I enjoyed watching Nicholas Nickleby this weekend, but as with so many near misses, I wished I'd loved it. This was the 2002 version of the Dickens novel, which I've never read. Great cast: Christopher Plummer, Timothy Spall, Jim Broadbent, Juliet Stevenson, Nathan Lane, and someone I've come to look for and like in other British films, Kevin McKidd.
It is so grim in the beginning; I wondered if I would be able to see it through, but when the main character gets out of the evil schoolmaster's (Broadbent) hands and takes his young friend to freedom with him, the movie brightens almost too much. What? I asked myself. Is this a comedy now? The sense of dread and danger were completely gone, and it felt like a different film. Later, it gets serious again. But it is inconsistent. In a more even-handed version of this story, I would have cried at least 3 times, but as it was, I just kinda rode along, not feeling too much.
I like to cry in movies! I like to feel too much! There were some dire circumstances here; I should have been crying! Of course, you need some comic relief. And who wants to watch 2 hours of hopelessness? It's just that the tone of this movie isn't consistent.
There are some touches of greatness here--the opening scene illustrating how we are all born into the world but not all lucky enough to land in the lap of a loving family--the spooky shots of the narrow hall with the long tall ladder at the top of which a young boy is kept in a tiny room--Christopher Plummer's seething Uncle Nickleby.
I'm glad I saw it. I'm glad that Jim took the girls out for the evening to see a local high school play so that I could watch a movie by myself in the quiet house. I'm just saying, I should have been crying. And now I know I've got to read more Dickens. Three stars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I love to read Dickens. I recently finished Great Expectations, and I'm hungering for more of his work. And, as much as I hate movies based on books, there is an appeal about Dickens movies--something about the time period, or perhaps some shred of the story he wrote shining through. A pity that one wasn't worth watching--there's nothing that inspires me to read really long books more than seeing an apparently good movie based on them and desperately wanting to find out what was wrong with it. DRD
I've never been a fan of Dickens, having had many false starts with his works (even as audio-books). Give me Thomas Hardy any day. In fact one of my favorite books is "Tess of the d'Urbevilles"
I LOVED Tess...Damn that Angel *has vague remembrances* Not so much a Dickens fan, though...
Just finished watching Mansfield Park (1999--directed by Patricia Rozema). I loved it! Skimmed the reviews on Amazon out of curiosity; many said that it is only loosely based on Austen's novel and should not share the same name, but I haven't read it before and had nothing to compare it to. As its own piece of work, I think it's great. It was modern and surprising and kept my interest. I really liked spunky Frances O'Connor's Fanny Price. DRD, I think you've read all of Austen, so you'd better not watch this. It won't do all that the novel does, but for anyone who hasn't read it or who now will know not to compare the two, it's a better film than that Nicholas Nickleby.
Mansfield Park--three and a half stars.
Spunky? Fanny? I think not! I'd better take your advice and not watch it. DRD
DRD, Great Expectations was my most-hated book ever. I was forced to read it in high school, and didn't believe I'd survive the experience. I thought all the characters were completely despicable. American Psycho has since replaced GE as my most-hated book ever, but I will probably never pick up Dickens again.
Post a Comment