wedraughon
Entrou em out. de 2005
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações11
Classificação de wedraughon
It amazes me that people watch a movie titled "Harlequin's The Awakening" and then complain about it being a romance. It takes all kinds, I guess.
One thing that may be missed at first is that this movie is actually intended as a comedy as well as a romance with a few thriller elements at the very end. But basically, it's a romantic comedy. The first time watching it, the comic elements can be a little annoying because they are of the oops! variety.
The star and chief reason for seeing this movie is Cynthia Geary. Not just because she is beautiful--who isn't in a romance movie--but because of her enormous appeal. It's a shame that this appears to have been her only starring role. So, see it for her if for nothing else. (But not if you're expecting Citizen Kane or anything of that sort.)
One thing that may be missed at first is that this movie is actually intended as a comedy as well as a romance with a few thriller elements at the very end. But basically, it's a romantic comedy. The first time watching it, the comic elements can be a little annoying because they are of the oops! variety.
The star and chief reason for seeing this movie is Cynthia Geary. Not just because she is beautiful--who isn't in a romance movie--but because of her enormous appeal. It's a shame that this appears to have been her only starring role. So, see it for her if for nothing else. (But not if you're expecting Citizen Kane or anything of that sort.)
The 1978 miniseries is over 3 hours long. The 1997 movie is 1 hour and 45 minutes long. Yet, every event in the 3 hour version is in the shorter version. The reverse, however, is not true. Five crucial events of the story are visible in the 1997 (shorter) version but are missing from the 3 hour version: (1) the first conflict between Mr. Tulliver and Mr. Wakem, in which Tulliver wins, then insults Wakem. This shows why Tulliver thinks he'll win again and is strung along by a lawyer until he has mortgaged everything. It also provides motivation for Wakem's vengeful act of buying the mill, which in the longer version is left unmotivated. We are merely told that he is fed up with Tulliver.
(2) The selling of the mill to Wakem. In the 1978 version, we are told that it happened. In the 1997 version, we see it happen.
(3) The selling of the furniture of the Tullivers. This makes their homelessness visible and visceral.
(4) The scene in which Tom pays his father's debts. In the 1978 three-hour version, we are told that it is going to happen; then we see Tulliver on the way back from the meeting. We need to see this climatic event. In the 1997 version, we do.
(5) The restoration of the deed to the mill to the Tullivers.
The picture quality is acceptable in both versions, as is the music, but are better in the 1997 version. The casting is acceptable in both versions. The acting is acceptable in both. So, why do I give 3 stars to the 1978 version and four and a half stars to the 1997 version? The screenplay. Since both screenplays tell the same story with almost the same events, this comparison provides an excellent study for those interested in screen writing.
The 1978 version appears to have been written by a stage playwright (and not a good one at that). Each scene is set. People chat for a few moments. A character enters. Whatever is going to happen in that scene happens. Characters exit. Next scene.
The 1997 version is written like a movie. We are thrust into a scene just as something is about to happen. It happens. We cut to the next scene, where we are again thrust into the moment when something is about to happen. This makes for far more effective storytelling.
Also, the nitty-gritty of the scenes is better done in the 1997 version. It isn't the acting. It is the fact that the actors have a script that will let them make the emotions effective, and they do.
If you compare either version (or any movie version) with the book, then of course you can call it Cliff Notes. That tells you nothing.
The ending is better in the 1978 version and is also faithful to the book. The beginning of the 1997 version, like the ending, is a mistake.
The other problem is that the 1997 version is only available on VHS and hard to get at that. So, get the 1978 version if you can't get the videotape or don't want to; otherwise, wait and hope that someone will have the sense to put the 1997 version on DVD.
(2) The selling of the mill to Wakem. In the 1978 version, we are told that it happened. In the 1997 version, we see it happen.
(3) The selling of the furniture of the Tullivers. This makes their homelessness visible and visceral.
(4) The scene in which Tom pays his father's debts. In the 1978 three-hour version, we are told that it is going to happen; then we see Tulliver on the way back from the meeting. We need to see this climatic event. In the 1997 version, we do.
(5) The restoration of the deed to the mill to the Tullivers.
The picture quality is acceptable in both versions, as is the music, but are better in the 1997 version. The casting is acceptable in both versions. The acting is acceptable in both. So, why do I give 3 stars to the 1978 version and four and a half stars to the 1997 version? The screenplay. Since both screenplays tell the same story with almost the same events, this comparison provides an excellent study for those interested in screen writing.
The 1978 version appears to have been written by a stage playwright (and not a good one at that). Each scene is set. People chat for a few moments. A character enters. Whatever is going to happen in that scene happens. Characters exit. Next scene.
The 1997 version is written like a movie. We are thrust into a scene just as something is about to happen. It happens. We cut to the next scene, where we are again thrust into the moment when something is about to happen. This makes for far more effective storytelling.
Also, the nitty-gritty of the scenes is better done in the 1997 version. It isn't the acting. It is the fact that the actors have a script that will let them make the emotions effective, and they do.
If you compare either version (or any movie version) with the book, then of course you can call it Cliff Notes. That tells you nothing.
The ending is better in the 1978 version and is also faithful to the book. The beginning of the 1997 version, like the ending, is a mistake.
The other problem is that the 1997 version is only available on VHS and hard to get at that. So, get the 1978 version if you can't get the videotape or don't want to; otherwise, wait and hope that someone will have the sense to put the 1997 version on DVD.
This is the story of a woman given a respite from her grim life as a devoted wife and mother. She takes her illness in stride and goes off to the mountains to a sanatorium for a cure. While there, she meets people she would never have met otherwise and has time to experience a life other than one of drudgery and selfless devotion. She is even given a chance of escape/salvation. Will she take it? Ah, but that would be a spoiler!
This superb movie shows that realism can be moving and gripping. This woman's plight, her decency and her quiet heroism make for one of the best motion pictures ever made. If it could be released on video or DVD, I'm sure it would do well. Let's hope the owner of the rights to this movie soon figures this out.
This superb movie shows that realism can be moving and gripping. This woman's plight, her decency and her quiet heroism make for one of the best motion pictures ever made. If it could be released on video or DVD, I'm sure it would do well. Let's hope the owner of the rights to this movie soon figures this out.