MONA0825

I hadn't seen this movie in years. I remember actually liking it when it first came up. Should I mentioned I didn't speak English at that time? Seeing it again this time I realized how horrible pretty boy Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Daines sound. Their pronunciation is lousy and they just don't have any sense of enunciation. Just watch Di Caprio's scenes with Pete Postlethwaite's Laurence: day & night. The movie is so well intentioned, the updating ideas are good, the production design excellent; even the frantic editing and the pop music fit this modern adaptation. But everything fails if your two main characters are played by modest actors who can't follow the archaic yet beautiful language of the great bard.A pity.

I felt in love with the Star wars movie saga when these movies were released again to movie theaters in 1997. I was just a teenager back then. I just watched them again in Blu-ray and some of the old excitement is gone. I guess almost 15 years of becoming familiar with great directors and great movies and also with Sci-Fi/Fantasy works done before 1977 have made me unable to close eyes to what is wrong with Star Wars. Though the movie is still a fantastic entertainment in a childish way, it has some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard in a screen –big or small- and terrible acting. Luke Skywalker is the archetypical hero and the character has great potential. However, Mr. Hamill wasn't skilled or talented enough to flesh out the character as it was written paper thin. As result, poor Luke is just a whining teenager. Harrison Ford fares much better as the rogue space cowboy because he was a very charismatic person not because he was the best of actors. Carrie Fisher is equally flat as princess Leia. Only Peter Cushing saves the day with decent acting as well as the powerful voice of Mr. Jones. The direction is mediocre but serviceable. The soundtrack sounds better than ever in its Wagnerian intensity and use of motifs. Watch it for old time's sake. Luckily, Empire Strikes back holds the passing of time much better.

I'm a great admirer of Mr. Huston's body of work. From Treasure of Sierra Madre to The Prizzi's Honor, without mentioning my personal favorite, Moby Dick, this great eccentric was capable to produce authentic gems or at least very decent films. But this? Oh boy, where to start on the wrongs: first, the pacing is so slow that you would think God took 6 centuries and not 6 days for the Creation. It's slow, slower and slowest. In a word: boring. Independently of the script (whatever your religious beliefs are, you would agree with me that the Bible is not the most cinematic book you could take to the big screen, but there are plenty of elements that could give a good story). Then, about the production values, the washed out color that worked so well in Moby Dick gives this movie a look much older than its 1966 release, and it feels cheap for an epic of such proportions. The cinematography is nothing to write home about. The makeup is terrible (just watch "old Abraham" makeup for a reference), the customs are anachronistic with its impeccable cleanliness. Talking about the casting, the great George C. Scotts ruins what could have been the best part of the movie with his annoying overacting. The music is just corny and bombastic. Huston is an indifferent narrator and the voice of an even more indifferent God. I gave it 4 stars in memory of the great director John Huston was despite this abomination. And because it's fun to see him as Noah. It's very clear that Huston was an atheist. Otherwise I can't understand the total lack of enthusiasm reflected in this movie.