Do you not think that Gary Oldman modelled his performance on the book? Much like Alec Guiness did.
Now i'm no expert but something tells me that when actors play a character from the same literary source there will inevitably be similarities :rolleyes:
I've read a few comments saying Gary Oldman just copies Alec Guiness etc etc but come on lets be honest, if Gary Oldman played him any other way than what he does you would all be saying "it's rubbish, he's nothing like Alec Guiness".
There's no pleasing some people.
Gary Oldman's acting was clearly from the Motionless, Expressionless and Freeze Frame School of Acting. I lost count of the times I thought that the film had jammed in the cinema projector.
Gary Oldman's acting was clearly from the Motionless, Expressionless and Freeze Frame School of Acting. I lost count of the times I thought that the film had jammed in the cinema projector.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I would take TTSS over something like the Mission Impossible films (which I also enjoy) any day of the week.
Was I complaining? NO. Guinness was superb, Oldman was too.
Try reading my first post before using the rolleyes smiley.
Did i actually say you were complaing? NO, so try re-reading my post.
Your original post gives no indication of how you felt about Oldmans actual performance in terms of acting skill or style - you just say you think it was modelled on Guiness's which reads as though that's all you have to say about it.
I saw it this week. It is an engaging film, with some flaws. A lot of the plot is left out, rare that a film could be made better by being longer, but in this case I think it would.
Some of the changes to the story I thought were strange. I couldn't understand why the film makers did them.
I am looking forward to the proposed sequels(Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley's People).
I saw it this week. It is an engaging film, with some flaws. A lot of the plot is left out, rare that a film could be made better by being longer, but in this case I think it would.
Some of the changes to the story I thought were strange. I couldn't understand why the film makers did them.
I am looking forward to the proposed sequels(Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley's People).
... I was talking to someone today about the film, and he really didn't enjoy it ... strangely, since he'd not read the book, it appeared that all of the issues & inconsistencies that annoyed him were the bits that had been changed from the original book ... while I appreciate there had to be changes to fit it into a film maybe they really weren't well thought out enough to really fit with the rest of the story ...
... I was talking to someone today about the film, and he really didn't enjoy it ... strangely, since he'd not read the book, it appeared that all of the issues & inconsistencies that annoyed him were the bits that had been changed from the original book ... while I appreciate there had to be changes to fit it into a film maybe they really weren't well thought out enough to really fit with the rest of the story ...
Yeah, that is a good point and probably fits in with my criticisms of the film. It is still a good film and okay you can't take a 600 page book and shove it into a 2 hours film format, without some things being changed, but the changes that were made to some of the characters I didn't understand. For instance :
Guillam being a homosexual in this version. Why? In the book and TV series, he is a bit of a ladies' man.
I did however like the
Xmas party scenes
which were added to the film. Apparently, they are based on real life(Le Carré said so himself).
I just got back from watching this and I can't say I thought much of it at all. It looked well made but I just didn't care what happened. I was looking for twists and turn that just werent there.
I saw this yesterday. I haven't read the novel or seen the TV series so obviously had no idea of the plot beyond a retired spy trying to find a mole in MI6. I did find it quite hard to follow at times and think it could've done with a bit more signposting (from the perspective of someone who didn't know much about the story) although I got the gist of it in the end. Others in this thread have also commented on the slightly underdeveloped characters - am guessing there is more context about the various relationships in the novel/TV series.
Obviously it was a slow burn where often facial expressions and silences are used instead of dialogue. Maybe that could be partly due to the Scandinavian director; cf. Forbrydelsen (The Killing) which I adore. This may touch on something about the Scandi mentality - perhaps a certain taciturnity. The film also managed to evoke the dreary world steeped in paranoia that the spies inhabit. Overall it was fairly enjoyable - not sure I'd be tempted to watch it again although I understand that could be useful to bring out more of the subtleties etc that I missed at first.
Yeah, that is a good point and probably fits in with my criticisms of the film. It is still a good film and okay you can't take a 600 page book and shove it into a 2 hours film format, without some things being changed, but the changes that were made to some of the characters I didn't understand. For instance :
Guillam being a homosexual in this version. Why? In the book and TV series, he is a bit of a ladies' man.
I did however like the
Xmas party scenes
which were added to the film. Apparently, they are based on real life(Le Carré said so himself).
... as far as Guillam was concerned
I think the switch from him being a ladies man, to being Gay was just a shorthand way of showing him unravelling as he was spying on the spies ... in the book as time went by, there was quite a lot of his paranoia about the girl he was dating, so it was easier to switch it to a single scene if they made him gay ... it didn't really work for me either ... especially given the importance of the Prideux Haydon relationship ... I guess the party was another shorthand way of showing Prideux being spurned for Ann ... and also given that Smiley & Ann were much more middle class in the film than the book, Ann was more likely to flaunt it at a christmas party, so Bill could easily make sure the whole circus knew they were together ... in the book I got the impression that although ann had enjoyed a whole series of flings Bill was the one she was really ashamed of as she knew she was being used, although maybe didn't realise he was a mole ...
Comments
Gary Oldman's acting was clearly from the Motionless, Expressionless and Freeze Frame School of Acting. I lost count of the times I thought that the film had jammed in the cinema projector.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I would take TTSS over something like the Mission Impossible films (which I also enjoy) any day of the week.
Anyone going to see The Debt?
Did i actually say you were complaing? NO, so try re-reading my post.
Your original post gives no indication of how you felt about Oldmans actual performance in terms of acting skill or style - you just say you think it was modelled on Guiness's which reads as though that's all you have to say about it.
Some of the changes to the story I thought were strange. I couldn't understand why the film makers did them.
I am looking forward to the proposed sequels(Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley's People).
Yeah, that is a good point and probably fits in with my criticisms of the film. It is still a good film and okay you can't take a 600 page book and shove it into a 2 hours film format, without some things being changed, but the changes that were made to some of the characters I didn't understand. For instance :
Glad some enjoyed it, but not my cup of tea.
Obviously it was a slow burn where often facial expressions and silences are used instead of dialogue. Maybe that could be partly due to the Scandinavian director; cf. Forbrydelsen (The Killing) which I adore. This may touch on something about the Scandi mentality - perhaps a certain taciturnity. The film also managed to evoke the dreary world steeped in paranoia that the spies inhabit. Overall it was fairly enjoyable - not sure I'd be tempted to watch it again although I understand that could be useful to bring out more of the subtleties etc that I missed at first.
... as far as Guillam was concerned