Casanova

I turned on PBS last night and ran into this movie completely by accident. I was hooked immediately. It is so funny and unusual. The fact that everything happens to the young Casanova by chance is one of the things that makes it good. He is goofy, low-born, and self-effacing, as opposed to Heath Ledger's smug, overly confident Casanova in the film recently in theaters (which I found very boring.) This CASANOVA is definitely worth my time and yours. The supporting characters are enjoyable and the sets and costumes are amazing, full of color and authenticity. It was a spectacle for the ears and the eyes, I especially liked the colorfest during Casanova and Bellino's ball. Enjoy!

I absolutely LOVED this Casanova creation. So far, only seen the first part of the series yet but I 100% adored it. The acting, in my opinion, was just brilliant - David Tennant creates his own cheeky yet appealing characterisation of young womaniser Casanova and Peter O'Toole - being the amazing thespian he is - is just sensational as the older Giacomo Casanova. The acting, casting and directing of this mini-series is such a thrilling, refreshing change from all the junk on TV and movies nowadays! Back to the pure drama that so often gets lost in the midst of big-headed celebrity-movies, this Shakespearian-influenced mini-series is a MUST SEE! Cant wait for the second part! I give it 10/10!!

This is the second Casanova movie to come out in 2005. It's hard to say which one is better, because although they have the same main character, the approach is very different.

Here, Casanova is portrayed as a man constantly in love. A hopeless romantic, one could say. The evolution of the character is handled beautifully: in the beginning of the movie he's just a young boy, trying to find himself, developing slowly into a confident man, to the end, when he's a bitter old man, who stopped dreaming.

The direction is certainly memorable, shocking in some places, but the true asset of this movie is David Tennant. He's a spectacular actor, and (being an avid Doctor Who fan) I expected to watch this movie and say: "Look, there's the Doctor.", but he just detached himself from any previous role and he just was Casanova. I really ended up loving this movie because of his beautiful portrayal.

There's of course Peter O'Toole who was just as brilliant, in portraying old Casanova. Also, this is the first movie I've seen with two actors playing the same part -young and old- in which I could see the same character. Sure, O'Toole's Casanova is bitter and old, but you can see Tennant's Casanova developing into that person.

It's a movie definitely worth seeing. If you can't find the DVD, maybe you'll be lucky and catch it on BBC.

This version of 'Casanova' is worlds apart from the one which ran on UK TV some twenty plus years ago. Now, in 2005, Russell T Davies (in demand at the moment as the key writer of the new Doctor Who) has developed a Casanova for our times, with modern phrases and references (there are National Lottery slogans; Casanova sings 'the wheels on the carriage' to his young son), while still devoting attention to the serious aspects of the story.

David Tennant plays the young Casanova, swaggering his way from the Italian peasantry to the faux-aristocracy of France, and to England. He is by turns irritating, sprightly, and sexy, a convincing character study of the most legendary seducer in history. His on-off relationship with the beautiful and mysterious Henriette (Laura Fraser) is central to the story, as she betrays and entices him into dangerous situations. His sexual romps are done very much in 'Carry On' style.

Peter O'Toole is the old Casanova ('an old librarian in a damp castle'), reduced to little more than a servant with his memories. As usual, he is magnificent in a complex role. Funny and charming, but with a painful past. The old Casanova makes you laugh and tugs at your heartstrings too. A - I hope - Bafta-worthy performance.

Other names to watch for in the cast include Nina Sosanya as Bellino, the castrato singer who steals our hero's heart in episode 1; Nickolas Grace as the French Chancellor; Matt Lucas as a perfumed Duke of Villars; Rupert Penry-Jones as the odious Grimani; and Shaun Parkes as Rocco, the observer on the sidelines of the young Casanova's life.

Inventively filmed (repetitions, odd angles, slow motion, extreme close-ups) and with a lively (if silly at times) script, this is an entertaining three hours.

After watching bits of "Queer As Folk", a season of the new "Doctor Who", the "Doctor Who" Christmas special (also listening to the accompanying commentary) and the three parts of "Casanova", I think I've figured out what it is that frustrates me about Russell T. Davies's writing: its inconsistency. If it was merely mediocre, I'd simply dismiss it as such--but it's not.

His stories do have characters, scenes, and story arcs that are absolutely wonderful; his attention to detail can be minute; his dialogue can be scintillating in its irreverence and vivacity and his plot development can display astonishing originality. But these moments of brilliance are offset by under-developed secondary characters, unconvincing gaps in the plot, frankly ridiculous surprise twists, huge leaps of logic, jarringly crass jokes, lines intended merely to shock and unexplained dialogue non sequiturs. When I watch his work, I find my reactions alternating between, "Wow, this is great!" and "WTF?"

As for "Casanova" specifically: on balance, I love it. It's funny, engaging, exciting, romantic, sexy, and devastatingly sad at the end. It portrays a compellingly sympathetic Casanova and makes me curious about the real historic figure. While I personally already enjoy a lot of "costume dramas", I applaud this production's efforts to bring a younger and hipper audience to the genre. The acting is fine across the board and the leads (David Tennant and Peter O'Toole especially) are excellent. The innovative direction is effective. Since I knew beforehand not to expect historical accuracy, most of the anachronisms didn't bother me.

My chief complaint aside from the Russell T. Davies stuff mentioned above is probably with the music, the quality of which, like the writing, varied widely in my opinion. Some of it was fantastic, to be sure, but a significant amount was irritating and intrusive. And, call it a personal pet peeve if you will, but I really really dislike the sound of synthesized strings and brass. If it's a choice between what are obviously synthesizers and minimal or no instrumental accompaniment, I almost always prefer the latter.