase

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ok, I was/am a big Michael Crichton fan and after reading Timeline, I remember thinking "this could be a great movie if they capture the gritty and unforgiving medieval tone".

Then I saw the movie.

So much potential from that novel totally wasted by:

1) Awful screenplay

2) Awful directing

3) And most of all...Paul Walker!

How does this guy get work? Stick to modelling underwear or whatever else you used to do, I'm sure you can make a healthy career out of every Fast and the Furious sequel without having to pollute other movies.

Wooden? If I didn't know better I would swear that Paul Walker is just a Cardboard cutout of a "What women want in a man" composite.

He is pretty much a testament to everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Zero acting ability, but sure he takes his shirt off and has pretty eyes.

In fairness, his career is completely over except for the Fast and the Furious franchise. Eventually your looks and a bit of luck can only take you so far - look at how far Orlando Bloom's stock has fallen.

krudler

speedboatchase wrote: »

In fairness, his career is completely over except for the Fast and the Furious franchise. Eventually your looks and a bit of luck can only take you so far - look at how far Orlando Bloom's stock has fallen.

He was excellent in Running Scared though

juan.kerr

krudler wrote: »

He was excellent in Running Scared though

Must have missed him: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091875/

The Pooka

Les Mis; Russell Crowe :pac: (not quite, but he's the weakest link by a mile)

krudler

Sunshine, I love the movie but the third act is mehhh, it would have worked just as well without the, well if you've seen if you know what I'm talking about. BUT, I did really like that the mission is endangered by simple human error, not some ridiculous series of events but by a guy fcuking up.

PaulB1984

juan.kerr wrote: »

No, it's the 'even'. How is you mentioning it on twitter relevant? Does it give your point some additional legitimacy or something?

Ehhh... So i shouldn't have mentioned that i tweeted about the very same subject a few nights ago? Hmmm, so you have a rule about someone mentioning their Twitter account? Do you have one yourself? No? Okay.

PaulB1984

OK, people, please, Romeo + Juliet is my choice, let's not get crazy here, do what some others are doing and name a few of your own choices. I hate Shakespeare dialect, i hate that it ruins a movie that would've been completely my cup of tea and i don't watch it on that basis alone. Same way a lot can't watch Dark Knight Rises because Bane sounds like a British 80-year-old stroke victim wearing a Hannibal Lector mask.

siblers

krudler wrote: »

Sunshine, I love the movie but the third act is mehhh, it would have worked just as well without the, well if you've seen if you know what I'm talking about. BUT, I did really like that the mission is endangered by simple human error, not some ridiculous series of events but by a guy fcuking up.

Yeah, totally ruined the film for me. Don't understand why they left such an awful twist in it.

DirkVoodoo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

OK, people, please, Romeo + Juliet is my choice, let's not get crazy here, do what some others are doing and name a few of your own choices. I hate Shakespeare dialect, i hate that it ruins a movie that would've been completely my cup of tea and i don't watch it on that basis alone. Same way a lot can't watch Dark Knight Rises because Bane sounds like a British 80-year-old stroke victim wearing a Hannibal Lector mask.

Yeah, Romeo and Juliet would have been great if not for Shakespeare. Shakes fist!

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

Sunshine, I love the movie but the third act is mehhh, it would have worked just as well without the, well if you've seen if you know what I'm talking about. BUT, I did really like that the mission is endangered by simple human error, not some ridiculous series of events but by a guy fcuking up.

I dunno, I never quite got the hatorade drunk for Sunshine's third act. It was kinnnnnd of telegraphed from the beginning, between the audio recordings of the last crew & the near worship for the sun some of the main characters had. Seemed unsurprising when

they found a survivor who'd gone a bit crazy

Plus given the first two thirds were so stellar (geddit?), I'm willing to forgive a formulaic ending, especially one that had such a beautiful scene at the end, in the bombs core. Definitely one of my favourite sci-fi films, shame it's frequently forgotten.

PaulB1984

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Yeah, Romeo and Juliet would have been great if not for Shakespeare. Shakes fist!

The dialogue.

FloatingVoter

Sacrilege here but No Country For Old Men...just when I thought it was about to start it finished. Dull as ditchwater. Should never have been made.
Has Javier Bardem ever been in a decent flick ?

e_e

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Should never have been made.

Just because you didn't like it?

I personally think it's amazing, every time it comes on telly I have to try and pry myself away from it.