I watched the first episode of the Amazon Prime production of their adaptation of Pratchett & Gaiman’s “Good Omens” last night, with an odd mixture of responses. Given that it’s the opening of a piece with complicated premises, that has a lot of exposition to get through, it contains (guess what?) a ton of exposition. And most of the exposition is dumped on a voice-over (from God) by Frances McDormand (very cute, and it works well, but doesn’t distract me from the fact that there’s a shitload of exposition to get through).
David Tennant is fun to watch (always is) as “Crowley” (again, cute) the Demon, who convinces Aziraphale (Michael Sheen) the angel to join forces with him to prevent Armageddon; they’ve both grown fond of life among people. The rest of the cast is fine (though unremarkable), but to have Newton Pulsifer (Jack Whitehall) – Crowley’s boss demon – a dead ringer (sorry) for Andy Warhol was brilliant, kudos there.
I confess I came down with a bit of “cute fatigue” (always a risk for me in the presence of the late Sir Terry’s work), but (as is also always true of my encounters with Pratchett’s stuff) it’s promising, so I’ll probably move on to episode 2, where (one hopes) the real stuff begins.
Write Free or Die 
“Cute fatigue” absolutely describes my reaction to a lot of Pratchett’s work (which isn’t a problem for him or his fan base — just something I notice for myself). That said, I loved “Going Postal” — both the book and the film — and recommend that one over Netflix’s Good Omens.
LikeLike
OK, now I’ve seen two episodes, and my overwhelming feeling is — meh. It has the feel of an inside joke rather than a story in its own right. If you’ve read the book then they hit on all the key funny bits, using Pratchett’s and Gaiman’s words verbatim whenever possible. But it doesn’t feel like it translates well; it has a movie-based-on-a-popular-book feel to it. Also, making the narrator God is oddly disruptive and distracting — and muddies the plot line a bit. Why would God be telling us this story, in this way? The effects are neat and I like Michael Sheen and David Tennant in their respective roles — but Michael McKean as a craggy old Yorkshireman? Let me rephrase that: David Ivor St. Hubbins from “This is Spinal Tap” plays a craggy northern Englishman. I admit that despite all this, I am enjoying it a bit, and will likely finish the series — but I think Mr. Quarrell’s 2 stars are spot-on.
LikeLike
“Inside joke” is the perfect description. They’re definitely playing to the fanbase.
LikeLike
Thanks for the review, Dean! I’ve seen the previews and it’s on my list to watch. I have been disappointed — a lot — by movie renditions of good books. I haven’t seen a good cinema version of the Hitchiker’s Guide, for instance; a big part of the pleasure (for me, anyway) was in Adams’ snappy writing. But we’ll give this a chance. Regardless of the medium, retelling a story requires (methinks) adding something to it, not the story itself per se but somehow adding something to the experience of the story that gives it fresh impact. It’s a classic cheap shot for film to cop out on the visuals, especially CGI tech, while paying much less attention to the story. I know Terry blessed this project before he passed and Neil was involved heavily throughout — but we’ll see.
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback as I don’t have Amazon Prime and it may be a bit before I get to it…ugh, exposition. Nothing to zzzzz you like backstory in the beginning. Is it about Agnes Nutter?
I really liked the book. Check it out — I think a certain someone gave it to you. It really struck me as your kinda story. I liked it a lot! (Also, if you do, let me know if the book starts off with exposition. I forget. I get the sense this is more acceptable in fantasy writing, but I still find it a challenge because it does not engage. Get ’em from the get go!)
LikeLike