Search the internet for reviews of A Raisin in the Sun (The 2008 version that we viewed in class, starring Sean Combs - aka "Diddy" and Phylicia Rashad). Post a comment under this post describing the review. Where did you find it? Who was it written by? What was their opinion of the film? Of the acting? Of the message? After considering these factors, write your own review of the film. Do you agree with the review that you read?
You will likely see comparisons made between the 2008 film and the 1961 original (starring Sidney Poitier and Ruby Dee). Based on what you read, and the clips from the 1961 film that we viewed in class (see below for a reminder), which version do you feel is more impactful and why?
impactful (adj): having a great impact or effect
In addition to your review, feel free to comment on other student responses and observations. All reviews must be posted BEFORE Friday, 3/7.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I read a review which I found on the Los Angeles Times' website. It was written by Robert Lloyd, who is a staff writer for the paper. In this review, Lloyd points out that Sean 'P.Diddy' Combs is not on as high of a level as his co-stars. However, he feels as though these very co-stars help to guide and cradle Combs. He even said 'It does, however, take certain bravado, or a lack of sense, for an amateur to step into what is not only a difficult part to pull off, but also one that was originated by Sidney Poitier (onstage and in the 1961 film, for which Hansberry wrote the screenplay). That is running before you can walk.' By saying a statement like this, he is saying that Combs put himself in over his head by beginning his acting career with a character as difficult as this. Lastly, Lloyd thinks that by the director of the screen play, whose name is Kenny Leon, gave Hansberry's words little meaning by playing background music during some very important statements. Overall, it sounded like he didn't enjoy this rendition very much.
In my opinion, I enjoyed this rendition of 'A Raisin in the Sun'. I enjoyed it because although these events in the story occur in the 1950's, this modern movie gives you the feel of this being something more recent. Also, contrary to what the previous reviewer said, I believe that Sean Combs did a wonderful job as Walter Lee Younger. As mentioned, he should be given a chance because this is his first major acting role. Besides that, the all star cast were amazing and all of the actors fit the roles amazingly. There was not even a slight point in which I found myself bored, or wanting to doze off, as it often occurs when I watching movies set nearly fifty years ago. I believe that the story line was enjoyable as well as something that struggling families can relate to. If given the opportunity, I would greatly enjoy watching the 2008 version once more.
In comparing the 1961 and 2008 movie, I would have to say that I enjoyed the 2008 version better. As I mentioned earlier, it had somewhat of a modern twist to the story, making it easier to understand. From the 11-minute snippet of the original 1961 version, it seemed to be very boring, especially because it was in black and white. Although I realize that this is as far as the movie business had advanced back in that time, I believe that by having the film in such dull colors made it boring. Another thing I liked about the newer version is that the actors were all familiar people to me. Kenny Leon made a wonderful choice in choosing those select few. By doing so, he practically guaranteed that this TV-movie would be successful. All of these actors brought a well thought out side to the movie and this made it something that I greatly enjoyed watching.
The website I found this review on was www.filmthreat.com (I know, it's a bit of a negative title) and it was written by Jessica Baxter.
Ms. Baxter feels that the movie was ok, but no more than a TV movie. SHe also says that it didn't belong at Sundance. Ms. Baxter was very focused on saying that since a few of the main actors were famous before the movie, it was hard to get their other personalities out of your head. For example, she mentions how John Stamos seemed meek and quiet, while on Full House he was very outgoing and loud and it just didn't seem to make sense. Also, P. Diddy's character, Walter, seemed "whiney, immature and ungrateful", when in the 1961 film it didn't seem as much like that, and he certainly isn't like that onstage.
I feel that Jessica Baxter is partly right in her review. I do agree that it was hard to get used to Claire Huxtable, Uncle Jesse and P. Diddy in these new personalities, but it wasn't that terrible a performance. I did enjoy the ABC Family movie, and I only have a clipping of the 1961 film to compare it to, so I can't criticize too much. I can say, however, that Sidney Poitier seemed more forceful and in control in the 1961 film than P. Diddy did in the 2008 film. I feel the movie was a very good adaptation, and since Sidney Poitier is considered one of the world's best actors, P. Diddy did a pretty fair job of showing who Walter Younger is. I found it interesting how they had a person, Mr. Lidner, going around making sure the town stayed all white, and doing whatever he could to make it stay that way.
I feel that the first movie was more "impactful". I feel this way because after seeing Sidney Poitier's performance in that small clip of the movie, I can't imagine how forceful the scene where Walter is apologizing for losing the money is. I can proudly say I liked the first movie better just from that one piece of it, because that is how amazing Sidney Poitier seemed.
The review I read was talking about the themes of the characters in the movie. It said that Walter was showing independence, not greed. After describing the characters traits, it talks about the movie itself, and what happened in it. It's basically describing what everyone plans to do with the money. The website even has small clips that are parts of the movie.
I found my review on the following website: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179377,00.html. It was written by Ken Tucker who gave the movie a B+. Ken thoght that the movie was old-fashinded enough for the viewers to understand that Walter was saying "Money is life" and that his mother was not satisfied with what he was saying. He didn't mention much of anything about the acting.
I felt that it was a great movie. It kept me intrested, not like some of the other videos/movies we have viewed during class in the past. Based on the clips we've seen on the 1961 version, I find the 2008 version more appealing/impactful. I think I like the 2008 version better because it is more modernized such as the actors and the video equiptment which makes the visual part of the video more clear.
This review was very focused on how great Sean Combs was in the movie. She didn't really focus on any of the other actors. The review explains the movie's plot. Then she says how she didn't think it would be as good as it was because of the writer's strike. She said, "in the drought of the writers' strike, this play and this production is like the sky opening and letting in some cool, sweet rain on a parched field." I found this review on newyorkpost.com and Linda Stasi wrote the review. Stasi says the film was "great, great, great". She could not stop talking about how amazing Sean Combs was for a person who isn't considered an actor. I somewhat agree with her. I think the movie was pretty good. I don't think it was that great of a movie that it would be nominatted to be t.v movie of the year. She does make a good point of how this was Sean Combs big telivision debut. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being outstanding, 1 being horrible) I would give it a 4.
A Raisin in the Sun Review
A Raisin in the sun the 2008 movie was directed by Kenny Leon. The 2008 movie was based on the award winning 1959 play A raisin in the Sun.
I found a review from boxoffice.com, the reviewer is Ray Greene. The review was not a good one. Greene thought that everything was wrong with this movie. He said that that this doesn't belong in a film festival much less on television. He said the only good actors in the movie are Phylicia Rashad who plays Lena and Audra McDonald. Greene also said the movie's music was "rancid". I on the other hand have a very different opinion.
I think that this was a great movie was amazing. I think that the movie was amazing. The acting was much better than the older movie. I think that the turning scene in the 2008 movie was extremly stronger than the one of the older movie. The message was a lot stronger in the 2008 version because there was more emotion and it was much louder than the other version. Over all I think that the 2008 version of A Raisin in the Sun was a lot better and a great movie.
I didn't read a review i read several comments on the movie from www.imbd.com. In most of the comments the people stated that casting Sean Combs aka P. Diddy as Walter was a big mistake. Other then that i found, most of them liked the 2008 version and said that excluding P. Diddy the cast was stellar and couldnt have been any better.
I think that the 2008 version of 'A Raisin in the Sun' was better then the 1961 version. Although i dont have much to base my opinion on (just a small clip from the 1961 version of the film)i still enjoyed the 2008 version. I agree with m.t. that it had a more modern feel even though it was set in the 1950's. Also i think that P. Diddy did just as well as Sidney Poitier if not better playing the the part of Walter.
I found my review on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/arts/television/25bell.html)
The review was written by Ginia Bellafante. The author thought that it was a great revival. She said that none of the acting was mediocre. Sanaa Lathan (Beneatha) is brilliant at playing her character, as is Sean Combs (Walter.) She says that Combs makes his character’s desires “seem like more than empty materialism.” He delivers all his lines with what they should say, and is “commanding and fierce.”
I agree with this review. From what I saw of the other one, this was a great, more powerful re-make. I definitely think that this version was more “impactful.” In my personal opinion, Mr. Combs did a wonderful job of playing his character and conveying the right emotions. Mr. Poitier may have been one of the greatest actors of his time, but he didn’t really seem “right” for the role in the scene that I viewed. I think that Mr. Combs does a much better job playing the role of Walter. While watching the 2008 version, I was captivated and felt like I personally knew the characters and the struggles they were going through. However, when watching the clip of the 1961 version, I found myself constantly thinking, “Is this going to be over anytime soon?” Mr. Poiter was not a convincing Walter, and I felt that the emotions of all of the rest of the characters seemed corny and fake. Overall, despite what other people say, I think that the 2008 version was the best.
I agree with m.t. 7/8-3 that the 2008 version was more interesting because it seemed more recent. The 1961 version seemed like something my grandparents would even think was boring. I think that the cast and the "modern twist" on it made the 2008 version more interesting.
I read a review from nytimes.com by Ben Brantley. He pointed out that Sean Combs could be the older brother of Travis, his son. As well, he says Sean Combs could be more mature or older, and he doesn't fill his part. He said the film was okay, but the message was that great. He said that the children were "petulant, spoiled overgrown children."
I wouldn't agree with him, in my opinion, I don't even think he read the book, at least that is what it looked like in the review.I think that the children were overgrown and spoiled because that is how it was resembled in the book.
In my opinion, I think the film was very well done. I think Sean Combs did an exceptional job, especially because he had a big part to do. Some parts of the movie were a little awkward, but not a majority of it. All of the other actors were also very good. They helped Sean Combs in the movie with his part.
I actually like this version rather than the 1961. I like it becaue to me it seemed more real. Although, Sidney Poitier was very in to his role, I liked Sean Combs in it a little bit better. I thought the helping roles where a lot better in the recent film than the older film because they seemed real, and they are amazing actors/actresses.
My review was written by Ken Tucker. His opinion on the film was that the play was artful and old-fashioned. He thought Sean Combs was an excellent actor. He said Combs acted with "full-hearted expressiveness" He sounded as though he enjoyed the movie, but thought it wasn't the best move he had ever seen. He seemed as though he didn't have a lot to say about the quality of the movie. He like the way it was filmed. I did, however, enjoy the fact that it was
I do not completely agree with this review. I didn't think it was that artful or creative. If it was already written by somebody else, how can it be creative? However, I do agree in that I think the movie was okay but a little boring and could have been better. I didn't think it was a movie I would have watched had I not been required to. I did, however, appreciate that it wasn't as "old looking" as the one that was originally made. I liked it better than the one that was made in the 60's because I found it easier to relate to the situation. I didn't exactly hate it, but it didn't hold my attention.
I read a review where i found on the New York Times website. it was written by Gina Bellafante, who works at the New York Times. In the review she compares and contrast the broadway play to the 2008 movie. She thinks in the broadway play the mother[Ruth Younger] doesnt hit a note at all.
I enjoyed A Raisin in the Sun, it gave me some sort of joy. It intrest me alot. The broady way play was also good but i havent seen that. I enjoyed the 1950's version, as much as i liked the 2008 version.
I found the review at the New York times. The review was written by Ginia Bellafante. Their opinion was that nobody in the film was mediocre and also said that Ms.Lathan is terrific at showing how she wanted to better herself.
The acting was excellent by Sean Combs. The message was that family is more important than money. I loved the film because they really performed their character great. They showed alot of emotion and really got you to watch more. I totally agree with the review because i agree that they performed their roll terrifically. I feel that the 1961 film had a huge impact because Ruby Dee showed so much emotion and strength in that scene. Also the grandmother had a great line and the way they all performed in that scene was very strong. The 1961 film was stronger than the 2008 film.
The review that I found was in the Times. I found it on the site for the paper. Ginia Bellafante. Her review wasn't very long, but it got to the point quickly. She really liked the movie. she said that the acting was very good, and that P.Diddy's part was very well cast. She thought he did a very good job at that part,and that it suited him well. She also said that Lathan was terrific at portraying her snobby character. Ginia liked the movie, the actors, their acting, and the way the whole thing was set up.
I liked the movie, also. I thought it was suspenseful, and it really kept my attention. whereas some movies kind of bore me at times, but this one was interesting all the way through. I liked the characters personalities, especially Beneatha. There were times where she kind of reminded me of myself, with her charasmatic personality, and she was very outgoing. and I got really in to the movie, also. I almost cried at the end, and i only cry in very good movies, because it takes a lot to make me cry. I thought P.Diddy was good at his part, however, if i were to give an award for the best acting in this movie, i would award it to the mother because she really portrayed the character the way i would imagine her to be. I thought that maybe, perhaps P.Diddy was aiming a little bit high with this movie, and he should have started his acting career with something a little easier, because Sidney was a hard act to follow.
But overall, I enjoyed it.
i found a review on imdb.com. this review was written by "Izzy." i nthis review, izz says that this film had many flaws, as every movie does. he says the first half of the film, it moved in a little slow, and Sean Combs performance didn't help. he felt that the cast excluding Sean Combs was superb and was full of real emotion and strength. "Combs was trying to hard to act, when he should have let it flow and have a real feeling for the character and not just try to over act."
As Izzy pointed out, Shaun Combs isn't the best actor. I felt as though he were trying to hard to play his part. although i was entertained for most of the movie, some parts wanted to make me fall asleep. For the most part, i agree with Izzy.
Well, I got my review from this website: http://blogs.dmjuice.com/?cat=86. The person reviewing the movie, A Raisin in the Sun starring Sean Combs, was Stan Fleming. He actually graded this like a teacher. He thought they they could of gotten better actors. He thought that Terrence Howard should have been playing Walter Lee. Now, he also commented on Audra McDonald for playing the wife. He tought that they could've done a better job with the casting. He actually commented that she looked much more older than Diddy.
Stan also thought that some of the stage directions were a bit bad. He thought that on some of the lines they were on cue, instead of being much more natural. He thought that the dialoge looked more rehearsed than it would be in a natural conversation. Then he seems to be obliagted to watch the original to see how much more better Sidney Poitier had done it. So, in this case Stan Fleming gave A Raisin in the Sun a B-.
Well, I can sort of see where Stan is coming from. But i think that it was a little mean to say how they should of done better casting roles. But, hey, that's what reviewers have to do. Anyway, I actually think that this was very good. I definitley liked it better than what it was like in the 60's. I think I have to agree on what Stan said but instead I'll give it a B+ or A (between those two.)
I read a review on A Raisin In the Sun on a website called Newsblaze.com by Kam Williams. Williams mostly talks about the story line and Hansberry’s relation to the story. She also says that Sean Combs “comes of age as an actor here, delivering a memorable performance…” She also thought that it was very well done and was as good as the original. I agreed with this review because I also thought that it was very similar to the original. I think that they were both very impactful and Sean Combs did a very good job of playing Walter. I have to say that the new version was more impactful because it showed more emotion and it was more realistic.
A Raisin in the Sun is a story of an African American family in Chicago that suddenly have ten thousand dollars from their husband and father’s insurance. They all want to spend the money in different ways. Lena wants to spend it on a house that the whole family can live in together instead of their run-down apartment. Beneatha wants to use the money to go to medical school so she can become a doctor, and Walter wants to use it for investments. When Lena buys a house in an all Caucasian neighborhood, Walter becomes upset that he can’t use the money for business.
I really enjoyed this movie and I think the cast was great. It had some funny moments, some suspenseful moments, and others that were extremely inspiring. On a scale of one through ten, one being horrible and ten being terrific, I would say this movie was an eight.
The review I read talks about the movie it self than give it opinion. The author says that "The play is old-fashioned enough for us to know that when Walter says, "Money is life" his mother will react with pained disappointment." I think the author mentioned this because Walter, through-out the whole movie was wanting money in which ever way he can get it. The author gave the review a B+. The author's name is Ken Tucker and the website for this review is http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179377,00.html
I liked the 2008 version A Raisin in The Sun better than the 1961 clip we saw because the clip that we saw was black and white and it didn't really get to my attention. But since the actors in the 2008 version were known it made me want to watch it more. But I would probably agree with the author of the review that i read about the rating of a B+ because the movie was good but i think there was room for a little improvement.
my source:http://newsblaze.com/story/20080218163334tsop.nb/topstory.html
when a african-american family get 10,000 check that the father had worked for non stop before his death. the wife decides it would be a great idea to by a home out side of the ghetto and live in th rich area when around that time was called the white's side. but the son doesnt think it's such a great idea he wants to open up a liquor store with his friends so he can take care of his sister and mother and also his preganet wife and his 9 year old son. but on the other hand all the daughter wants is the money for medical school so she can become a doctor. everyone wants the money for their certain wants and needs, but when the mother gives the money to her son after buying a brand new house in teh white neghiborhood he gets scammed by his friend who was suppose to help him get more money to invest into the liquor store. after losing all the money his father worked on days and night the family sees that they have to work together to make the money work.they decided to by the house even though the white people dont want them to be capable to move in their new house that the mother brought with her husbands money.
the writer if this article Kam Williams feels that the movie Sean Combs gets into character and does a great performance.
i feel that i liked the 2008 version better. i liked the acting better and how it was set up.
In the review I found on the New York Times' site, Ben Brantley thinks of the movie remake as a "Breakthrough 50's Drama Revived in a Suspenseful Mood". He doesn't seem to particularly like the acting, but there are parts where he says are well redone, and others that are unvarying and not emotional enough. I suppose he didn't really enjoy the rendition as much as the original, but for a new version it wasn't horrible. It is especially hard to live up to expectations after Sidney Poitier masterfully did the first version.
In my own opinion this was actually an extremely well done version. Maybe if I had seen the original I would change my mind, but of what we saw I think that this new one is exceptional. They put the message off clearly and well, the acting was not bad at all. I don't agree with the review completely, but there are parts that I would support.
i found my review on the website http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/02/raisin-in-the-s.html. The writer of it basically explained how the producers and directors could of hired better actors. For an example he believed that the movie would have been better if sean combs wasn’t in the movie. He isn’t known for acting and there are plenty of actors in the united states. He also talks about how the movie was lead by the women and their acting was spectacular. The three hour film was worth watching he said but only because of the women’s acting. Sean combs helped attract young viewers, due to his reputation a lot of young viewers tuned in to watch the 2008 version of the raisin in the sun. over all he liked the play but it could have been better. Sean combs made his role Walter sound like a whiney, character by the way he acted. The role wasn’t intended to be like that.
I don’t agree with the writer who put this review up. I think the movie was decent and Sean Combs did a good job. He has a lot of power and is very famous, so seeing a different side of him, the acting side is interesting. This is his first major role in acting and hasn’t done many movies before so people should cut him a break.
I like this version better then the 1950s version of the play. The newer version is up to date and I rather much see a colored movie then a black and white movie. I would be bored and not pay attention seeing a movie in black and white, this newer version is brilliant in my opinion.
I got my review from hamptonroads.metro.com and was written by Katherine Spiers. Katherine gave A Raisin In The Sun a 3 out of 5. She said that "bringing a stage play to television is a pretty ballsy thing to do". She thought that the somethings the movie was slow pace. She even gave an example "the whole first scene takes forever to lay out the plot. She also thought that the acting was pretty good. Her thought was that "A Raisin In The Sun is totally watchable, but you'll need lots of snacks to sustain yourself.
I think that A Raisin In The Sun the 2008 version was a great movie. I also do agree with Katherine Spiers that there were some parts in the movie where it was really slow, but when the important and exciting parts came I couldn't look away. I think that everybody did a good job acting. Overall I would give this movie a 4 out of 5.
If I had to choose on the my favorite movie between the 1961 movie and the 2008 movie I would chose the 2008 movie. The 1961 movie was good from that one clip I saw but I thought that the 2008 movie was really great and hard to beat.
The review i read on the Raisin in the sun which I found on the Los Angeles Times.com That was written by Robert Lloyd a staff writer for Los Angeles paper.What he talked about was the characters and why they picked the stars they did for the rolls and what they could have done to make the tv show better.And they talk about Hansberry and her film.And it was good but i would like to see the frist one.
I read a review from The Star Ledger website, by Alan Sepinwall. He says that he didn't like the performance by Sean Combs, or also Diddy. He thought that his character was to shallow in this presentation compare to the other Raisin in the Sun presentations. He also explains how Combs' co-stars help even out his vague character. He thinks that Walter Lee Younger was played more powerful in the 1961 TV presentation by Sidney Poitier, and then later on in the 1989 PBS presentation by Danny Glover. Alan says that Combs' character is frustrated and angry about the discrimination the whites give his heritage, but also that he lives in house with all strong women, who don't tolerate his nonsense in investing in a liquor store. Alan believes that the women in the story are noticed more since Combs' acting isn't all that great. He feels that Ruth was very strong in this production, and that her best moments was when she was debating on doing the abortion or not. She thought that the director and her played out very well. He, also, thought that in the scene in which Beneatha expresses her feelings about how she doesn't believe in God, it was very powerful.
In my opinion, I really enjoyed the Raisin in the Sun. I thought that the acting wasn't bad at all. I really like Beneatha. The actor was very good at playing the strong character. I, also, thought that Ruth was a little edgy. The overall story was very interesting. I thought it was a much better movie than the 1961 version. Even though we saw only about 11 minutes, it seem very boring. I can kind of agree to what Alan says about noticing more the women roles than the main character of Combs'. For me, I felt that the roles were well even out. The story line was very well done. I didn't feel bored at any part of the movie.
I read a review form ew.com and the critique gave it a b+ in overall performance. He also talks about a 2004 version of the spectacle and the actors in it such as Phylicia Rashad and Audra McDonald. He had also stated that the critique liked the choice of actors for the movie. He also likes the line Sean combs and the original actor say in there movie ''Money is life''. That’s basically it all he says. It looks like he liked the 2008 version
My personal opinion is that this is a b+ movie because I compared clips form the original. I thought the actors in the original were good to. I agree with the critique and I like what he said so I go by this .If I was the producer for the movie I would make a special addition movie with both of the movies new and old. This movie is going to be a hit and will remain in the hearts of many people.
I found a review at curtainup.com that told of the whole story and then said the story was great. This was written by a man named Berkshire who loved the film. Berkshire loved the film and thought everything was top notch.
I found the movie to be one of the better movies I have ever seen. It kept me active and into it because of the constant plot twists and what was going on with each characters lives personally not just the whole thing about moving. Their was love, romance, intelligence and everything just put into one big play for all to enjoy.
I found this review at www.usatoday/life/television/reviews/2008-02-24-raisin-_N.htm. This review was written by Robert Bianco. Bianco thought that the acting was nice because he says,"Rashad(Lena Younger) gives not just the best performance of the season so far, but one that ranks with the best of all time. Bianco also states that all of the three women were terrific and the movie would not have been make without Combsand would not work as well without him. In the review, Bianco thinks that the message of the movie is "far beyond a call for tolerance or integration" and he also says that it is "a clash of American dreams" too. I think Bianco really liked the movie because she really liked the acting and he says "This is a movie deserves to be seen and heard.
I really liked the Raisin in the Sun because of the actors really acted their part very well in the movie. I agree with Bianco that Rashad really did a great job acting in the movie. The part in the movie that seemed to be funny to me was the part when Walter was acting out how he will tell Lindner to just give him the money so that he could get out of the house in the white neighborhood.
On Talkinbroadway.com a man Matthew Murray says it ca't be easy to be Sean combs. He is sharing a stage with three extraodinary actors that always rise to the ocassion which he needed to do. Murray also states that he thinks Combs was afraid of taking on the task of trying to be as powerful a actor as Sidney Poitier.
In my opinion Sean Combs did a good job. People should be complienting him because he took on the challenge of taking on one of the most respected actors Sidney Poitier. The 2008 version had more of a impact to me because all the cast knew they had to be top notch and they all did a excellent job. With these famous actors everybody knew this rendition of the original had to be great.
p.t. 7/8-3,
I found my review on www.hamptonroads.metromix.com. It was written by Katherine Spiers. She gets right to the point of her review, boring. In the beginning she believes it takes forever for the movie to lay out the plot. In her review she questions, when do cars start blowing up and stuff? she is clearly looking for something more exciting and with some action in it. Although she thinks this is a brilliant play, but moves at the speed of "sloth times," directly stating her point of view. As far as acting goes Katherine thinks Phylicia Rashad (Lena) does an awsome job, as always. Katherine writes that Sanaa Lathan (Beneathea) is written as a selfish snotbag which I think is a harsh description. Katherine loves the role of Asagai. She states that he is better known in Britian, but does an amazing job putting up with Beneathea's rigidity attitude. Last, is Sean Combs, she thinks he is not at all a polished actor, but kind of works the part for his character Walter. I think Katherine isn't afraid to get to her point exactly and is kind of funny with some of the things she says in her review, such as... The verdict: "A Raisin in the Sun" is totally watchable, but you’ll need lots of snacks to sustain yourself. May we suggest... raisins?
In my own opinion I didn't expect the movie to be what it was. I thought it was great to be able to watch something and reflect on it. This recent production made the movie more interesting for me to see actors that I recognized. I agree and disagree with Katherine and her review because most of the movie I was greatly interested and wanted to know how they would pull through. At very short moments I think it did get a tad bit boring but for only a few moments.
I liked the 2008 version better than the 1961 version because like what m.t. 7/8-3 said it wasn't as dreadful watching the movie in color as opposed to in black and white. Also the actors made the film more interesting and brought a sense of successfulness to the film, knowing that when it aired on t.v. it would be a highlight of Black History Month.
When I was looking in The Star Ledger, I found a very interesting article about The Raisin in the Sun. It was written by Alan Srepinwall. Alan thought that there was a lot of important scenes in this movie. Like when Ruth was in the back room where she was going to get the abortion. Other scene that Alan thought was an important scene was when Beneatha said to her mother that their was no god. But he thought that the most important scene was when Walter was telling his family how much he wanted that money and that he would do anything to get the money. He said that he thought that Diddy had a lot of help from his co-stars, because he didn't really know how to act out his part. He thinks that Beneatha's scenes and parts were the best, because she was the only one who had a romantic scene and that Beneatha said a lot of important things in the movie. He also thought that Diddy did the worst acting out of the other actors. He thinks that the message in the movie is that you should always respect yourself and never think that someone is better, because their black or white or anything.
I agree with what Alan said, but also disagree. I disagree that Beneatha had the best scenes and parts of the movie. I think that Lena(the mother of Walter and Beneatha) had the best scenes and parts. I think this, because Lena told and corrected Beneatha and Walter when they were saying things that were wrong. I also disagree that Walter did the worst acting. If I had to choose the worst actor then it would the white guy that wanted the house back. At some points he would say things, but didn't have expression. With everything else that Alan said, I agree.
In my opinion, I think I would have give the movie a 5 out of 5. It had great settings and the actors really tried to make it real and it worked. Although I think that it could have ended in a better way. I think that the new version of the very important scene was better. I wouldn't really understand what the Lena was trying to say in the old version. Also when Walter was trying to explain what wanted to say it felt a little boring, but everything was very similar. I saw that the lines were very similar and the apartment liked very similar.
Comparing the 2008 version and the 1961 version I think the 2008 version is better because I thoght the acting in the 2008 version was better than in the 1961 version. Since 1961 film was made in this century I had a better understand of what was happening at any scene. I didn't like the 1961 version because I thought the person who was acting like Walter in the movie didn't really do a good job. If I was to rate the 2008version on a scale from 1-5 I would give it a 5. If I was to rate the 1961 version on a scale from 1-5 I would give it a 3 because I would have probably fallen asleep at the middle of the movie.
I read a review by Christopher Null. He pointed out in his review that Sydney Poitier was “on fire” and did an outstanding job in this production. He also says that this movie really showed the racial prejudice that African-American’s in that time had to go through in moving into an all white neighborhood.
I only saw part of the 1961 version of this play but I guess it was good. Compared to what technology and things we can use in the 21st century that movie was terrible. If I were growing up in those times and saw that movie I would feel like the movie spoke to me in a way. I would also feel like it’s saying something to those white people who don’t like black people moving into their neighborhood. Mainly, my opinion on this movie is that it was well thought out when put on the big screen. This was a touching movie that probably changes the lives of many black and white people living in a prejudice America. I also agree with the things said by Christopher Null, the critic who’s review I got.
Compared to the 2008 film we saw in class I found the 1961 film way more impactful. Walter Lee is a man that has suffered a terrible loss and back in the time when this film was made some African American’s were still going through things like this. Sydney Poitier played his character well and you can almost feel the suffering the family went through. In the 2008 film I don’t know why but it wasn’t as realistic or believable.
The review I found was on the New York Times website. The reviewer was Ginia Bellafante. She felt that all of the actors did well. She said the actors had the attitude that the characters would likely have. She felt that the actor playing Walter was one of the better actors in the movie.
I honestly believe that the movie was pretty good. All of the actors displayed emoional responces according to their character. There was rarely a point in the movie where you could get bored. Lastly, the movie engaged you in the conflict that was in it. There were some flaws but, overall, it was a good movie.
I saw a review which said that the original 1960's version had gritty production details which really is irrelavent. One person named Christopher Null described the old one to be a true classic one of a kind film. Entertainment weekly gives the new one a B+ which was a bit less than I expected. A writer from ny times says the acting was great and goes on the describe the plot, but i didn't see much commentary on any thing else.
This show was so good. Sean did an awesome job this role was made for him. Phyllis also took over her role like it was made for her. I would have liked to have seen more, I wasn't ready for it to be over.
From what I heard about the movie and what I saw in class, I think this movie was good. The part where Walter was telling the family that they were moving to the African American neighborhood was good acting. When I compared that part to the 1961 version, I thought they were very similar and good acting in both
In the review I read by Robert Lloyd from the Los Angels Times, Robert thinks that the 2008 one is better. He says that the movie had many great actors such as Phylicia Rashad and "Diddy". I do agree with him. The actors did do a great jod in acting. But i think all of the actors from the original play made it seem more interesting. ALthought it was a tad bit on the boring side, i still did enjoy it. Maybe because of how well they did their part. It drew me in but so did the 2008 one. They both had good and bad parts. But over all i liked the 2008 one better. If i was able to see the whole video of the old one then maybe just maybe my mind would change.
I found and read a review of A Raisin in The Sun on the Entertainment Weekly website. It was written by Ken Tucker of Entertainment weekly. Overall, he gave the 2008 version of the film a B+. The review mentioned that the theatre-audience draw was Sean Combs. The main characters of the story (except for the actors of Travis and Beneatha, who weren’t mentioned) were given good reviews.
Ken Tucker wrote, "In a role originated by Sidney Portier, Combs drops his Making The Band poker face, and reminds us he can act with full-hearted expressiveness. He holds his own with Rashad, who plays the stoic matriarch, and McDonald, a theater pro who embodies Walter's anguished wife with a piercing directness." He also mentioned that the play was old fashioned enough to tell that Walter's mother will react with pain and disappointment when Walter says that money is life. "It's also artful enough to portray the family's planned move to a house in a white neighborhood as a test of bigotry that affects each member differently." Ken said as well.
I also thought that movie was very interesting. I found it interesting how the Younger family managed to get through a really hard time in their lives and how in the end they were all happy. In my opinion, the 2008 version of the film is better than the 1961 version of the film. The way I saw it, the actors from the 1961 version of the film seemed to not have as much emotion as the actors from the 2008 version of the film. I also think that I would find the 1961 version of the film very boring and less impact full, due to the fact that it is black and white.
The website I found my review on was www.newsday.com by Linda Winer. She thought this movie was amazing and wonderful. Although, she says that without Sean Combs in another movie like this, nobody in America ould watch this. She feels that even though when he acts, he doesn't have the most expression on his face, but, we can still see his enthusiasm in playing the part of Walter.
I agree with her that this movie was really good. I'm not so sure that nobody would watch it if Sean Combs wasn't in it, but I thought he was a good actor playing Walter. I think that the movie also had a good purpose and meaning, and I think people could relate or imagine the situation.
I think the older movie had more impact. Even though I only saw a clip of the old version, the part I saw was very powering and had a lot of power and meaning to it. i thought the new one was good, but I liked the older one because of its acting, and you can sort of relate to it.
In my opinion of the movie I think that the 1961 version was some what better than the 2007 version only on some parts for instense. In the 1961 version it seemed fake when the Mother(Lena)told here son (Walter) to stand up and show his son how to be a man it seemed dramatic caompared to the 2007 version it seemed more life lik realistic but overall i will give the movie A RAISIN IN THE SUN a A+ for an outstanding job.
i read a reveiw from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179377,00.html. This was written by Ken Tucker. Ken Tucker gives this film a b+. He thinks diddy did a wonderful job. he says he did a good job with his expressions in the film.
I do agree with Ken Tucker. diddy did a wonderful job with his part. In the 1961 versin the person that played walter paused in many parts of the film. Diddy was a better version of walter. In the old version "walter" seemed to dramatic which made the film seem unbelievable. I Would Give a Rasin In The Sun" a B+.
The review i found was on miamiherald.com and it was written by Neal Justin. Neal thinks that the 2008 version of the movie was very good but he thinks that the casting was "a little dry" because Sean Combs will not match up to any of the actors in the 60's version.
He thinks that the rest of the casting was very good. He says that the actresses in the movie were very strong and believable. He also says that he really likes the 60's too.
I agree with Neal other than his opinion that Sean Combs is not as good as the actors in the other movie. I personaly think that Sean Combs was better than the actors in the earlier version. When i was watching the 1961 version of the movie, i found myself getting bored. During the movie made in 2008, i was interested the whole time and i think the characters were way more believable. I like the 2008 movie better.
I read a rewiew which I found on filmthreat.com. It was writen by Jessica Baxter. Ms. Baxter says that A raisin in the Sun is not such a bad TV movie. She also says that "Just because a person is a sucessful musician does not mean thay can act..." She also says that "Sean Combs may be an actor, but we all know it’s P. Diddy saying those lines. It may have been 13 years since Uncle Jesse asked people to “have mercy”, but unfortunately, a nebbish hairdo does not free John Stamos from that stigma. Phylicia Rashad may be the only actor who is able to lose herself in her role. Even then, I was mostly thinking that Clair Huxtable is a good crier”.
I agree with Jessica Baxter. Every time I saw Sean Combs I just kept thinking about him in music videos and signing. Also every time I saw Phylicia Rashad I just kept thinking about her times with Bill Cosby. The star cast did a good job but I couldent even compare the acting of Sidney Poitier to the acting of Sean Combs. I can only compare them by the clip I saw but the scens I saw were totaly diffrent and I liked the 1961 movie clip I saw better than the 2008 movie because it seemed more original and it didnt seem like someone was acting also he seemed more dramatic then Sean Combs.
The review for Rasin In The Sun was found at this website (//www.imdb.com/title/tt0808435/plotsummary). This review was written by Kenny Leon from his point of view. He as well as others said it was outstanding. The movie is about a black family's struggles to deal with poverty, racism, and inner conflict as they strive for a better way of life. Adapted for the screen from Lorraine Hansberry's play, this is a moving portrait of dreams deferred.
It was said to be that Sean combs aka “P.Diddy” captured the role of Walter phenomenonally. I agree with the review because, as I watched the movie it made me feel as though I was a Travis or a Walter and, I was going through those struggles. The movie wouldn’t be the same without the fantastic acting of Phylicia Rashad or Audra MacDonald.
The two movies were encouraging and impactful, both were a works of genius. For Sean Combs to reenact the role of Sidney Poitier was difficult. He was no Sidney Potier but, he captured the role of Walter equally as well.
P.S. -DIDDY RULES
I got my review from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179377,00.html. The person who wrote it was ken tucker. He said that the movie was good but it didn’t really capture the moment that well and he gave it a B+. I think the film deserves an A+ because to me they did capture the moments. Sean Combs did a good job on it to with the acting this is like the first time I saw in a movie and never got bored. I think the old version of the movie was boring I could wait for it to be over I think Sean Comb did a better job of acting as Walter.
I Found my information on the website called http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179377. The story was written by Ken Tucker, he gave the movie a B+. He said the movie was old related. Didn’t really say nothing about acting.
I think Ken Tucker Should of gave the movie a A+ instead of a B+. The reason why I said that becaue it’s a really good movie. I think the 1961 film wasn’t really good. The reason why every body wanted to see the newer version because they had P Diddy in it and other celebertities they liked.I think the newer version was more impact ful because the characters acted really good in it. I think the newer version is better then the old one.
Post a Comment