Kuroel

I have really enjoyed Hedberg's stand-up and Hirviniemi's performances on several TV shows. So I was somewhat disappointed that neither comedian had apparently nothing to do with the script that is adapted from a Danish movie of the same premise.

The film is about three middle-aged men that together decide to take a road trip to a class reunion. On the trip, each man is forced to face a personal problem of some sort - more or less involving their love lives.

I'm not offended by adolescent or chauvinistic humor which caused quite an uproar in the Finnish audience when the movie released, but I just had hoped that the script would have had more mature humor _besides_ the obvious dick jokes. The repetitive gags get old pretty fast and the characters offer little more in sense of depth.

Can't remember an Allen movie I actually liked, but I decided to give this movie a shot nonetheless. The concept was very delightful, but sure enough, Allen is still bad.

We all know the usual mannerism of Will Ferrell, but much like every other character in this movie, his delivery was more like an imitation of Allen himself - down to the stuttering. I completely agree with another reviewer who questioned "How many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive über-New Yorker persona?"

Allen's directing style is very distinguished, but I'd say more like repetitive. He's basically producing never ending remakes of the same story with the same characters. The dialogue was horrendous. Wooden clichés sprinkled with occasional fancy words. Hobie considers himself to be an intellect (like all the characters that are projections of Allen) yet he speaks and stutters like a 10-year-old. Then, in the middle of mindless repetitive ramblings where he goes on and on and on about some extremely mundane topic, he throws in a completely random reference to Dostoyevsky or Kieślowski. Wha? Worst thing is - I really think that Woody is giving himself pat on the back for the "ingenious" cultural references. The cinematography wasn't a treat, either. In one of the restaurant scenes the camera sweep was so bad it was painful to watch.

Without giving out too much about the ending, the dialogue was so embarrassingly corny, I thought it was a dream sequence until the credits began to roll on the screen. The ending could have been cobbled together by an average 12-year-old fan-fiction writer.

I'd like to begin my review with the notion that I have not read the actual novel, but have seen the 2007 BBC version of Northanger Abbey, which I enjoyed exceedingly. Northanger Abbey is probably closest to Brontë's style out of all the other works by Austen. Darker in tone yet remaining romantic and mischievous in the true Austen spirit.

What I found most disagreeable with the 1986 version, first off, was the soundtrack. 80's electric guitar in period Austen drama, seriously?! The obvious influence of the time of filming in clothing, hair and make-up I can bear, but the electric guitar? No.

Secondly, I was not impressed by some of the performances. I think that, for the most part, actors did well, considering what the script was obviously going for. However, I was disappointed in Peter Firth as Henry Tilney. In the beginning, he appears as Austen had probably intended him to. Elegant and genteel but slightly impish. I loved the warm smile he flashes at Catherine when they first meet. Henry is supposed to be slightly more cultivated and grown compared to Catherine, somewhat brother-like, and tease her for being the silly young girl she is. In the 2007 version, JJ Field's Henry truly gives the impression that he is caring even though he takes much delight in the fact that Catherine takes him far too seriously for her own good. Henry seems affectionate towards Catherine, but not necessarily romantically interested. In comparison, Peter Firth complete over-acts his Henry with the extremely obvious long ogles at Catherine and exaggerated gestures. Peter Firth seems to sneer rather than jest at her. There's no chemistry. Catherine appears ignorant and naive and Henry cynical and sardonic. In the 1986 version, Henry is slick toady who's little mean to Catherine. It just doesn't work. And Peter Firth just simply does not have the commanding authority (what Henry is supposed to have) in presence as JJ Field genuinely has.

Thirdly, I think there was overall some problems with the casting (my god, did they not have attractive men back in the 80's!). I did not care for the script for the 1986 version having seen the 2007 version, which works better in every department. In the 1986 all the characters have no depth to speak of, they are plainly good or bad. In the 2007, the viewer is kept guessing of the characters' intentions.

Recommended to obsessive Austen fans, for others, please see the 2007 version.