Most Helpful Customer Reviews
23 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Boy's Adventure in India; Great Location, and It's Faithful, April 13, 2004
Though less known than the 1950 Errol Flynn version, this made-for-TV adaptation of the famous Kipling story is in fact a pretty good one, being faithful to the book in spirit and in story. The main episodes of the original are not changed much, and still the film manages to realize the world of Kiping's India, where some adventure is waiting for you around the corner. Kim, or Kimball O'Hara is the orphaned son of an Irish soldier in India, and Kim spends his time as vagabond in Lahore, where he climbs upon the big cannon of the town. From this famous opening, in which he is taken up as a guide by a travelling Tibetan lama (Peter O'Tool, in bald-head wig), the film follows the boy's adventures in the country, meeting colorful characters, the best of whom are the dashing Muhbub Ali (Bryan Brown) and suave agent Babu (John Rhys-Davies). Assisting the jourey of the lama who tries to find out "The River of the Arrow," Kim also learns the life of the people in India through the mission given to him from the higher officers. The episodic story of Kipling remains basically the same, and you will find the major episodes from the book, such as the two Russians from the north. The greatest thing about this "Kim" is its location. As it is shot in India, the picture can really show the hot and humid climate of the place (the Planes), or the cold and chilling air of the mountains (the Hills). You will understand why the lama could regain his health after going back to the mountains if you see the film, for you can feel the great contrast between the two places. The original Kim is slightly enigmatic boy (or a teen?), whose growth is implied between the lines. The Kim here played by an Indian young actor is fairly good though the fact remains that he is virtually an amateur. Still, he looks great, and the supports are effective, especailly Brown as the horse-riding, menaceful (but somehow humourous) Ali. As to Peter O'Toole, at first you might find him miscast, but I think no one can really play the role of the lama exactly as the book shows. This newer "Kim" is slightly overlong, but its faithful adaptation with realistic Indian background is certainly worth your money, especially when you find the original book charming.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A huge disappointment..., February 16, 2008
I think this is the most disappointing movie I've ever seen. I am a huge Kim fan, and this movie is just awful. It captures none of the magic of the novel. They even made up leaden dialogue instead of using Kipling's pitch-perfect language. And why, oh why, did they choose to have everyone speaking English all the time? If you love Kim, don't watch this leaden lump of a movie. Peter O'Toole as a Tibetan monk, with a laughable rubber bald head, is absolutely dreadful, and the worst miscasting in a film since John Wayne as Genghis Khan in the 1950's. There are no words to describe how awful he is in this. Why couldn't they have hired one of the many wonderful Tibetan actors for this part and added a tiny shred of authenticity? The boy they cast to play Kim is at least two feet too tall, and his acting would have to improve to be bad. And why do moviemakers feel they have to dress Pashtun characters up like Vaudeville clowns? It looks like they used all the leftover costume crap from The Horsemen to make Mahbub Ali look like a buffoon, and he conveys none of the willy hillman of Kipling's story. And the addition of a sappy love story between a British soldier and an Indian girl makes me wonder if the Director was on some kind of drugs. Perhaps one day Ridley Scott or a Director with some talent will make this movie right, but until then, just read the book again. I rate this movie zero stars, but the computer makes you give it at least one to proceed with a review.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
KIm reaches DVD at last, February 23, 2007
As a great fan of Rudyard Kipling's great novel Kim (I have at least 5 copies, including a first edition) I watched this second movie version with interest, first on the original VHS tape and again recently on the DVD transfer. The first movie, made in the 30s with Dean Stockwell as Kim, focused almost entirely on Errol Flynn as Mahboob Ali, completely destroying Kipling's story. But this 1990s version, with the excellent - if slightly too old - Ravi Sheth as Kim, follows the story much more closely, though rather strangely inserting a sub-plot not in the novel involving a British soldier and his Indian wife.
It's a good re-telling of Kipling's story with excellent characterisations of all the main characters (Kim himself, Mahboob Ali, the Babu and Lurgan Sahib) except one - the Lama. The Lama is central to the whole story and is played here by the great Peter O'Toole, but - somehow - to me it just doesn't work. O'Toole adopts a stumbling English, sounding out each syllable, and while I presume he is indicating the Lama's difficulty in speaking the local language it just sounds silly! He's a wonderful actor, but, I'm sorry, it just doesn't work for me.
The DVD is a good transfer, bright and colourful, and thoroughly enjoyable whether you know the novel or not. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
