Reviews

For about 30 years I have enjoyed reading GWTW many times. The film seemed like a great production to me, especially notable for the performance of Vivien Leigh, for the great adaptation (made by its author) and for the money well invested.

On the other hand, this mini-series is a great disappointment. But I admit that it might not be the fault of the production itself. It is evident that the mini-series was tried to be serious and money was invested, but to begin with, the shoes were too big to fill by the new interpreter (big mistake, being the she the one who carries all the plot). And the second big reason for the failure is simply that the novel on which it is based is terrible, as I could verify for myself: Mitchell gave a perfect ending to the original story, free of sweeteners: Scarlet harvested what he sowed but knew that in the end she would recover Rhett. Period. That was the end of the story.

But the author of "Scarlet" (and presumably some others who didn't quite grasp that the story is more than a romance for teenagers), probably felt that people had a right to be pleased until the very end, and she got down to work passionately: She retake the tale hours after the original is finished and from the beginning establishes that the unbeatable Scarlet O'Hara will fulfill her task of recovering Rhett. And between that and achieving it (of course, and so much more than that!) she tells us an absolutely unnecessary story that includes more romance, more pity for Ashely, much more wealth and power for Scarlet, more landscapes than the original novel mentioned without being visited, more 'spicy elements' and even a graphic affaire. Excessive and even ridiculous.

Nothing that an admirer of the original work can rescue here. But perhaps you should see it to add your own complaints.

When Contact was released, a friend shared his opinion complaining that "there was no action and we never saw an alien". For some reason, maybe even that one, I didn't watched it then. Years later, another friend recommended it to me. By then I had read a couple of Sagan's books, and many of my ideas about religion and science had changed profoundly.

I saw CONTACT and began to understand that all that history of extraterrestrials coming into contact with humans was just one part of it or an excuse for the rest. At that point, by the way, the film remains somehow unresolved, and what bothered several people is nothing more than consistency in Carl Sagan's position of promoting science without contaminating it with whatever his personal opinion or 'belief' was. I still thank for it.

CONTACT was Sagan's only novel, and although the film, for understandable reasons such as avoiding too many characters or being longer than commercially acceptable, is not identical to the book, I think what mattered is still there. I understand that Sagan approved the film before he died and it probably wasn't just technical merits or performances but the main ideas remained.

CONTACT talks about human nature, the search for truth, loneliness, how feelings humanize us and how the most honest scientist can also fail in his objectivity when they (the feelings) get in the way. It also talks about intellectual honesty and what this can lead to. No concept there is a deep truth or out of reach and that's also something I like about it.

Eleanor Arroway is a great character and Jodie Foster is the perfect choice for playing it.

It's not a regular comercial film, but it's serious, it talks about us humans and can be enjoyed a lot, as I know. Very good.

Pretty early to declare it is great, but so far so good. Hopefully I won't be disappointed later.

At this point I have no reference to the original version but I think I can give my opinion of this one by itself.

I wasn't a fan of Bichir, but my appreciation on his acting is growing lately since I saw him in A BETTER LIFE. I like the serious approach of sensible subjects for Mexicans (even when I try to see this as a fully fictional story), but I also like they are not afraid of showing some realities of the Mexican-American border and the way some Americans see Mexicans and vice-versa.

I will be expecting for the next episodes.

Cuando estrenaron Contacto, un amigo dio su opinión quejándose de que "no había acción y jamás veíamos un alienígena". Por alguna razón, incluso quizá esa, no la vi entonces. Años después, otro amigo me la recomendó. Para entonces ya había leído un par de libros de Sagan, y muchas de mis ideas sobre la religión y la ciencia habían cambiado profundamente. Vi CONTACTO y comencé a entender que toda esa historia de los extraterrestres entrando en contacto con los humanos era solo una de las partes. En ese punto, por cierto, la película queda sin resolver del todo, y esto que molestó a varias personas no es más que consistencia en la posición de Carl Sagan de promover la ciencia sin contaminarla con lo que fuera su opinión o 'creencia' personal.

CONTACTO fue la única novela de Sagan, y aunque la película, por motivos comprensibles como evitar demasiados personajes o alargarse más de lo comercialmente aceptable, no es idéntica al libro, creo que lo que importaba sigue allí. Entiendo que Sagan aprobó la película antes de morir y probablemente no solo fueron méritos técnicos o actuaciones.

CONTACTO habla de la naturaleza humana, de la búsqueda de la verdad, la soledad, de cómo los sentimientos nos humanizan y cómo el científico más honesto también puede fallar en su objetividad cuando estos se interponen. Habla también de la honestidad intelectual y a lo que esto puede llevarnos. Ninguna es una verdad profunda ni fuera de alcance y eso también es algo por lo que me gusta.

Eleanor Arroway es un gran personaje y Jodie Foster hace un trabajo notable interpretándolo.

No es una película 'dominguera', pero es seria, habla de nosotros los humanos y puede llegar a disfrutarse mucho, como me consta.

A lo largo de unos 30 años he disfrutado leer en muchas ocasiones "Lo que el viento se llevó". La película me pareció una gran producción, sobre todo notable por la actuación de Vivien Leigh, por la gran adaptación (hecha por su autora) y por el dinero bien invertido.

En cambio, esta miniserie es una gran desilusión. Mas reconozco que la culpa no es de la producción en sí. Es evidente que la miniserie se intentó hacer en serio y se invirtió dinero, pero para comenzar el papel le quedó grande a la nueva intérprete (gran error, siendo quien lleva toda la trama). Y la segunda gran razón para el fallo es simplemente que la novela en la que se basa es terrible, según pude constatar. Mitchell dio un final perfecto a la historia original, libre de edulcorantes: Escarlata cosechó lo que sembró pero sabía que al final recuperaría a Rhett. Punto. Allí acabó la historia.

Pero la autora de "Scarlet" (y presumiblemente algunos otros que no captaron bien que la historia es más que un romance para quinceañeras), probablemente consideró que la gente tenía derecho ser complacida hasta el final, y puso manos a la obra apasionadamente: Retoma la historia a horas de terminada la original y desde el inicio establece que la imbatible Escarlata O'Hara cumplirá su cometido de recuperar a Rhett. Y entre eso y lograrlo (¡Por supuesto, y con creces!) nos cuenta una historia absolutamente prescindible que incluye más romance, más lástima por Ashely, mucho más riquezas y poder para Escarlata, más paisajes que en la novel original se mencionan sin ser visitados, más 'elementos picantes' y hasta un poco de aventuras. Excesivo y hasta ridículo.

Nada que un admirador de la obra original pueda rescatar aquí. Pero quizá deban verla para añadir sus propias quejas.

I am one of many Mexicans who got their eyes popped out when first saw in this movie things called by their actual name.

The story takes place with real names (historical, including presidents), real political parties names, all familiar situations for those who were born on this side of the Rio Grande. The trick is that it happens some decades ago, but still remains sadly fresh. No-one gets away with it in this movie: catholic church, society, politics and some others you should find out. All this happens in a comedy, and the comedy is actually funny.

It might be less significant for others, but still I recommend it if you are in the mood for this.

If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story... And probably everything else. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story in the South, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I keep reading from other reviews that this version is not to be compared to the movie or we should think of it as a different, separate story or not paying any attention to the difference in the characters or/and actors playing the main roles. I wouldn't know. Maybe they are right, but as I said before, if you are a true GWTW fan, you certainly expect something with some coherence with the original one (or should I say, a little respect at least).

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" all this by showing us exactly how modern, perfect and mighty Scarlett could be. And, of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back the way she wanted and even after having an important affair with someone else (I am not moralizing but the first two husbands were a different story. I bet nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind).

The story between these points is, in my opinion, just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.

Couldn't agree more with all the negative comments most people has done about this (length, plot holes, poor CGI, etc.). Just add these up to the list...

1. During the development of characters at least three times I seriously felt like I was watching Saturday Night Live. That orphan's story and other lines seemed so on purpose for something that kept me expecting (Was it all about making us feel bad when he died?)

2. Can you imagine an action scene that goes for so long that you begin to check you watch and yawn? Come and see it in King Kong.

3. Previous versions explained well enough how can a girl end up feeling sympathy for a monster, but looks like this time King Kong was killed (leaving a perfect corpse) right on time before we could see a wedding (or serious affair) between a giant ape and a girl.

4. I sincerely expected more from a 200 millions budget movie in CGI. The absurd and long scene of the chase through the canyon looked so sad in some parts that you could bet Jakson filmed it with the actors bouncing up and down on a mattress with a background projection on a sheet.

Jackson, you are good, but we all fail sometimes.