Reviews

Admittedly this is not one of the better episodes, but one that has always been a particular favourite of mine. The reason is that it has always left me feeling rather uneasy. To summarise, William J. Feathersmith, a bored, old, wealthy & rather unpleasant businessman, makes a deal with the devil, a return to his youth in Cliffordville in exchange for his fortune. He figures that with all his knowledge of the future, he will make a killing and make himself rich. He instead finds out that this supposedly formidable plan is not as watertight as he assumed.

My problem has always been the fact that although I was glad to see the villain get his comeuppance, the punishment did not fit the crime. The rather contrite Feathersmith seemed to be a better man and it was not necessarily for him to be ridiculed by Hecate, his former janitor. Another bothersome aspect of their exchange in the final scene is why was it necessary to make Hecate unpleasant just because he was now rich. More unnecessary moralising by Serling, methinks.

However I recently read "Blind Alley" by Malcolm Jameson on which the episode was based, and I have to admit that Serling's Feathersmith 'got off' rather lightly.

What were they thinking? This is terrible, I suppose they tried and it may have even worked had they subtitled this 'masterpiece' a film loosely based on characters from Stephen King's Salem's Lot: Any resemblance either to the 1979 film or the novel is purely incidental.

Where do I start? The names are the same, but the characters seem to have been pulled from an entirely different book also called Salem's Lot not the classic by Stephen King. Here are some head scratching examples, Ben Mears witnesses Hubie Marsten's murder of his wife and his subsequent suicide, why? What is the point of this? It adds absolutely nothing to the film. The hopelessly miscast Rob Lowe's Ben Mears writes about Afghanistan (what?) Matt Burke is black and gay (why?) Father Callaghan joins the vampires and murders Matt Burke (Good grief) Dr. Cody has an affair with one of his patients and is blackmailed (Hey?) Mark Petrie is a troubled child from a single parent family (mamma mia!) Am I supposed to sympathise with him, I can't think of more contrived rubbish.The characters seem to be cardboard cut-outs from some awful daytime soap opera not real people. So when they die, you don't really care.The acting is atrocious, there is no chemistry whatsoever between the actors. The editing is deplorable, it's almost like watching a music video on MTV from some terribly bland and anonymous band.

I realise that books and films are two totally different mediums and it's not always possible to replicate what's in print on screen, but surely it's not that difficult. For heaven's sake, this is your basic vampire story, why the social commentary? Why rewrite the story? Why change the characters? I can only assume Stephen King was paid a hefty fee to give the go-ahead for this ham-fisted butchering of his classic novel. I had my problems with the 1979 film, but it now looks like a classic compared to this effort.

This is in almost every way better than the A & E version. It is much more truer to the spirit of the novel, it feels like you have jumped into a time machine and gone back to regency England. The actors are all superb, even the minor characters are well rounded. It has none of the 'over the top' acting you got in the 1995 version. A few that stand out include the absolutely gorgeous Elizabeth Garvie, whose portrayal of Elizabeth is exquisite, none of the petulant smirking we got from Jennifer Ehle. She portrays Eliza as the intelligent and lively character that Austen intended. You can see why Darcy is attracted to her (I certainly was), I feel that the 1995 version failed to establish this. David Rintoul is superb as Mr. Darcy chiefly because he looks like him (I am sorry Colin), he is stiff, proud and arrogant just like in the novel. You can see why Elizabeth dislikes him, witness some of his exchanges with Elizabeth at Netherfield and Rosings, the underlying tension, absolutely superb. One of my problems with Firth's Darcy is one that other reviewers have already alluded to - he is too likable. There seems very little reason for Elizabeth to dislike him, in fact she is far more disagreable than he is. My one gripe with Rintoul is that I was not totally convinced with his change in manners when they meet at Pemberley, he is still too stiff. Firth was excellent in his portrayal of the 'reformed' Darcy. Charlotte and Mr. Collins are also well acted, she is sensible, realistic and still a great friend to Eliza not the snob that she was portrayed in 1995. Mr. Collins is a believable character not the caricature of 1995 version, he is still pompous and annoying, but you can see what makes him tick. Mr. & Mrs. Bennett are well portrayed, the Bennett sisters look alike as do the Bingley sisters.

My one major complaint with this version is that like the 1995 version, it meddles with the ending. I've never understood why directors/script-writers constantly interfere with what is a classic ending. Both versions seem to have been rushed as if the production teams realised that time was short and wrapped it up in a hurry. There are also some minor changes in the dialogue, but nothing too alarming as was the case with the 1995 version. Jane Austen's dialogue is the highlight of all her books, why would you change it? Then again I suppose that is why I am writing this review and not having my scripts filmed in Hollywood.

I enjoyed this immensely. Others have pointed to the budget limitations, but I for the life of me do not see how this has any relevance. This is a period piece not an action spectacular. A higher budget would just encourage directors to meddle with what is a great book in an attempt to justify expenditure (any one who has caught a glimpse of the 2005 P & P big screen version will know what I mean).

My best advice is to buy both versions and you'll not be disappointed. The earlier version is truer to the book, while the latter does the romance better.