avatar6

I happen to think this is a movie well worth watching. The historical aspect isn't so boring as a viewer might suspect (and unlike some believe, there is actually quite a bit of historical fact). This film has a way of making it fun and exciting, even with the politics of the day playing a prominent role. Another thing I really liked about it, was the amazing, and I do mean amazing, visual style. The film is chock full of style and pinache. The costumes are incredible, the music is excellent (particularly if you're a fan of the Baroque), and the theatrics are just... beautiful! It's a beautifully crafted film, well acted, and wonderful to look at. I'd almost say it's the kind of film that's less of a movie and more of an experience. I could actually see this being performed on stage, if that helps to describe it. Truly a neat movie and I feel lucky to have seen it. I'd have to give it ****1/2 out of *****, just on visuals alone.

I am going to echo most reviewers' sentiments about "The Dish" by saying it is a great, wonderfully refreshing film. Don't get me wrong; I love car chases, explosions, gunplay, and gore, but this film is every bit as good without it. In fact, I found myself driving 114 miles to see this film, only to end up in a very small, very cramped, and non-airconditioned theater. It was an experience indeed, and one I would endure again! The film is simply wonderful! It's wonderful BECAUSE of its simplicity, because it is a character driven film, and because of its refreshingly "clean" quality. We rarely get the opportunity to see such character driven cinema, and because this film is such, we see some truly great acting. The cast is superb, the script well written, and Edmund Choi's screenscore is moving yet, not overbearing. A wonderful work of film... truly.

Okay, where to start! This move was a BIG, and I do mean BIG disappointment! Nevil Shute would be rolling in his grave if he saw what a fine mess they made of his classic story. There was no need for improvement (of Shute's novel). I can understand modernizing the story, to create a greater impact on today's audience, but this was ridiculous! Only remnants of the original story are present. It says "based on the novel by Nevil Shute," but rather, it should have said "the screenwriter simply borrowed Shute's premise, and generated his own story!" Utter tripe! Plain and simply, a travesty of novel adaptation. The nuances of Nevil's book that lent it charm and effectiveness were completely lacking in the movie. I felt little for the characters, as there was no true development. We see a peek here and there of each person, and with the exception of Peter, I didn't like ANY of them! It's not supposed to be like that! If we take a peek at the book, we find that Commander Towers is an overwhelmingly faithful man who pledges his life to his wife and country, to the very end. He could not fathom being with another woman. But, in the movie, what do we have? Torrid love affairs, innuendoes galore, and a Commander who seems to get past that "spot in {his} brain" awful easy! There was no struggle to come to terms with the fact that his family is gone, as in the novel AND the 1959 version. No, instead they just portray Dwight as a much more unscrupulous fellow than in the book. It's not just that, though. The character of Dwight Towers is a noble one, in the book. He has depth, character, feeling, and a soft touch with people. Not so, in this movie. I wanted to smack Armand's character so many times, I was annoyed. He was a boisterous, obnoxious, and blunt captain, and nothing like the original character. I didn't care for him at all. I even like Armand, but his acting was part of it. He craned his neck too much, talked with his lips pursed together, and generally looked like he was sucking a lemon throughout. NOT his best work! Let's see, what else? There are so many things! If you've read this far and are intrigued, I'll tell you more! The character of Julian Osborne (who was actually "John Seymour Osborne" in the book) was never on an island. I have yet to figure out what that had to do with anything!

Moira was NOT related to anyone in the story, and in fact lived with her parents on a farm. The race scene in the book was completely alleviated, although there is a hint of it in the end. The way "Julian" died in the film was MUCH different from the book, and I thought this was a big mistake. The book's portrayal was a very poignant telling, and should have been included. If you haven't had the honor of reading it, it may be tough to understand, but let's just say it was a much more powerful scene. The scenes in the streets were not in the novel, other than the garbage. The rioting, violence, sex, and so forth, are a figment of the screenwriter's imagination. I don't think it added anything. I guess they felt like they had to have violence and hatefulness somewhere.

The helicopter in the film complicated things, and made the story even MORE different. It wasn't necessary either. In fact, because of its inclusion, the departure scene had to be changed. Not NEARLY as effective!

And of course, the big kicker that angered me more than anything else? The fact that they changed the ending!!!!!! What's up with that?! Wasn't Nevil Shute's version good enough, or was it "too outdated?!" How lame is that?! HELLO! I know I keep talking about "the book said this," or "the book had that," but I'm tellin' ya'... the ending of the book almost made me cry, while this made me think "Good riddance!" It was SO insipid! Nothing like the power the book had. NOTHING! It was a bad move on the part of the filmmakers. If nothing else, they could have salvaged the ending and made at least THAT scene a poignant one. It's not that I am basing my review solely on comparison with the book; it's just that it's not even a good film. When I do think back to the book, or even the old movie, this movie just stinks! It doesn't have the potency of either. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't be so harsh. It's hard to get that book out of my brain, though. I have to compare just for the simple fact that this movie is supposed to be based on the book. I'll tell you that if you see this movie, you have no idea what the original story was. Very little of Nevil Shute's ideas exist. I know; you can't include everything from the book, in a movie. But, you'd think they could include SOME of it! Sheesh! The 2 hour, 1959 version with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner was FAR more accurate in its portrayal, than this! They had 4 hours to do this movie justice, and instead chose to make it meaningless drivel!