![]() ![]() The book and some of its adaptations had those in abundance whereas this version plays with it as a tool to build the tension and move the characters' growth towards one another and help them overcome their own personal affairs - the book's approach was a lot different and offered many more locations, times to feel the places, had sense of urgency, had Fogg's immense knowledge of geography, his pedantry. What does however is the lack of adventures per se. The costumes and atmosphere are pretty accurate as well I caught myself checking this and that event in the series and can tell for sure that there's nothing wrong with historical accuracies in here - well maybe Passepartout's skin color and the relationship towards him is a bit far-fetched and too 21st century at times but it doesn't spoil the narrative. The main musical theme and overall soundtrack are amazing and is easily remembered from the get-go and you would not be able to let it go for a while there. Phileas Fogg, played stupendously by maestro David Tennant, is naturally the highlight of the story, full of regrets of the past haunting him every day until he finally meets face to face with them and becomes the better man his performance is at times overshadowed though by his two companions - Passepartout and Abigail Fix - played by Ibrahim Koma and Leonie Benesch respectively - who have the lives and struggles of their own and this journey of 80 days they took together opened them up perfectly to the viewer and made us empathize and care for each of them a great deal. I've read Verne's novel multiple times and watched its many adaptations over the years but this one is the most creative because it relies only slightly on the source material, leaves the most amount of pure adventures and discovering the world behind in favor of interpersonal drama of the main protagonists. Some good elements in the mix, it looks good (even if I did have to look for the brightness setting on the TV for the first ever time,) but it just lacked any real thrills. I thought the acting was terrific, Tennant never disappoints. The positives, first on the list, the visuals, it is beautifully made and produced, production values are sublime, the clothes and location work are pretty jaw dropping. ![]() Pacing initially though is the real stumbling block. I may well get captivated later on, it may move out of first gear, and I hope it does. In the book you can feel the tension, the excitement, this had the thrills of people sat in a Dentist's waiting room. Lifeless, it pains me to say it, because I am a massive fan of David Tennant, but having watched the first few episodes, that's the first word that sprang to mind. Read the book, please read the books and you will be drawn into the most exciting, magical, bright story imaginable, and then watch this series. For casual viewers with no attachment to the author, this will simply be a tedious mess. For fans of Jules Verne, this series will be an insult to his creations. While the costumes, set design, and cinematography are all well done, they end up being so much lipstick on a pig. There are of course also the requisite race and gender swapping of characters to a degree that they pull you out of both the story and the historical context of Verne's work. The idea that his valet and the widow Aouda would remain with this version of Fogg also rings false. This change is doubly devastating to the story because, in addition to being an affront to Verne's work, the alterations to Fogg make him a thoroughly unlikable protagonist. Instead of a determined gentleman who succeeds through sheer force of will, this Phileas Fogg is a moron who stumbles around having his companions babysit him. ![]() Instead, it deconstructs the main character until he bares no resemblance to the original. It adds no humor or pathos, as other retellings have. Are they unable to find a story by an author they do not despise? Are they completely incapable of creating original works? Are they intentionally selecting beloved tales expressly so they can denigrate them? Whatever the reason, this iteration of Jules Verne's classic tale departs from the novel in a manner that does not improve upon the story in any meaningful way. Why the entertainment industry insists on making shows and movies based on intellectual properties they clearly revile is a mystery. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |