Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
MoPoshy
Absolutely brilliant
Baseshment
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
mcdeanwirth
I love the BBC series dearly but there's more to be done, let's see Peter Jackson do this in a 3 movie trilogy and well they'd be hard up to match this one in acting and all but I'd see all three on opening day and I love the books and series but the world is waiting or am I mad?? The aging of the characters is a flaw due to budget restraints. I wouldn't be the one to be up to task to match this brilliant series for sure. But the series omitted some minor things that could be used and special effects of course. Maybe use some of the original cast. The series only contains the first two books. All actors in series were outstanding.
slapdab
This was a good dramatisation of the book but was not dark enough in any sense. Gormenghast (the place) was too bright and airy although it looked right otherwise. Also the sinister side of the story, which is most of it, was underplayed. When I read the book I hated Steerpike more than any other character I have read but this did not come out on the screen enough. Perhaps it is the restriction of turning such a long, detailed story into a drama. Nonetheless it looked good and all the performances were excellent. If you haven't done so yet - read the book. It is one of the greatest stories I have read and there are a couple of extras not included in the dramatisation. These are the third book "Titus Alone" which is very different from the first two books, and a separate episode in the life of the young Titus called "Boy in Darkness". Again, different from the first two books and quite surreal.
sissoed
I first read the Gormenghast trilogy when I was a moody teenager and they carried an impact I still feel years later. It is a shame the video could not capture the languid atmosphere of the books but I suppose it can't be helped given the limitations of video. I was concerned that the presentation would contradict my own visualization of the characters, but to the contrary the presentation was dead-on. Rather than contradict the books, watching the video was more like seeing the same story but from a different perspective, focusing more on the characters and less on the environment.My main criticism is that the screenwriter (or director or producer, whoever controlled the script) didn't really understand one of the main messages of the books. This comes through in the mishandling of the key character of the Master of Ritual, called the Secretary in the video. Changing the title was a mistake. And so was the change in the character. In the books the first Master of Ritual is old, quiet Sourdust, who helps set the elegiac mood before Steerpike starts to interfere. Steerpike then kills him (accidentally) in the library fire (this is why Steerpike in his later delirium says the sisters make 5 -- Sourdust, Nanny Slagg, Cora, Clarice, Barquentine). (Steerpike did not kill and did not know what happened to Sepulchrave or Swelter, only Flay knew). Steerpike's fire brings nasty, cussing Barquentine into the book, and that is what first causes the mood to change. But in the video, it is nasty Barquentine from the start (although because he isn't named until much later, you think at first it is supposed to be Sourdust). Sourdust is simply deleted. The result is that in the video you always have the nasty element, and Steerpike has no responsibility for it. A key point of the books, however, is that Steerpike's ambition is what causes the mood of the castle to change. I should have thought the screenwriter would be more careful about cutting Steerpike's first murder. The author, Peake, knew what he was doing by starting with Sourdust and having Steerpike kill him.The title of Master of Ritual is important for another reason, a reason that should have prevented the director from changing the title to mere Secretary. It is such an important point: in that castle, Ritual is master, so the Master of Ritual is the true master of the castle. Steerpike wanted to be Master of Ritual because he knew that in that role he could control the law; it was where the real power was. As Master of Ritual he could surreptitiously change the rituals, because no one else could understand their intricacies. In this way he could set everyone dancing to his commands. The Groans were puppets of the Master of Ritual. In the books ritual is all-powerful. Recall that in the video Barquentine complained that Sepulchrave's breakfast was not part of the ritual. The meeting in the library came about only because of the breakfast, wherein Sepulchrave defied the control of ritual, to plan an act (the breakfast) intended to show his love for his son. Yet that led to the burning and Sepulchrave's madness and death. Sepulchrave's penalty for defying ritual was terrible. Steerpike wanted to marry Fushia and thus combine in himself both the control of the ritual, and be the central player in the ritual. But the dedication of the loyal servant of ritual, Barquentine (who burned Steerpike and made him mad) and the loyal servant of nobility, Flay (who relentlessly tracked Steerpike) along with the goodhearted, intelligent Prunesquallor and the heir, Titus, defeated Steerpike, preserved the ruling family, and thus preserved the ritual. Then Titus, having preserved the ritual, flees it, because he knows it is too powerful to defeat. I think a more understanding screenwriter would have developed these themes more clearly and still had a compelling drama.Lastly, I was disappointed in the flooding sequence and the hunt for Steerpike, which was very compressed in time and in visual scope; this should have been developed with sweep and steadily-building tension. I would have preferred they cut or compress the Bellgrove/ professor sequences entirely to devote the time to a really powerful climactic flood/hunt sequence.
Mandemus
I read some Mervyn Peake years ago, so I know a little of his penchant for the bizarre and his love of language. I was ready to like Gormenghast, which I had not read before. This didn't work for me at all, and now I have no desire to go back an read the original.Positive: good production values, typical of British period film-making. Good actors, many familiar faces again from other UK TV films.Review. I found no characters with enough redeeming qualities to relate to in any fashion. The message is negative, ugly, gruesome, grotesque and distasteful. Likely someone involved with the production would argue that that is just the point: this is an allegory of a brutal, hateful and inhumane society. That it is, but I don't want to watch it! For entertainment to work, you have to have something that the typical human viewers can latch on to, usually by being able to empathize with at least one character. I particularly found the incessant squealing, whining, aching, hurting, yelling, and hollering of just about every character in the production very grating after only a few minutes into the film. An unpleasant viewing experience altogether.
