Completely agree: casting of the new version seems to be all over the place (while the 1967 version was a formidable example of dreamy casting, with Julie Christie, unforgettable as the centerpiece of the story, surrounded by the most fascinating Terence Stamp ever saw on screen, by a solid Peter Finch, and last, but not least, by a pitch perfect Alan Bates). The new movie altogether does not seem to add up anything at all! It almost looks bland, despite its lavish cinematography, which regardlessly cannot stand up against the 1967 Nicolas Roeg's one, which was another truly little masterpiece on its own, with many unforgettable master shots, opposed to roaring close up's, rich in contrast, and with an unique palette of pastel colors capable to become menacing, or stunningly romantic, when needed. It was (then) such an innovative element, capable, quite provokingly, to mix with enormous taste, classic period elements, combined with much deeper, dramatic, almost gloomy, realistic lights, including of course shots and atmospheres, truly becoming another great achievement for maestro Roeg, and, also a sizzling evidence of the greater culture people were breathing back then in the 1960's, when even huge movies such as "Far From the Madding Crowd" were exquisitely personal, not only grand.
reply
share