HBO Mildred Pierce

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/27/11 at 11:25pm

The first two hours of this mini-series were shown tonight, and I have little interest in seeing the rest. The quality of the writing is surprisingly sophomoric, and the attempt to pad a two hour movie into a longer event has turned it into a true soap opera - very, very slow. Kate Winslet is giving it her all but this Mildred seems over-sexed and under-confident - not an attractive combination. She seems to have very little chemistry with anyone else in the story, including her children. Ah - the costumes are pretty good.

Conclusion: DIsappointing.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 2:24am

The mini-series closely follows the novel in regards to Mildred's sexual awakening. It didn't seem over-sexed me.

EDIT: After seeing the entire series, I agree..it was over-sexed. I'm not a prude, but the soft porn just went on too long and was excessive to the detriment of the story telling.

On the whole I was involved. But I agree the pacing was very very slow. It seems the director is a little too enamored of his visual composition for the good of the story. A couple times I flashed back to the 1945 film; I found a deepening appreciation for the original filmmaker's mastery of dramatic concision.

The girl playing young Veda is scary good.

Updated On: 4/12/11 at 02:24 AM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 9:12pm

it is v-e-r-y s-l-o-w.....so next week, it's the Borgias for me!

[fflagg]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 11:01pm

The only interesting part of the film is the connection that Mildred sees to herself in Veda. And giving Veda the "control" of knowing it.

Otherwise all I can admire are the attention to detail and the quality of Kate Winslet's acting. Hunky Guy Pearce plays Monty like he is gay, Veda is toooo sophisticated [just how and where did she learn to behave like that? Reading Vogue?], Mare sounds like Sharon McKnight, Melissa Leo is just "there" without a reason to be, and the others are unmemorable.

I like the pies!

[nmartin]

Posted: 4/2/11 at 8:15pm

It ain't Joan Crawford. It ain't Ann Blyth. It ain't Jack Carson. And it sure as hell ain't Eve Arden.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 4/2/11 at 8:58pm

Exactly!

[fflagg]

Posted: 4/3/11 at 9:42am

Is it even Lee Patrick?

[Broadwaywest]

Posted: 4/3/11 at 10:18am

I actually am really enjoying this production. Yes it is slow moving, so far. I think when Veda is played by evan rachel wood it's going to get much more intriguing. I'm not sure what was behind the decesion was to make this a 5 part mini-series? but it's beautiful to look at, kate winslet is very good, as is mare winnigham. I'm looking forward to tonight's part.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/3/11 at 10:34am

I'm loving this so far and not finding it slow moving or boring at all.

I'm glad Winslet got nude in part two, as well. I got worried after she was on screen for a full hour and I hadnt seen any pubic hair yet.

[violet72]

Posted: 4/3/11 at 11:02pm

I like how it is more like the book then the 1945 movie and I am hoping that it follows the end of the book and NOT the 1945 movie....to me the ending of the book is meaner and heart breaking.

Also my dvr cut off before part 3 was over (I came home late) so I have to wait till tomorrow to see the end...grrrrr

Updated On: 4/3/11 at 11:02 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 12:42am

I'm loving just about every second of this. I love the original film and think Joan Crawford is fantastic in it, the storytelling is fantastic and it works great for a film. However, this is a completely different animal, it's a whole new adaptation that in no way is trying to replicate the film; it's telling the story of the novel in a long format, which is great because you get to see so many details that we don't get in the original film, and the relationships are fleshed out in a whole new way.
I think Kate Winslet is simply superb as Mildred, she gets how to play a woman of the period without falling into histrionics. She's nothing like Joan Crawford and that's why it works so so so well. She's stunning and so much better than she was in what unfortunately became her Oscar-winning performance, reminding us that she doesn't need to be in a Holocaust movie or use a terrible German accent to give great quality work.
I love the style, the acting, and just find Todd Haynes' vision to be quite fantastic. I think the way the Mildred/Veda relationship is portrayed in this version is quite fascinating to watch and the dynamic between Winslet and the young girl playing Veda is so tense and complex; I'm really looking forward to seeing what Evan Rachel Wood does with the role.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 10:22am

I'm enjoying the hell out of the series so far, at least the first two episodes. Admirably written, produced and acted, with a couple of exceptions.

As noted, it follows the novel rather than the Curtiz film, and James M. Cain's novel is very detailed and methodical, laying out pretty much everything in great detail, even down to some backroom maneuvering as to Mildred's getting her pies into that diner she's working in. And the sexuality in the novel is pretty damn frank -- there's nothing graphic, but it is made very clear indeed that Mildred is having sexual relationships with guys she's not married to, which must have been startling stuff when the novel was published.

I do wish that James Legros wasn't playing Wally Burgin as a reptilian scumbag with a potbelly and perpetual smirk, which isn't really true to the novel at all. And Brian F. O'Byrne's wandering accent is painful to hear, especially during one big fight scene where you can just see he's having major difficulties in getting the very words out. Weren't there any American actors available? It isn't like O'Byrne is bringing anything particular to the role.

And I'll cop to one big problem with the series, and it is a problem with the story itself. Quite simply -- Mildred's insane devotion to that wretched little c-word Veda, who has to set some kind of standard as the Foulest Creature In Western Literature -- she'd eat Voldemort for breakfast. Yes, of course, it is the point of the story, and yeah, there are people like that, but it crosses the line into unbelievability more than once -- any sensible mother would have slapped that little bitch into next week at the very least after one of those arguments.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:03am

Roscoe, I really like that the series does not shy away from portraying Mildred as a sexual being in ways that they could have never done when the original film was released given the Code.
I agree with you re O'Byrne, I really wanted to like him but like you said, he actually doesn't bring anything particularly interesting to the part. However, they have a terrific ensemble. Oh, and I also love the fact they don't portray Winslet as a glamorous diva, she actually looks like a struggling mother from the era, which Joan Crawford (and hers is one of my favorite Oscar-winning performances so I'm not knocking it) never does.

And I'll cop to one big problem with the series, and it is a problem with the story itself. Quite simply -- Mildred's insane devotion to that wretched little c-word Veda, who has to set some kind of standard as the Foulest Creature In Western Literature -- she'd eat Voldemort for breakfast. Yes, of course, it is the point of the story, and yeah, there are people like that, but it crosses the line into unbelievability more than once -- any sensible mother would have slapped that little bitch into next week at the very least after one of those arguments.

I completely agree that it's a fundamental problem with the story, there's a moment in the third hour which I won't spoil for you that I particularly felt Mildred just needed to send her away, she's pure evil. However, I do like that for a woman who's so strong, her daughter (and not a man) becomes her weak point, especially the way the series portrays Veda as a creation of Mildred herself and a way for Mildred to pursue for Veda the opportunities she never herself had. I also think the fights between them are so emotionally charged; in interviews Winslet and Wood talked about how they approached the Mildred/Veda relationship as a very unhealthy relationship between lovers, which I think adds a really tense dynamic to the whole thing.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 11:34am

I must chime in on this thread, since I'm also enjoying every second of the series. Every second is so rich-the superb acting, direction, art direction, wardrobe and makeup-Mildred Pierce ranks right up there with HBO's best. I'm so glad they continue to offer the high quality which to me, makes HBO the producer of the best art on television. In fact, their Angels in America is my favorite film ever.

But I digress. Kate Winslet's performance is astounding. Of course she's no Joan Crawford-she's just as good an actress if not better, but in entirely different ways. This Mildred Pierce is entirely different and shouldn't be compared.

I agree with the one flaw which is the young Veda. The actress is superb, but I'm finding it a little hard to accept the degree of sophistication, worldliness, and bitchiness that she displays at her young age. Also-where does this come from? What circles has she moved in since birth?

Anyway, I can't get enough of this series.

[blueroses]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 1:43pm

I'm enjoying every minute and I'm glad to see I'm not alone! Every one in my real life hates it. Not that you all aren't real. You know what I mean.

Kate Winslet is excellent. At first I couldn't make up my mind whether Mare Winningham was way over the top or if she's great. I think I've decided that she's great! I think she's sinking her teeth into it and having a hell of a time. Kind of like Jennifer Jason Leigh did in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.

I can't wait to see Evan Rachael Wood already. I can't listen to the sound of little Veda's voice for another second.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 1:56pm

Blue, I was a little shocked at how much Mare seems to have aged and how much she's physically changed. I think a lot of it is makeup. I agree that she's great in the role. BTW, do you think the young Veda looks an awful lot like the young Mare Winningham? I do!

[blueroses]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 3:57pm

Jane, I didn't notice a resemblance at the time. I'll check it out later.

I liked Vicki Lawrence's Veda much better!

[Eris0303]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 3:57pm

I'm liking it so far but I was disappointed to only get an hour last night. And every time Veda makes one of her snarky comments I always think "my parents would have KILLED me"

[blueroses]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 4:00pm

She makes Rhoda Penmark seem like Punky Brewster.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 8:52pm

I'm watching part 3 right now and I'm glad Kate did full frontal because I was worried she wouldn't show bush. It's got to be in her contract.

[blueroses]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 9:26pm

Kate Winslet nude is like a painting come to life. She's so porcelain and gorgeous and timeless.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 9:55pm

Kate Winslet nude is like credits in a movie. They're both going to be in every film she does.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/4/11 at 10:29pm

Even though Kate's not the right age, I always like to imagine her as Sally in a movie version of Follies. With Vanessa Williams, who is the right age, as Phyllis.

I've only watched the first part, but so far I'm enjoying it. I only saw the original movie once, and I barely remember anything about it. Every time someone says "there's no murder in the new one" I think, "there was a murder in the old one?" I do think perhaps Haynes has gone a titch overboard on the sequences of Kate looking pensively in the distances, but aside from that I'm digging it. I love stuff about the early 30s and just aesthetically I can't get enough of it.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 12:41pm

I am watching now, alone and just said, "Man, get your foot out of her junk!" out loud.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/5/11 at 1:50pm

"Footing" is a real thing. I see it in German porn all the time.