Match Cut Directors Consensus -- Kenneth Branagh

[Ezee E]

Best looking director?

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/Images/KennethBranagh.jpg


-Henry V
-Dead Again
-Swan Song
-Peter's Friends
-Much Ado About Nothing
-Frankenstein
-In the Bleak Midwinter
-Hamlet
-Love Labour's Lost
-Listening
-As You Like It
-The Magic Flute
-Sleuth

[dreamdead]

Henry V - 8
Dead Again - 7.5
Much Ado About Nothing - 7.5
Hamlet - 9

[EyesWideOpen]

Hamlet - 6

[Raiders]

Henry V (1989) 8.0
Dead Again (1991) 9.0
Much Ado About Nothing (1993) 6.5
Frankenstein (1994) 7.0
Hamlet (1996) 8.0
As You Like It (2006) 5.0

[Mara]

Best looking director?

He doesn't have any lips. Attractive men have lips.

Henry V: 8
Dead Again: 8.5
Much Ado About Nothing: 7.5
Frankenstein: 1
Hamlet: 5.5
Love Labour's Lost: 4 (An interesting failure.)

[Qrazy]

He doesn't have any lips. Attractive men have lips.


http://sindydix.com/BIG%20lips.JPG

Kiss me beautiful.

[Spinal]

Henry V - 10
Dead Again - 8.5
Peter's Friends - 7
Much Ado About Nothing - 8
Frankenstein - 7.5
A Midwinter's Tale - 7
Hamlet - 9

[Mysterious Dude]

Henry V - 5.5


Best looking director?
I thought Pasolini was quite handsome, actually.

[Melville]

Dead Again - 8
Hamlet - 4.5

[chrisnu]

Sleuth - 7.5

Yeah. I should get onto seeing more of his films.

[Stay Puft]

Hamlet - 4

[Spinal]

OK, seriously, what the hell.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hm. The only film of his I've seen is Frankenstein, and I hated it. I was only 15 though, so I'm going to abstain.

[Mara]

I thought Pasolini was quite handsome, actually.

Bryan Singer is the best-looking director, but I'm not getting into that again.

[Raiders]

OK, seriously, what the hell.

Indeed. I'm baffled.

[thefourthwall]

Henry V - 9
Dead Again - 10
Much Ado About Nothing - 9.5
Frankenstein - 7
Hamlet - 8.5
Love's Labour's Lost - 6.5
Sleuth - 8

Going to try to get to Peter's Friends and/or As You Like It this week. Too bad that not all of his films are available. The Magic Flute looks pretty awesome.

I'm never quite sure what went wrong with Love's Labour's Lost--the concept is great, Branagh knows how to do Shakespeare, the cast is good the film is pretty...but the total ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

[dreamdead]

Dead Again is certainly interesting as a take on the Hitchcockian genre of psychological thrillers, and it is always more than competently directed, but something during the film's climax rings false and overly operatic. Certainly the ending can shoot for that overdone angle as it's all about tortured artists anyway, but Branagh runs the slow-motion into the ground and becomes parodic. Yet the central plot twist regarding Frankie is quite masterful, and it's interesting to see a film more or less debunk Hitchcock's dependence on Freudian psychoanalysis, as both Derek Jacobi and Robin Williams' characters offer misguided advice. That kind of technique is fascinating to me. And Thompson and Branagh are delicious in this, as they always are when they work together. Though Branagh goes for the aesthetic climax, I feel that's the film's biggest weakness.

I think Henry V might be his most consistent work, but treasure some of the individual moments in Hamlet too much to not privilege it...

[jenniferofthejungle]

Henry V - 8
Dead Again - 7
Peter's Friends - 6
Much Ado About Nothing - 8.5
Frankenstein - 5
Hamlet - 9

[Yxklyx]

Henry V - 8
Dead Again - 5
In the Bleak Midwinter - 5
Hamlet - 8

[Weeping_Guitar]

Dead Again - 7
Much Ado About Nothing - 8.5
Sleuth - 6

[BuffaloWilder]

Frankenstein deserves an eight, at least.

Frankenstein - 8.1

[Mara]

I'm never quite sure what went wrong with Love's Labour's Lost--the concept is great, Branagh knows how to do Shakespeare, the cast is good the film is pretty...but the total ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

I can't help thinking it was badly miscast. If they'd used actual, talented singers and dancers, it could have been really interesting. Nathan Lane was pretty great. But Alicia Silverstone? Matthew Lillard? Really?

[Mara]

I hate hate HATE the book of Frankenstein. This is a profound secret, because I always get crap for it.

[thefourthwall]

I can't help thinking it was badly miscast. If they'd used actual, talented singers and dancers, it could have been really interesting. Nathan Lane was pretty great. But Alicia Silverstone? Matthew Lillard? Really?

I can see that...although I recall enjoying Alessandro Nivola though that may have something to do with his ability to wear a white, ribbed, tank, but Branagh himself was way too old for the part he played.

[Mara]

Branagh himself was way too old for the part he played.

This was my main problem with is Hamlet, as well.

Alessandro Nivola is hot. He needs to be in more stuff.

Just checked imdb. I guess he just needs to pick better projects.

[Raiders]

This was my main problem with is Hamlet, as well.

He was 35. Hamlet is 30. Not really a big stretch.

[Mara]

He was 35. Hamlet is 30. Not really a big stretch.

Hmmm... googling says that many people agree with you. I had always assumed by the first couple of scenes, where they talk about his youth and the fact that he is in school, that he was about 20.

[Spinal]

Laurence Olivier was 40 when he made his film version of Hamlet.

[Mara]

Laurence Olivier was 40 when he made his film version of Hamlet.

Not wild about this one either.

Actually, I haven't seen a film version of Hamlet that was really terrific. I liked Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia in Zeffirelli's version, though.

I might actually say that Stoppard's film version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is better than all three Hamlets.

[Fezzik]

Henry V - 10
Dead Again - 9.5
Peter's Friends - 7
Much Ado About Nothing - 8.5
Frankenstein - 6.5
Hamlet - 9

I think Dead Again is one of the more criminally underseen movies of the 1980s. One movie I do not own on DVD and really should pick up.

And Branagh' pulled off Hamlet well. His monologue at the beginning of the film (after the wedding) is one of his better acting moments, in my opinion, and the supporting cast, though weird at times (Jack Lemmon, Robin Williams) was pretty damn nice. Seeing Heston as the Player King made my head explode from the awesome.

[Melville]

I hate hate HATE the book of Frankenstein.
Why?

I thought Olivier's Hamlet rocked pretty hard, despite the fact that he looked almost as old as his mother. (And he was actually older than the actress playing her, right?)

[Ezee E]

Hamlet's length worries me. Was that really in the theaters?

[Rowland]

As You Like It - 4.0

[Mara]

Why?

I don't think Shelley is a very talented writer, for one thing. And the novel doesn't seem to follow any kind of interior logic, which makes it tricky to believe in it. And the monster's transformation into a well-spoken and educated creature is ridiculous. It's one of those novels where the idea is much more interesting than the execution.

See also: Robinson Crusoe and Tarzan.

[Mysterious Dude]

Frankenstein is just about the best book I've ever read.

I like that the monster has a voice. It is quite rare in "monster" stories.

[Qrazy]

And the novel doesn't seem to follow any kind of interior logic.

?

[Mara]

?

.

EDIT: I'm going to try and rise above and use my words. In works of supernatural fiction, we as readers are asked to believe things that are impossible or nonsensical (a potion can split your personality in two, the undead feed upon blood, the full moon turns a man into a wolf, etc.) Despite Aristotle's feelings on the subject, we can handle this, as long as the supernatural aspects comes with its own set of rules, and then follows them. If we've been told that you can only kill a werewolf with a silver bullet, the story can't end with a werewolf killed in a fire.

Shelley, on the other hand, doesn't seem to come up with any sort of logical framework for her monster. It says and does and behaves in whatever way is most convenient for the story at the moment. I didn't buy the story for one split second, despite the fact that I really wanted to.

[Qrazy]

.

EDIT: I'm going to try and rise above and use my words. In works of supernatural fiction, we as readers are asked to believe things that are impossible or nonsensical (a potion can split your personality in two, the undead feed upon blood, the full moon turns a man into a wolf, etc.) Despite Aristotle's feelings on the subject, we can handle this, as long as the supernatural aspects comes with its own set of rules, and then follows them. If we've been told that you can only kill a werewolf with a silver bullet, the story can't end with a werewolf killed in a fire.

Shelley, on the other hand, doesn't seem to come up with any sort of logical framework for her monster. It says and does and behaves in whatever way is most convenient for the story at the moment. I didn't buy the story for one split second, despite the fact that I really wanted to.

My question mark was asking you to clarify where you feel the story contradicts itself.

[Mara]

My question mark was asking you to clarify where you feel the story contradicts itself.

See? I need words. :lol:

I'd have to pick up the book again to find specific examples. I mostly remember my response to it. I was listening to the book on CD, while commuting, and I found the book so frustrating that it was actually affecting my driving. I had to check it out of the library just to finish it, and the only reason I checked it out at all was to see if it got any better.

[Qrazy]

See? I need words. :lol:

I'd have to pick up the book again to find specific examples. I mostly remember my response to it. I was listening to the book on CD, while commuting, and I found the book so frustrating that it was actually affecting my driving. I had to check it out of the library just to finish it, and the only reason I checked it out at all was to see if it got any better.

Shucks. In that case I'll take the creature's education as your primary complaint for this inconsistency. I remember there being a major time jump though and the monster taking over a year to learn these things so I'm not sure why you find this inconsistent. It's very different from the film adaptations but I prefer the relationship between the creator and the monster in this story. Giving the monster the capacity for self-awareness, speech and rational thought adds a level of complexity and intimacy to the relationship which could not be attained otherwise.

In terms of the writing...

"For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."

...This to me is an excellent metaphor for the pitfalls of creation.

[thefourthwall]

Hamlet's length worries me. Was that really in the theaters?

Yes. I was a sophomore in high school and made my mom drive almost an hour to take me to the closest theater showing it and then watch it with me. But there was an intermission so--and I quote Branagh himself on this--you could "go to the loo."

[Melville]

I read it like fifteen years ago, so I can't say anything about internal inconsistencies or the quality of the prose (though I like the sentence that Qrazy posted), but I think making the monster into a kind of Romantic hero elevated the book by quite a lot. It certainly seemed a lot more interesting than the grunting monster from Whale's movie; it expanded the premise onto more levels, making it not only about the folly of hubris and science run amok, but also about humanity's own fears and relationship with itself, the world around it, God, and the unknown.

[Spinal]

Catching up ...

I also saw Hamlet in the cinema. Drove an hour-and-a-half to do so. It was lots of fun.

I agree with Mara. I don't hate Frankenstein, but I don't think it's a very good book. I think it's popularity has more to do with the novel subject matter than it does the execution. It's no Dracula. That said, I think Branagh did a great job with it.

I have Sleuth coming from Netflix and will likely watch it before this thread closes.

[Melville]

It's no Dracula.
Oh, I hated that book. Or rather, I think it fell apart toward the end. The whole mood of the book kind of evaporated, and it felt like none of the plot developments led to anything. Plus, I hated that some random chump with a machete could take on Dracula.

[Raiders]

I'm with Spinal. As far as epistolaries go, Dracula is far superior.

[Qrazy]

Clearly we are in need of more Frankenstein quotations:

"You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been."

"Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world."

"The moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places."

"It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open."

"Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest sensations I can remember."

"There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery."

[Mysterious Dude]

"You are in the wrong," replied the fiend; "and, instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable; am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces, and triumph; remember that, and tell me why I should pity man more than he pities me? You would not call it murder, if you could precipitate me into one of those ice-rifts, and destroy my frame, the work of your own hands. Shall I respect man, when he contemns me? Let him live with me in the interchange of kindness, and, instead of injury, I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears of gratitude at his acceptance. But that cannot be; the human senses are insurmountable barriers to our union. Yet mine shall not be the submission of abject slavery. I will revenge my injuries: if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear; and chiefly towards you my arch-enemy, because my creator, do I swear inextinguishable hatred. Have a care: I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you curse the hour of your birth."

[Mara]

I'm with Spinal. As far as epistolaries go, Dracula is far superior.

Dracula is good times. Not a pinnacle of literature or anything, but plenty of fun.

[Grouchy]

While both are very fun reads, Frankenstein is clearly the better novel. Dracula, as Melville says, is anti-climatic, and it also feels less aware of the implications that critics later read into it. Instead, Shelley clearly knows what she's doing - she's writing a metaphor for mankind and its relationship with the creator. Plus, the fragments being quoted are great writing on themeslves.

I don't understand where Frankenstein lacks in logic. The monster's learning is in fact clearly detailed. And plus, one far-fetched detail doesn't really lessen the book that much. Please someone point me to another example of this.

[Qrazy]

While both are very fun reads, Frankenstein is clearly the better novel. Dracula, as Melville says, is anti-climatic, and it also feels less aware of the implications that critics later read into it. Instead, Shelley clearly knows what she's doing - she's writing a metaphor for mankind and its relationship with the creator. Plus, the fragments being quoted are great writing on themeslves.

I don't understand where Frankenstein lacks in logic. The monster's learning is in fact clearly detailed. And plus, one far-fetched detail doesn't really lessen the book that much. Please someone point me to another example of this.

Yeah it's learning is detailed and it also has a human brain so there's no reason it shouldn't be capable of learning although there is some minor suspension of disbelief because it was not rigorously schooled.

[Mara]

I don't understand where Frankenstein lacks in logic. The monster's learning is in fact clearly detailed. And plus, one far-fetched detail doesn't really lessen the book that much. Please someone point me to another example of this.

Well, I'd have to read the book again to remember, and I'm not sticking that bean up my nose twice.

And, I'm sorry, because I can tell you guys picked quotes that mean something to you, but I find Shelley's prose turgid. Personally, I think the fact that Dracula is less ambitious works in its favor, because it has less to fail at.

[BuffaloWilder]

Has the laughing gas been going around? While I don't agree with Mara in that Frankenstein is pretty deserving of it's status, Dracula is a better novel if only because Stoker had experience, beforehand. Shelley does get better as she goes on, particularly in "The Last Man."

And, to offer a counter-claim:

"What I saw was the Count's head coming out from the window. I did not see the face, but I knew the man by the neck and the movement of his back and arms. In any case I could not mistake the hands which I had had some many opportunities of studying. I was at first interested and somewhat amused, for it is wonderful how small a matter will interest and amuse a man when he is a prisoner. But my very feelings changed to repulsion and terror when I saw the whole man slowly emerge from the window and begin to crawl down the castle wall over the dreadful abyss, face down with his cloak spreading out around him like great wings. At first I could not believe my eyes. I thought it was some trick of the moonlight, some weird effect of shadow, but I kept looking, and it could be no delusion. I saw the fingers and toes grasp the corners of the stones, worn clear of the mortar by the stress of years, and by thus using every projection and inequality move downwards with considerable speed, just as a lizard moves along a wall.
What manner of man is this, or what manner of creature, is it in the semblance of man? I feel the dread of this horrible place overpowering me. I am in fear, in awful fear, and there is no escape for me. I am encompassed about with terrors that I dare not think of."

[Grouchy]

Has the laughing gas been going around? While I don't agree with Mara in that Frankenstein is pretty deserving of it's status, Dracula is a better novel if only because Stoker had experience, beforehand. Shelley does get better as she goes on, particularly in "The Last Man."
Nah, you're short-handing Shelley. That Frankenstein was her first novel is, in fact, more indicative of her huge talent than her inexperience.

[BuffaloWilder]

Nah, you're short-handing Shelley. That Frankenstein was her first novel is, in fact, more indicative of her huge talent than her inexperience.

It's a great novel, there's no argument there. But, there is an over-reliance on improbable coincidence, at times. Doesn't take away too much from it, but here and there. Also, it's always gotten me that Frankenstein's creation tells him, "I'll be with you on your wedding night" and what's the next thing he does?


I'll also venture to disagree that Stoker wasn't conscious of the subtexts that would be read into his story,

[Grouchy]

It's a great novel, there's no argument there. But, there is an over-reliance on improbable coincidence, at times. Doesn't take away too much from it, but here and there. Also, it's always gotten me that Frankenstein's creation tells him, "I'll be with you on your wedding night" and what's the next thing he does?


I'll also venture to disagree that Stoker wasn't conscious of the subtexts that would be read into his story,
I'll grant you that the plot depends on one too many coincidences. True that. As for the wedding thing, yeah, I don't remember the exact scenes, but I was always under the impression that Victor was a bit of a stuck-up moron in how he dealt (or failed to deal) with the monster's demands.

About Stoker, well, it's a bit of a moot discussion, since we can't ask him, but I mentioned it because I think some readings of the novel depend more on the time it was written in (change of the century) than in the author's intentions.

By the way, I haven't read anything else by Shelley and only one other Stoker - Jewel of Seven Stars - which was pretty cool.

[BuffaloWilder]

About Stoker, well, it's a bit of a moot discussion, since we can't ask him, but I mentioned it because I think some readings of the novel depend more on the time it was written in (change of the century) than in the author's intentions.

Most of them do, that's true - really, reading the contemporary reviews from back then, the overwhelming consensus was that the novel was about the triumph of the "new over old," new (at the time) technology working against this medieval Count. Which really holds a lot more water, for me, than any of the later-written Freudian interpretations.


By the way, I haven't read anything else by Shelley and only one other Stoker - Jewel of Seven Stars - which was pretty cool.

I've read "Lair of the White Worm" by Stoker, and "The Last Man" from Shelley - which shows her having improved quite a bit. It's a lot like "I Am Legend," in a couple of ways.

[Spinal]

Adding:

Sleuth - 6

I sort of liked this actually in spite of the script which starts out strong and then kind of fizzles out towards the end. The direction, camerawork, art direction and acting are all strong.

[Qrazy]

Adding:

Sleuth - 7

I liked this actually in spite of the script which starts out strong and then kind of fizzles out towards the end. The direction, camerawork, art direction and acting are all strong enough for me to give it a positive score.

Have you seen the original? I liked it a lot.

[Spinal]

Have you seen the original? I liked it a lot.

I haven't. Definitely want to now.

I should amend my earlier statement about the screenplay by saying that I really enjoyed the dialogue. I just wasn't crazy about the scenario.

[Mara]

Have you seen the original? I liked it a lot.

Ditto. Some of the twists were painfully obvious, but the two actors played off each other extremely well.

I didn't see the remake.

[Dukefrukem]

Hamlet - 5.5

[soitgoes...]

Dead Again (1991) - 7.0
Frankenstein (1994) - 3.5
Hamlet (1996) - 9.5

[Qrazy]

I haven't. Definitely want to now.

I should amend my earlier statement about the screenplay by saying that I really enjoyed the dialogue. I just wasn't crazy about the scenario.

I haven't seen Branagh's either, I wonder how similar they are. I'm guessing fairly similar.

[Sven]

I haven't seen Branagh's either, I wonder how similar they are. I'm guessing fairly similar.

They are similar only in plot points. The style/dialogue/design/effect couldn't be more different.

Was not a fan of Brannagh's.

[Qrazy]

They are similar only in plot points. The style/dialogue/design/effect couldn't be more different.

Was not a fan of Brannagh's.

Ahh, so you liked the original too then?

[Sven]

Ahh, so you liked the original too then?

Love it. One of my favorites.

[Qrazy]

Love it. One of my favorites.

Yeah, it really packs a punch by the end.

[Spinal]

Yeah, I think I was being a little generous. Edited.

[Sven]

Yeah, I think I was being a little generous. Edited.

My estimation got progressively worse as well. For me it went from about two stars to about one. I like him, but Jude Law is no Michael Caine. Plus, the manor that looked like an iPod was a bit ridiculous.

[Ezee E]

RESULTS:
1. Henry V - 8.28 (9)
2. Much Ado About Nothing - 8.06 (8)
3. Dead Again - 7.91 (11)
4. Hamlet - 7.35 (13)
5. Sleuth - 6.88 (4)
6. Frankenstein - 5.69 (8)

-Peter's Friends - 6.67 (3)
-A Midwinter's Tale - 6 (2)
-Love Labour's Lost - 6.25 (2)
-As You Like It - 4.25 (2)

= 7.44

Still in shock, but Branagh champ: Oregon State guy

[Spinal]

-A Midwinter's Tale - 7 (1)
-In The Bleak Midwinter - 5 (1)


Different title. Same film.

[Ezee E]

Different title. Same film.
Thanks.

[EyesWideOpen]

Thanks.

-A Midwriter's Tale - 6 (2)


You've almost got it.