Just curious. I haven't seen the film but loved the series.
I hate the recent remake culture there is at the moment, but there always seems to be someone who prefers the remake to the original (not me).
The film is good but the original series is certainly better, the film just doesn't have the length or depth to compare to the masterpiece that was the TV series.
shareI don't prefer it, however, Downey Jr does put in a good effort. It's no Disney movie but the ending is a tad sugar-coated (but only in comparison to the series) and they use 50s pop rather than 40s jazz, though you could certainly argue the choice of music was for ironic effect. I've heard some fans of the series say they were disappointed with it. But I look at it as something fairly different, because even though it's pretty faithful apart from the obvious differences, fitting such content into a film as opposed to a television series produces a very different result. The film's probably a tad jumbled and overcrowded as opposed to the pacing of the series.
shareI have mentioned this in more detail in another thread, but would say here that the script for the film was written by Potter, as was the series. For the film Potter himself changed the location to the US and chose the music - using tunes from the 50's (except for conway twitties 'only make believe' which replace Potter's choice of Bluberry Hill because they couldn't get the rights). And yes, Potter wrote that happier ending too. I found both great pieces of Potter's craft at writing... they are just different mediums.
shareI know Potter is credited with the script but he did die in 1994 so let's not blame any failings of the movie on him!
shareI don't prefer it, however, Downey Jr does put in a good effort. It's no Disney movie but the ending is a tad sugar-coated (but only in comparison to the series)
The ending is exactly the same, isn't it? How is it different?
the ending is a tad sugar-coated (but only in comparison to the series)
Huh? The ending is the same.
Until reading the reviews on Rottentomatoes.com i didn't even realize the film was based on anything. and from the general concensus of reviews it seems to be if you have seen the original you won't like the remake and if you haven't, there's a good chance you will like the film alot. i know i do, i can't stand musicals, not on the stage, not in movies, not when the simpsons or family guy does them, but i love this movie. both for it's dark humor which downey plays so well and for the noirish psychodrama that unfolds as the charactor comes to grips with what's in his head. also probably katie holmes' crowning achievement, as far as acting is concerned.
shareI prefer Downey to Gambon, who I find incredibly repellent. Downey did seem a bit too young for all the rage and nostalgia though, he must have been about 39 when he did the movie.
shareYou find Gambin repellent? I am the opposite, I love watching him, I find him fascinating. I love grumpy old men, I also like Warren Clarke too.
shareI loved the MOVIE!!! it was like shoulda' been academy awarded!... it might possibly be the greatest movie in the history of cinema!! Like really ! The mini series was good too, I would put it in my top 20 right behind Mr. Ed and in front of My Mother the Car!
shareUm, I think the idea of Gambon's character in The Singing Detective was that he was supposed to be incredibly repellent!
Didn't get that, no? Nuance is going out of fashion isn't it!
I" ve seen the bbc version twice here on the dutch t.v.
It was and is still great. The american version is very simple and so I was extremely disapointed.
Ok, after finally forcing myself to watch it, the same nagging thought kept popping into my mind: Why? Yes, why was the film made at all? Mel Gibson claims that he's honoured the intentions of Dennis Potter, by shrinking the length of the original and setting it in America. Whatever, all this movie succeeds in doing is tainting the reputation of the greatest television drama ever made.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
You do know that the short script, set in America, was written by Potter, right?
We don't have to suffer, we're the best batch yet.
Yeh, although I realise now I probably gave the impression that I didn't. That said, I just think the cast (not least, the mystifyingly popular Downey Jr.) were out of their depth. In short: too much pretending, not enough acting.
P.S. There was also a rather massive technical problem: the make-up was woefully inadequate.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
Gibson's makeup was pretty awful, but I thought Downey and Penn were great.
We don't have to suffer, we're the best batch yet.
The original with Gambon is aces. This movie pales when comapred to the original British version.
Saying that, the 2003 movie is good and can stand by itself which is a tribute to Potters inventive story
Here's a great piece about Potter in NY Times Nov 13, 1988;
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA173FF930A25752C1A96E948260
I LOVE the series. Finally got around to see the movie. It's just OK, disappointing really.
Nurse Mills in the BBC version was sexier, Kathy Holmes is just a sweet girl, nothing major there. Mel Gibson looked so fake as the doctor.
The hallucinations of Philip Marlow (Dark in the american version) are way better.
Mark Vinnie's character is not very well explained as well as the relationship with Nicola.
And they left out all the school scenes! that was also a very important part of the story in the BBC series. The teacher was terrifying, she reminded me of the nuns at the Catholic school!.
There's a lot missing in the relationship between Philip's. In the movie, the mum just becomes a prostitute, no mention of her living with her parents.
I know is hard to squeez 6 hour series into 120 minutes, but this is another example of Hollywoood ruining a perfect story.
[deleted]
I definitely prefer the film over the series. In the nearly 7 hour running time nearly 3 hours of it are wasted with the bitching fellow patient and all the scenes with him as a child. He's got Mommy issues - that's all we need to know. We don't need to see hours of why he has them. It's easy to see why when Potter got the chance to redo it as a theatrical movie he eliminated almost all of those parts.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
He's got Mommy issues - that's all we need to know. We don't need to see hours of why he has them.
I also really get annoyed at the remake trends, but bottom line, I did enjoy this movie. It's probably not for everyone, but I applaud them for being different. I followed the character, feeling both sympathy and disgust, which is hard to pull off. And the "Three Steps to Heaven" scene was genuinely inspirational. In general, I was surprised at how well the classic pop songs carried the narrative. I'm used to Broadway attempting this and failing miserably, lol.
"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."