Most of you will be aware of the Film by Frank Darabont. Some of you may even be aware that it is based on the short story, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, by Stephen King.

I love the short story and I love the film. So when I noticed the other day that there was a play on in London, and that it was only running until the end of November, then I figured I should go watch it while I had the opportunity of being up there.

Firstly, I enjoyed watching it. It wasn’t great, it was ok.
I wonder if I am just not attuned to theatre. I don’t mind musical theatre, I get that, but the difference between plays and films seems to be vast. In this case, everything seems to be said in a shout.

The play is apparently based on the book and not the film – plenty of copyright issues here I guess. The problem is that Frank Darabont did a magnificent job of adapting the book, that it was always going to be hard to stray away from that. So the first think the writers did to differentiate the play from the film was to go back to the original source and have Red as a red-haired white man of Irish ethnicity – right? Wrong! Red is a Morgan Freeman wannabe… and it doesn’t work. His voice is gravelly, and fast, and loud. Morgan Freeman is controlled, slow, and soothing. I can’t read the book anymore without hearing Morgan Freeman narrating for me.

The version of Red’s voice-over, that makes the hairs stand up when delivered in the film…

There’s a con like me in every prison
in America, I guess. I’m the guy who
can get it for you. Cigarettes, a
bag of reefer if you’re partial, a
bottle of brandy to celebrate your
kid’s high school graduation. Damn
near anything, within reason.

In the play, this is the opening lines… rushed, shouted, gravelly, and disappointing…

All in all my concerns with the play were that even though the writers were apparently trying to steer clear of the film, they kept coming back to it. Many of the characters seemed liked they were poor versions of the film characters. In fact Tommy was almost identical that I wondered if they had just lifted the original actor.

In the film many of the characters we amalgamation of multiple characters – Brooks and The Warden in particular. In the play – yep you guessed it – amalgamations. Warden Norton – looked the same, if a little more portly!

I hated Andy Dufresne in the play ( Kevin Anderson). He’s cocky, too forward, almost having a controlled route through his time at the shank. But he still has this kind of Tim Robbins look-a-like thing going on.

So in the end, the play can’t make it’s mind up – be the film, be the book, or be neither. There are some very odd changes and additions that had no earthly right being there.
To be honest, I think the play is really cashing in on the film and not a decent theatrical version of the book. The writers have tried to avoid the obvious copyright issues without dropping things that their audience of film fans might take issues with. I mean, the whole thing starts with the name right? Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption…

I think my favourite part was when the cast sing as Tommy is hanging in his cell… that was a wonderful moment, and almost worth the entrance fee alone.

I’ve just finished re-reading Harry Potter. In fact I’ve been reading the series to Rebekah over the last year. Anyway, there is a part toward the end of The Deathly Hallows, where Harry is squaring up to Voldemort, and Harry starts to question Voldemort’s assumptions on the true ownership of the Elder Wand, that in my head sounded very different to the words that were actually on the page.

This is what I heard…

I know what you’re thinking. “Did he take rightful possession of the wand?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. So it all comes down to this, doesn’t it. Does the wand in your hand know that its last master was disarmed? Because if it does… I am the true master of the wand. And being as that is an Elder Wand: the most dangerous wand in the world, and is able to perform feats of magic that would normally be considered impossible, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Anyway, my favourite line in a film for a long time, delivered perfectly, with a slight western drawl;

— goin’ on a year
now I ain’t had nothin’ twixt my
nethers weren’t run on batteries!

It’s a dramatic comedy film about a family’s road trip to a children’s beauty pageant… with a pretty disfunctional family. it seems rather odd but it had me laughing so much; it also has some tender moments as well… well worth a watch! [imdb]

What a terrible film it is! I really don’t like old films, even those that are classed as “classics”. I understand that film probably wouldn’t be where it is now without these old films, but on the whole the acting is terrible.

In this film, the acting is bad, the story is bad, the script is bad…

See Also: Ocean’s Twelve

Shark Tale
I din’t actually watch this, but the kids seem to enjoy it. [IMDb]

Sin City
Hated this! This was the only film that I didn’t watch all of – I just couldn’t bare how bad it was. Some people might call it stylish, it just thought it was cheap and poor. [IMDb]

Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
What can I say, Spiderman; well executed Hollywood movie. Even Victoria enjoyed these!. [IMDb] [IMDb]

Stephen Poliakoff’s Gideon’s Daughter
I originally watched this on TV one night a few years ago. I watched it alone during a particularly stressful and vulnerable time in my life. It is the only film that has every made me blubber, not just a tear in the eye or a lump in the throat, but a full on, few minutes of uncontrolled crying. There is something about the story of a Man becoming less and less part of his own life and having to re-evaluate his relationships with his friends, colleagues, and family. I’ve watched it a few times since and although I still like it, it does seem a little clumsy. However, the central story between Gideon and his daughter is still very strong. Bill Nighy and Emily Blunt play those roles particularly well. [IMDb]

Tarzan
Tarzan told the Disney way. Enjoyable apart from the Phil Collins music. [IMDb]

The Bourne Supremacy
This was too much the same as the original. Ok to watch but a little bit damp. [IMDb]

The Constant Gardener
Although this seemed a very slow plodding film, I really enjoyed it. it tells the story of Justin Quayle, a man who finds his wife murdered and then seeks to uncover the reasons behind her death. If I had any quibbles with it, it would be that Ralph Fiennes plays Ralph Fiennes. He could have been making The English Patient.
[IMDb]

The Devil Wears Prada
Really funny! I thoroughly enjoyed this. Meryl Streep does a sterling job as the head of a Fashion magazine and therefore industry. Emily Blunt is really good in it as well. [IMDb]

The Incredibles
Pixar at their best – what can I say? [IMDb]

The Lake House
I really liked this story of two people communicating through time via a post box. Lovely story that is well worth the watch; even Keanu Reeves is good in it. [IMDb]

The Passion Of The Christ
Horrible! I enjoyed the subject matter of this but I do think it was a little bit too much. I had to watch it in two sittings! [IMDb]
See my previous post: The Passion of The Christ

The Wild
Not bad, but not Pixar. The best part of the film is actually [wiki]Eddie Izzard playing the Koala Nigel! [IMDb]

Corpse Bride
Typical Tim Burton. I enjoyed it, but I think the kids enjoyed it more. [IMDb]

Toy Story 2
I was surprised that it took me so long to get around to watching this film; fantastic in all the usual ways. [IMDb]




Treasure Planet
Disney remakes Treasure Island, in space. Ok. [IMDb]

Anyway, here is a list of what I have watched over the last three months…

The Chronicles Of Narnia – The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
I liked the first quarter or maybe half of this film, which ties in with the book. I always get bored at about the point that Aslan gets involved and the film was no exception. This was made worse by the fact that Aslan is played by Liam Neeson who is just about the worse voice over actor going… [IMDb]

Coach Carter
This was enjoyable, nothing remarkable but a worthwhile watch all the same. Tells the true-ish story of Coach Carter as he struggles to turn a bunch of no hope basketball players into a winning team. Samuel L Jackson puts in a great performance and makes the film. [IMDb]

Curious George
This was just a joy. The story wasn’t great but the animation style is lovely and the Jack Johnson soundtrack so complements the laid back nature of the film. [IMDb]




Dark Water
A woman moves into a “haunted” apartment with her child. The film was ok, Jennifer Connelly is very good in it. [IMDb]

Dreamcatcher
Based on the book of the name name by Stephen King. This was let down by Damian Lewis when he plays the Alien Mr Grey. Apart from that it is what it is. [IMDb]

Finding Neverland
I enjoyed watching this. As always Johnny Depp is superb playing J M Barrie. It made me want to know more about Barrie and his weird world. However, after more research into the matter, the film portrays him in a better life than real life. [IMDb]

Hearts In Atlantis
Another Stephen King Adaptation; based on the story “Low Men In Yellow Coats” from the Novel “Hearts in Atlantis”. I enjoyed this very much. [IMDb]

Ice Age: The Meltdown
The kids watched this while I was on holiday– I’m sure they loved it. [IMDb]

King Kong
This wasn’t a bad remake but seemed to suffer from some really bad special effects in places. [IMDb]

Memento
This is really good. Tells the story of a man who has a particular memory problem which means he can’t move short term memory to long term. This results in him having to record lots of information by Polaroid as he attempts to find the person who killed his wife. The story is told in reverse which makes in hard to follow but well worth the effort. The main character is played by Guy Pierce who seems to do an admirable job of being Brad Pitt in the movie. [IMDb]
See Also: Memento

National Treasure
Nicolas Cage in Indiana Jones – entertaining family film. [IMDb]

Ocean’s Twelve
Terrible!!!! Do not watch this movie – ever! [IMDb]
See Also: Ocean’s Twelve

Runaway Jury
This is an adaptation of the John Grisham book starring John Cusack and Gene Hackman. The story has been changed to target the Gun Industry rather than the Cigarette Industry but I enjoyed this all the same. [IMDb]

I won’t go into any real detail as if you haven’t seen it then just go an rent it out. However the basic plot is that Leonard has lost the ability to transfer short term memory to long term, and thus forgets everything very quickly.

The film starts with him killing Teddy and works its way back from there. It is depicted in short burts of scenes that work their way back. So for example, you see Leonard in the cloak room of a diner, he re-enters the diner and the waiter brings him something telling him that he left it on the table. The scene cuts. We then see Leonard enter the diner and the events that took him to the cloak room unfold. Scene cut. We then see the action prior to him getting to the diner.. etc…

What this means is that a) you know what happened and then just need to find out why it happened. b) you have to think about the film because you are getting everything in the wrong order.

By the end I felt that the story had been very good and the delivery exceptional.

Guy Pearce stars as Leonard and does a very good job. It’s actually a little odd because I think he is basically playing the character as if he was Brad Pitt playing the character. You could easily swap one out for the other. he kind of looks like Pitt and his acting is straight from a number of Pitt films.

Very enjoyable viewing.

I can’t even be bothered to describe the many things that are wrong with this film, all I want to say is… Never… never… never… watch Oceans Twelve it is a complete pile of arse paper.

What I really can’t believe is; they are making another film… Ocean’s Thirteen!!!!

The film doesn’t bring anything new to the story of The Passion it just depicts it very realisticly, so on that basis I have to question the point of the film. I guess if you are Christian then it would cement your feelings for Christ and what he went through to absolve your sins, if you are Jewish then you’re going to be pretty angry about how the film depicts the actions of the Jews.

If we remove the obvious issues about “facts” of the story, it seems to me that much of the film is on dubious territory with regards the facts of what happened. I don’t recall there being any story that depicts the sheer amount of tortue that Jesus supposedly endured. Yes, the way in which he was tortured is likely correct, there is indeed written history that details how the Romans crucified people. However, had any man been tortured so much then I doubt he would have made it to Golgotha let alone be still alive to actually be attached to the cross. Gibson portrays the Roman soldiers as being particularly nasty drunken slobs, again I can’t see where any evidence would be that would hold up his depiction. And then, there are the Jews… if anything would make me consider that Gibson is anti-semitic, then this film is it. Again, there is little evidence to show that the Jews where so full of vile and hatred of Christ, yes they may have wanted him dead, but in such manner and with the huge venom and vitriole that the film depicts.

… so Okay, it was in a dream, but I can tell you.. the film is crap… so if you’re reading John [Hughes], then don’t do it, the script is not very good!