| Hal Erickson is right on |
|
| written by etaviotal |
December 6, 2007 - 8:48 AM PST |
|
3 out of 3 members found this review helpful
|
| When I originally saw this movie I thought it was an adequate adaptation of the novel, but after being wowed Vincente Minnelli's 1949 version I was reminded that a good movie adaptation of a book should add a layer to the story that is made possible by the change in media from print to film. Simply putting a watered down version of the story up on the screen, even if its not poorly done, is like a film version of a play that is essentially the same as it would be if a video camera had been placed in the back of the playhouse. Good books and good plays make use of the strengths of their medias which are not the same as those of film. If a film brings nothing new to the table your time would be better spent reading the book or seeing the play live. I gave this film a lower rating partly for the sin of needlessly remaking a great film and doing a poor job at that. |
| decent adaptation |
|
| written by MArdovino |
February 12, 2004 - 11:24 AM PST |
|
1 out of 1 members found this review helpful
|
| Stylish adaptation of Flaubert- could have been a bit more erotic as the novel but acting is fine. |
|
|
Your cart
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.