Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the www.Britmovie.co.uk forum

If this is your first time on the new forum since March 7th, 2017, please re-register with us once more.
Paypal contributions for the care and feeding of the forum may be made here:
PayPal Donations

The old bulletin board archive can be found here:
http://filmdope.com/forums/
See more
See less

House of cards

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House of cards

    Ian Richardson portrays a crooked politician who would stop at nothing, including murder to be come prime minister, only to realize that committing murder, eventually will be your downfall.

  • #2
    I liked the original when it first came out and watched it again a couple of years ago but I really enjoy Kevin Spacey's reboot, excellent television.

    Comment


    • #3
      I've not seen the Kevin Spacey remake, But Ian Richardson was superb in the original.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tigon Man View Post
        I've not seen the Kevin Spacey remake, But Ian Richardson was superb in the original.
        In that case, Tigon, check it out. Season 1 is a retread but thereafter it carves out its own identity. I would not suggest that Spacey is the equal of Richardson but overall the story is more enthralling and has more relevence in the 21st Century.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ian Richardson was always a superb actor and I don't think anybody else could have portrayed the scheming Francis Urquhart so well. Not seen the Kevin Spacey remake - much try and catch it up.

          Clarence

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by clarence View Post
            Ian Richardson was always a superb actor and I don't think anybody else could have portrayed the scheming Francis Urquhart so well. Not seen the Kevin Spacey remake - much try and catch it up.

            Clarence
            Please do, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tigon Man View Post
              I've not seen the Kevin Spacey remake, But Ian Richardson was superb in the original.
              My experience is the exact opposite! Would love to watch the original when I get the chance. I thoroughly enjoyed the reboot - with Kevin Spacey onboard, it would take a pretty dire script to become a failure! That said, I do feel like I may have missed some of the US political subtlty due to my lack of knowledge. Standout for me, though, is the use of Shakespearean-esque soliloquys; they're really cleverly utilised I think. Was that a feature of the original series?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wanda View Post

                My experience is the exact opposite! Would love to watch the original when I get the chance. I thoroughly enjoyed the reboot - with Kevin Spacey onboard, it would take a pretty dire script to become a failure! That said, I do feel like I may have missed some of the US political subtlty due to my lack of knowledge. Standout for me, though, is the use of Shakespearean-esque soliloquys; they're really cleverly utilised I think. Was that a feature of the original series?
                It was, if anything more so. The Americans seem to drift away from that in later seasons. The British version is good, but its of its time, as they say, and it seems a bit rushed now compared with the leisurely, multi-episode running time available in the US show. I also think, Richardson aside, the acting is far too obvious, Colin Jeavons, for example, is a slimy Stamper, not a patch on the US actor, whose name escapes me (but he was also in Taboo).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by John Hamilton View Post

                  It was, if anything more so. The Americans seem to drift away from that in later seasons. The British version is good, but its of its time, as they say, and it seems a bit rushed now compared with the leisurely, multi-episode running time available in the US show. I also think, Richardson aside, the acting is far too obvious, Colin Jeavons, for example, is a slimy Stamper, not a patch on the US actor, whose name escapes me (but he was also in Taboo).
                  Very interesting... The way the US version pans out fairly slowly is welcome for the first couple of seasons, definitely. However, I ended up having the same complaint that I have with many US series - they simply drag it out too long. Towards the end, I just felt that the format became too predictable and I grew weary. I do wonder, though, how much that may have to do with modern watching habits (guilty as charged!) i.e. binge watching....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wanda View Post

                    Very interesting... The way the US version pans out fairly slowly is welcome for the first couple of seasons, definitely. However, I ended up having the same complaint that I have with many US series - they simply drag it out too long. Towards the end, I just felt that the format became too predictable and I grew weary. I do wonder, though, how much that may have to do with modern watching habits (guilty as charged!) i.e. binge watching....
                    You may have a point, Wanda, I don't binge watch, I don't have the time, but I watched the first two seasons of The Affair and then gave up. The characters had become unappealing, the plot line repetitive, with seemingly endless padding. In the case of House of Cards, I find Spacey and Robin Wright riveting and they keep the drama compelling.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I strongly disagree with everything that has been said on the comparison of both versions x)
                      The US version is certainly entertaining, but I fail to see how it is more relevant to the 21st century, a part from saying that politicians are corrupt and eager for power (an incredibly original message indeed) or that we don't really live in a democracy (more interesting, but the original series came to the same conclusion). As for being more enthralling, well it's a matter of opinion I suppose but I find the two first seasons to be sometimes boring with all those details that are supposed to develloped the character but don't really bring anything, for me it was an overlong retelling of what I had already seen in the first version without the privilege of surprise.
                      So we have the american context, with a political system that is quite different from the british one, but in terms of representation of the institutions The West Wing, was much more efficient and interesting, because for all the idealism of the series it was much more realistic wether the wicked couple of House of Cards are not so different than the archvillains of James Bond or Batman.

                      The British House of Cards is not verry different in that regard but it was shorter (it is not a bad thing in my opinion, and it is so well written that I never had the impression it was rushed), with a lot of humour that seems to have completely gone away while crossing the Atlantic, the US version is so eager to be taken as a serious political drama that it is sometimes really pompous. And also it was much more disturbing, because Richardson with his aristocratic politeness, his mild manners and his big smile made his character much more sympathetic than Kevin Spacey who always a bit cold and distant, with Urqhart we are complice, with Underwood we are only witness. The writing of the asides is also much better in the british version, in the us it is absolutely terribles, always filled with a lot details (not all usefull) and very flat, and litteral, far from the mix of seduction, intimidation and smugness they have in the original.

                      Francis Urqhart has more substance than Franck Underwood, because Francis Urqhart is driven by an ideology, wether Frank Underwood is just an other soulless politician who just want to be there out of vanity, this article explain it in amuch better way than I could do: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...satire/384964/ (I don't agree with all its conclusions, I don't think the americans are incapable of making good satire, but the analysis of House of Cards and its weakness is, in my opinion, spot on)

                      And in no way is Kevin Spacey better than Ian Richardson.

                      Anyway I don't think the original House of Cards has become irrelevant, I think it's still a verry effective satire of the polical class (I can recognise equivalent of the characters among curent politicians wether in the UK or in France, to stay with the country I know the best), in fact to moderate my criticism of the US version, this second House of Cards is less a satire than a thriller and melodrama, the genre is not the same therefore comparing them is not always fair. And it works in both direction, the actors of the original series might seem too obvious, but it's all fit to needs of a satire which implied a certain sense of caricature (it is also an art), Jeavon's Stamper may not have the complexity of his US counterpart but he is perfect in the sens that he impersonifies a type, like in a Dickens's novel
                      In term of personnal preference I must say that I find the british cast better, much more lively and less common than the american (always professional, but less creative).
                      But I do enjoy Robin Wright's performance, and for what it's worth, I think the third season of the US version is excellent
                      Last edited by Colin Smith; 12th August 2017, 03:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Colin Smith View Post
                        And in no way is Kevin Spacey better than Ian Richardson.
                        I strongly disagree with almost all of your post, but with this statement in particular.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And on the rest of my post with what do you disagree? ^^

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The original House of Cards appealed to me. a Brit, because it was about the British political system; I have no knowledge or interest in the American political system system. It also had the excellent Ian Richardson who did a magnificent job of being thoroughly evil (just *how* evil only became apparent as the series progressed) and yet he made you want him to succeed. Susannah Harker, as Mattie Storin - ah, that breathy voice murmuring "Daddy" in the scene where she went to his house...

                            As with The Ladykillers, so with House of Cards: in both cases, the British original wins hands down over the later US remake.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              To be fair the american House of Cards is still better than the ladykillers remake!
                              It is a good series whereas the coen brother's film is disastrous in every way, but the first Ladykiller is such a masterpiece that it was almost impossible to match its achievements!
                              Otherwise I agree with you entirely, and while Mattie Storin is an ambivalent character, I care much more for her than for her US counterpart.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X