Casanova

Russell T Davies and the enthusiastic cast has given this a real feeling of life and excitement using the exterior shots in Venice to their best advantage. David Tennant is brilliantly engaging, funny and attractive playing the 'lad about town' with such confidence and swagger and a touch of vulnerability that it's not difficult to understand why he attracted all his conquests. Casting O'Toole was inspired and at one point with both he and Tennant on screen I was struck by how well they seemed to 'match up' in a way that Ewan Magregor and Alec Guiness (for example) could not. Laura Fraser who I always thought was overlooked in "Knight's Tale" is perfect as the elusive Henriette. I'm looking forward to the rest

If I were a budding TV writer, I'd change my name to Davies. First there was Andrew who produced a fascinating and quirky little series called A Very Peculiar Practice, and the next thing you know he is writing every single adaptation we see, not infrequently for both rival terrestrial UK channels at the same time. Now it appears to be the turn of Russell T., who parlayed his gay sex shockfest Queer As Folk into Bob and Rose, Doctor Who and now this irreverent and somewhat over the top examination of the life of the infamous lover, Giacomo Casanova.

It's funny, it's irreverent, it's very fast moving and it keeps you watching. Completely eschewing period-ese language, David Tennant portrays Casanova as a cheeky on-the-up spiv who in the 21st Century might well have put himself forward as a contestant for Big Brother. He is instantly likable. Laura Fraser is very strong as the "lost love" interest, Henriette.

Disappointingly the programme seems to regard Casanova's lovemaking prowess as a minor detail, relegating it in the opening episode to a montage of fully-clothed sex scenes that are little more than snapshots. This sense of holding back was compounded when Casanova ripped his new wife and former fake-Castrato-in-travéstie singer Bellino's dress open so that it gaped for the assembled crowd - but not for the camera! This apparent prudishness seems to go against the spirit of the remainder of the enterprise. Perhaps after the Jerry Springer débacle, the BBC is taking no chances.

Peter O'Toole, as the older Casanova explaining his life story to a girl of formerly high family who has fallen on hard times and is acting as his maidservant, performs his part with all the best elements of his enormous experience, both as an actor, and of his own scarcely stain-free life story. He is so remarkably vigorous, agile and attractive (at 73!), he reminds you why he nearly turned down his Life Achievement Oscar in the hopes, still, of one day "getting a real one".

A worthwhile little production for the fledgling BBC Three, much better than the scanty Alan Clark Diaries.

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!

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.

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.