Great Expectations Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Let desire be your destiny.
An American update of the Dickens novel set on Florida's Gulf Coast and in the 1980's SoHo art world. Character's names have been changed from the source novel.
| Ethan Hawke | Finnegan Bell |
| Gwyneth Paltrow | Estella |
| Hank Azaria | Walter Plane |
| Chris Cooper | Joe |
| Anne Bancroft | Ms. Dinsmoor |
| Robert De Niro | Prisoner, Lustig |
| Josh Mostel | Jerry Ragno |
| Kim Dickens | Maggie |
| Nell Campbell | Erica Thrall |
| Gabriel Mann | Owen |
| Jeremy James Kissner | Finnegan at Age 10 |
| Raquel Beaudene | Estella - Age 10 |
| Stephen Spinella | Carter Macleish |
| Marla Sucharetza | Ruth Shepard |
| Alfonso Cuarón |
6.50 out of 10 (18901 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A pity
posted on 03 Aug 2009The horrible thing about this film is that it is a waste of good talent. One of those films that could have been something but wasn't. I think the problem here was the story. I read the novel for English class earlier this year and I did not like it, but this movie gave me a new appreciation of it. The adaptation is incredibly loose, with countless drastic changes made. The themes of the book fall through the cracks- the prodigal son idea is totally lost in favor of a love story between Pip (renamed Finn for no good reason) and Estella. Estella is unevenly characterized, at times she is as heartless as she is in the book, but usually it seems we are supposed to like her , and want Pip to win her. I suppose it is impossible in Hollywood today to have a female lead who is unworthy of love. The other characters are also unrecognizable... Joe and Pip are not ever the best of friends but they "barely spoke." (which makes the scene where pip is embarrassed by Joe so much less poignant). Mrs. Joe doesn't beat anyone, she apparently just sleeps around. These changes cheapen the drama significantly. It would be a really lousy film if it weren't so carefully directed and beautifully shot. The entire film was visually stunning, and the director chose to shoot the action in the best possible way, and the cinematography and lighting was frequently breathtaking. The acting was also as good as it could be with the underwritten characters. Imagine what could have been if only the story wasn't so ridiculous! It could have been an excellent film, but as is it barely is a fair one.
Slow, but intense retelling doesn't quite work
posted on 28 Jun 2009This intense retelling of Dickens' classic was always going to struggle to escape the shadow of David Lean's classic black and white version, featuring that highly memorable opening scene between Pip and Magwitch. That the Magwitch role has been given to Robert DeNiro is typical of this film's ambition; that he is nothing like as scary as Finlay Currie in the original is symbolic of this version's failure to quite overcome the obstacles put in its way. Adding some raunchiness and colour to the story helps, the modern, swampy southern US setting works out OK, even having Miss Haversham transform into a ditzy grand old dame isn't too bad, and the cast is passable throughout. Somehow, though, it just isn't quite there, the story really needs the social structure it satirizes to hold everything together. The admittedly class-ridden society of the modern US is a far simpler structure, one of extreme wealth looking down on extreme poverty, without the added difficulty of ancient breeding structures to overcome. Dickens' Pip could never truly escape his squalid upbringing, as Ethan Hawke does here; modern society could have no problem with him winning his Estella. What it all boils down to is a sad story about a poor kid who gets caught up with a rich tease, with added incidental odds and ends tagged on around, lacking the epic sweep, societal critique and flowing unity of the novel.
Great film
posted on 13 Jun 2009"She'll only break your heart, it's a fact. And even though I warn you, even though I guarantee you that the girl will only hurt you terribly, you'll still pursue her. Ain't love grand?" Isn't it a great quote? My favorite film ever; it deals with love and desire, with success and failure, with the search of oneself... the essence of life. It has a beautiful picture and a beautiful soundtrack. I love the way the director uses the colour green all the time (at the end of the day, green is the color of hopes and expectations)I think we all can see ourselves somehow pictured in the character of Finn lost in this world, just trying to find happiness.
Unbelievable!
posted on 10 Jun 2009This movie was beautifully crafted. I read the book when I was a little boy and I was hoping to fulfill the childhood memory of reading the book. Robert DeNiro, Ethan Hawke, and Gwyneth Paltrow's performances were dazzling! I recommend this movie to everybody who read the book and more. I was hoping for this movie to win best picture, but thats too bad. I love how the cinematography was in this movie it blew me away! The graphics were amazing and the dialogue was amazing! Even the samller parts were performed unbelievably by Robert DeNiro as the convict, or any other smaller part. I do not want to say 'small' part because there are no small parts, only small actors! My mother taught me that when I entered the fifth grade play called BYE BYE BIRDIE, I played the part of Albert!
.Fails expectations, and yet, it endures, and finds greatness after all.
posted on 23 May 2009I like this film the more I see it. Like Dickens, its a classic in its own rite. Interestingly, once you grow accustom to this thoughtful, sensitive, interpretation, its characters profoundly relate a living human experience. It doesn't matter what extraordinary events fill these mundane lives, the story is more an expression of who these people are in their deepest feelings. The poignant and stylish directing and acting whisper passionate undercurrents that propel such mythic idealism into Love's enduring nature. Authentic relationships and sincere characterizations define the meaning of life's events, and the influence of our fundamental desires.In the Director's IMDb Biography someone writes: "...he didn't want to direct it but the studio insisted a lot, and in the end he accepted it. The experience was very painful and difficult for him mainly because there was never a definitive screenplay." Perhaps this is why film finds a way to connect to the story so meaningfully. Its not about the screenplay or literary adaptation, its the moral essence characters find in life's relationships and environment. The events and dialog are not static and are driven by a sincere emotional forum. I just like the simplicity of the way it feels, like a familiar old friend with lots of fond memories to share. Perhaps I'll promote it to an 8, exceeding my lowered expectations and to rise to the occasion.
Captivating Classic
posted on 12 Mar 2009There are no words to describe a masterpiece like this.I bumped into it while changing channels on the TV. The cinematography, photography and direction were excellent. Once again Guyneth Paltrow proves that she is so good at what she does and together with gorgeous Ethan Hawke they manage to nail you to your seat and hold you touch you and thrill you. Verdict: DONT MISS IT 20/20
My Great Expectations were Disappointed
posted on 10 Feb 2009"Great Expectations" is based around the odd conceit of taking the plot of Dickens's novel and updating it to late 20th century America. Apart from Joe and Estella, all the names of the characters have been changed. Pip becomes Finn Bell, Miss Havisham Miss Dinsmoor and Magwitch Arthur Lustig. Mrs Joe is Maggie, Bentley Drummle Walter and Jaggers Ragno. The plot follows the same basic outlines as in the novel. Finn is an orphan, cared for by his older sister and her boyfriend Joe, a fisherman on Florida's Gulf Coast. As in the book, Finn helps an escaped convict. As in the book, he becomes friendly with Estella, the adopted daughter of a wealthy reclusive lady. As in the book, he receives a financial windfall from a lawyer acting on behalf of a mysterious benefactor (who later turns out to be the convict). And as in the book, he falls helplessly in love with Estella, now a beautiful but icy young woman.The trouble with the film's central conceit- which is why I described it as odd- is that "Great Expectations" resists being translated into the modern age. Like most great nineteenth-century novels it is firmly rooted in a particular time and place, in this case London and South-East England in the early 19th century. (Shakespeare's plays, which do not have the same attachment to a specific time and place, are generally easier to transfer to a modern setting). Even when it was written it was something of a period piece, being set not during the 1860s when Dickens wrote it but rather during his own childhood in the 1810s and 1820s. Dickens is therefore describing social structures and institutions- many of them essential to his plot- which were forty years in the past even at the time of writing and which have no equivalents in modern society.When the film-makers try and find such equivalents, they end up doing violence to Dickens's plot. The most significant changes are those made to the characters of Finn/Pip and Lustig/Magwitch, which is unfortunate as the Pip-Magwitch relationship is perhaps the most important in the novel. In the novel, Pip's great ambition, which he realises through Magwitch's generosity, is to become a "gentleman". This is a word with many shades of meaning, but Pip uses it to mean little more than a rich layabout, someone who has no need to work for a living and so can spend his life drinking, gambling and hanging out with other young men of a similar outlook. Once Pip has realised this ambition, he becomes an odious snob, ashamed of his lowly origins, of his adoptive father Joe (who has always treated him with great kindness) and even of his benefactor when he discovers who that person is. Finn, on the other hand, has a much more elevated and laudable ambition, dreaming of becoming an artist, and Lustig's benefaction enables him to set up in a New York studio.Magwitch- an unsuccessful petty thief- was a failure as a criminal who acquired his wealth honestly in Australia. Lustig, however, is not a reformed character but a gangster on the run whose sources of income are still dishonest ones. This has implications for the way in which we view the relationship between Lustig and Finn. Pip, whose good fortune is based upon nothing more than a stroke of luck (he helps Magwitch our of fear, not out of compassion) snobbishly looks down upon the man who has made that fortune possible by working hard and honestly. Finn, however, seems strangely unmoved by the fact that his good fortune is based upon sources of wealth tainted by criminality. This moral dilemma might have made for an interesting theme, albeit one not found in Dickens, but the film-makers largely ignore it. Unfortunately, they also ignore the moral concerns which were at the heart of Dickens's novel.No film based upon a literary text can ever be 100% faithful to its source, especially one taken from Dickens whose novels were known for their complex plots and for casts of literally hundreds of characters. David Lean's great version of "Great Expectations", although considerably more faithful to the text than this one, simplifies the plot considerably- for example, it omits the Orlick sub-plot altogether. The important point, however, is that Lean fully understood what Dickens was trying to achieve and remained faithful to the spirit of his work. There is no sign of such understanding or fidelity in Alfonso Cuaron's film.There were some good things about the film. It was attractively shot, particularly the scenes set in Miss Dinsmoor's crumbling mansion "Paradiso Perduto". (As a number of reviewers have pointed out, Cuaron seems to have a particular liking for the colour green). There were effective cameos from Robert de Niro as Lustig and Anne Bancroft as Miss Dinsmoor. The main parts, however, were less well played. Ethan Hawke played Finn as a sort of love-sick puppy: I could never conceive of him as a talented artist. Gwyneth Paltrow was well able to convey Estella's haughty, glacially beautiful exterior, but there is no sense, as there was with Valerie Hobson's performance in Lean's film, that this is a mask she has been forced to put on by her adoptive mother and which hides an insecure, vulnerable person inside.I have never seen any of Cuaron's Spanish-language films, but I was very impressed by his English-language "A Little Princess". (That film also involved transposing a classic English novel to America, although it kept the book's period setting). His "Great Expectations" was, however, not in the same class. It departs from Dickens's novel too radically to succeed as a cinematic version of a literary text. On the other hand, it sticks too closely to his plot to succeed on any other level. My great expectations of it were disappointed. 4/10
Fantastic movie all around!
posted on 29 Jan 2009This is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year. The cinematography was some of the best I've seen on film since Dances with Wolves and Howard's End. Some of the shots employed by Cuaron were breathtaking -- for example, the water fountain shot in which Finn's mouth and the water are in frame and we suddenly see Stella's tongue come into contact with Finn's -- Spectacular! Even the music accompanied the film remarkably. Although highly unlikely, I would be extremely happy to see this film go to the Oscars. Cuaron did a fantastic job of bringing Dickens' classic to the screen. Except for one cheesy line: "I want you inside me" the movie was -- in a word -- perfect!
Charles Dickens Must Be Spinning In His Grave Over This One
posted on 26 Jan 2009When they say this is "loosely" based on Charles Dickens classic novel, "loosely" is the operative word in that sentence. Not only did they decide to modernize it, but they moved the locale from England and London, to somewhere down in Louisiana or Texas. Joe who was a simple blacksmith in the book, has become a gardener, and seems to be combining that livilihood with fishing. Well, blacksmiths are a rare breed these days, so he had to do something else in the modern world. The main character, nick-named Pip, in the novel, has become Finn Bell. Why? Well, we don't know. Just as we don't know why Pip's sister and Joe are not even married in this version, just shacking up. To make them a more "modern-day" couple, I guess. The storyline with Estella and Miss Haversham in the book aka Ms. Dinsmoor in the film, didn't play very realistically in the book - and it fares no better in this film version. The reason for Finn to come to Ms. Dinsmoor's place is the same cock-eyed reason Dickens uses in the book. However, the storyline in the book, which had to do with class distinctions in English society, and how important it was to be a "fine gentleman", naturally doesn't work at all in the modernized verison - since no one has any amibition to be a "gentleman" in today's world. There are no ladies or gentlemen any more. The romance between Finn and Estella makes about as much sense as standing out in a cold rain buck naked. Estella obviously is in love with Finn - we know this because she is the one who has to initiate every time there's any romantic or sexual contact between them. So why do things go so poorly between her and Finn? Why does Finn always hold back? Beats me. Come to think of it, I never really knew why she & Pip had problems in the novel either. The lawyer's name has been changed from Jagger to something else, which escapes my memory at the moment, and has been given the nickname spider - which belonged to another character in the novel - a character that never enters the film at all. Estella's true parentage never comes out in the film, or how she came to be with Ms. Dinsmoor. In the novel this was rather important, and again had to do with class divisions. I only gave this 4 stars, and that was being generous. Ethan Hawke is not a particularly handsome or appealing actor, and while I like Gwyneth Paltrow all right, she lacks the fascinating beauty needed for Estella, although she did get the haughtiness down pretty good.
Better than what you might expect
posted on 23 Jan 2009When this movie was first released I was put off by the ads and didn't take the time to see it. Recently became curious about books made into movies due to a film series at a local library that is featuring films of this type. This wasn't featured in the series however falls into that category. I wasn't disappointed. If you only vaguely remember reading the Dickens novel (as I do) this film is kind of fun because it refreshes the basic storyline--it's contemporary setting captures the timeless themes of the book yet without knowledge of the book you won't be lost. Ethan Hawke emotes pretty well and Gwyneth Paltrow is sufficiently distant and cool and it seems to work. Also Anne Bancroft and Robert DeNiro appear to be enjoying their roles and bring unique spirit to the story. Worth a look.
Sigh, Lamore!
posted on 20 Jan 2009I have to admit, I was looking for a sexy or romantic movie to rent. With Gwenyth half naked on the cover of this movie, it looked sexy. Instead, I got a sappy love story; but it was very realistic and classy. It turned out to be a very interesting story. I was impressed with the way it turned out. Ethan Hawke really wins your sympathy on his journey for true love, mainly his one soul mate, Gwenyth Paltrow. You truly see the connection between the two of them and the wall that Gwenyth puts up. I loved the ending, because it was very realistic and forgiving. Robert DeNiro's character, despite that he seems useless in the beginning of the film, he comes into great purposes for Ethan's character. So, instead of hating such a horrible criminal that Robert portrayed, you look at him with ease. This is a very enjoyable movie, and I would recommend it for anyone.7/10
green delightful time...
posted on 09 Dec 2008as if it was not enough to show how good director Cuaron is, his green attitude, shown in A little princess, comes again with a bright -perfectly done- movie... the romantic/erotic scene is so greatly done that it will never get to need any naked bodies shown directly, and the combination of the painting with the rhythm of the music, is so awesome that you will almost feel you are there.... great great film
Really like this movie!!!!!
posted on 03 Dec 2008This is like the 3rd time I have seen this movie. It almost makes me want to read the book but not quite. Some how I can't see Dickens being quite as racey since the story was written in 1860 or there abouts. The acting was great. Hawke has such an expressive face you can see exactly what he's feel without him saying a word. Paltrow plays an ice princess as only she can do. Ann Bancroft was wonderful as the crazy Ms. Dinsmoor and Chris Cooper is just great in everything he does. Di Niro was, who else, Di Niro. I love the settings in this movie, especially the old run down mansion and grounds covered with kudzu vines. The attention to detail really makes this a great movie. All the pieces come together to make the puzzle complete in the end.
Delivers absolutely nothing.
posted on 30 Nov 2008We've all heard of the debacle that was "Heaven's Gate"-a movie who's cost skyrocked out of control when a director's autonomy and self-indulgence became it's downfall. The result was ultimately the demise of what was United Artists. The after effect was to limit a great deal of studio production subsequent-everyone was just too scared to produce anything.Great Expectations may be a mini- Heaven's Gate. A production where costs obviously skyrocketed out of control until the whole thing was cut off entirely. I can imagine the picture was taken from the director, and finished by some hired help, such is the odd assortment that ultimately went to the screen. What's left is a few odd pieces, joined with spit and bailing wire.The adaptation and contemporary update of the Charles Dickens' classic makes little or no sense. The dang thing's been made so many times already I'm not even sure why this deal ever got started. Talented actors such as Robert DeNiro, Chris Cooper, and Gwyneth Paltrow are framed by confusing dialogue and incomplete ideas. The look is a pretentious, over-blown music vid approach with an inappropriate and nagging score.A complete waste of time.
A Complete Reinterpretation of the Book and Plot
posted on 15 Nov 2008The first 2/3 of "Great Expectations" worked, then it departed too much from the book. Having BOTH Miss Havisham and Estella APOLOGIZE? Why change (either) Dickens ending that clearly had Estella being a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her rich husband? But then why have the husband played by too nice guy Hank Azaria? And where's the evidence that Estella, who's as much victimized as Pip, has gained a heart?On the positive side, I always appreciate movies that show more foreplay than humping, even if it was to prove Estella a tease.At least Chris Cooper gave dignity to a role that could have been a buffoon or stereotype, but the class issues weren't dealt with well because the NYC transformation of Pip doesn't completely jell. Miss Havisham showing up in NYC works - except not having her burn down in her ravished memories is a BIG hole and leaves the movie with no lasting image.Jane Campion a la her work on James's Portrait of A Lady would have done far better. (originally written 2/1/1998)
The trailer which led to great expectations
posted on 25 Oct 2008if you are attracted by the trailer and if its only motive for you to watch the movie then don't watch this movie with great expectations even though the title is. The movie and the trailer are on the opposite sites. When you watch the trailer you may think De Niro as a dominant character, but he is not. It is like he had just played in the movie as a best commercial. In the theater, its so boring till you see the De Niro, and you hear the magic words from the trailer from De Niro. (Whisper!!!). Thats it; after couple minutes he disappears and the boring part continues. At the last you can see him again, but most of the audience didn't have enough patience to see his next visit to scene. If you are a fan of De Niro, just watch the trailer, thats enough, otherwise after watching the movie with "great expectations" you can feel bad about your cinema idol.
Dumbing down a classic, but hey it's stylistic and sleazy.
posted on 22 Sep 2008I checked off the spoiler box to be safe, but I try to avoid anything specific.Quality of film, camera angles, sets and scenery, acting abilities (postures, voice intonations, mannerisms, delivery, facial expressions), were all pretty good. The story moves along at a good pace, that's also good. There's a passable soundtrack which complements the scenes. There are a lot of good actors and actresses here. But the script doesn't even remotely capture the essence or even the feeling of the book. I read the book nearly 15 years ago. Everything just seemed all wrong, despite the changes of modernity and society and culture.You can transplant a story from one continent to another and you must change the geography and language, that's fine. Transport it over 100 years into the future, so phrases and jobs and settings need to change, again it's expected. You have to condense a story which might take 15 hours to read into about 90 minutes. A lot of the material gets butchered and rehashed, eh, OK. But you take what little is left over, and change it so that it emphasizes Gweneth Paltrow's bust line, lips and hips, and you've cheapened a classic in order to make a quick buck. It's typical Hollywood pimps sending the women and guys out to turn tricks.She's OK looking, but she's not all that. Ethan Hawke really delivers on the tortured soul bit, but it's all disjointed, out of context, and doesn't have much explained, not consistent with itself, and not even close to the story. The book was about so many different topics, and they were tied together cohesively, and left one feeling fulfilled and enriched after reading. This movie will leave the intelligent person with a dull, tinny* echo of that effect. Kind of like a mental laxative, it passes through your brain quickly and leaves little of itself left inside you, leaving you feel a bit hollow.*Tinny, not tiny, as in tapping together two empty tin cans makes a tinny "ching clank chink" sound.Now, if this were a movie until itself, not "based upon" *cough* *inspired by* *cough* *latch on to author's classically acclaimed success* I wouldn't be as generous, because it's just kind of crappy, dull and boring. The ending in the movie doesn't make much sense. The ending is very rushed, not in terms of scenes, but in terms of dialog. They spend a lot of time running around without talking, when they should have been talking to drive home some of the points the movie was trying to emphasize. Oh wait, that's assuming it had any point.If you enjoy watching actors and actresses being blatantly prostituted, don't have the brain capacity to digest a hearty meal for mind and spirit, prefer stylism over substance, then maybe this movie is for you.
What have I done !! :)
posted on 18 Aug 2009Gea and Neptune's Ballo in Maschera would probably have been more popular if not so beautifully well disguised. Chronos is also there, hidden in the characters aging patterns and probably listening carefully to identify the characters' voices... "What have I done?! .. I don't usually come here.." hhhmmmm.