シークレット・ガーデン
あらすじ
No synopsis available.
作品考察・見どころ
AIが作品の魅力を深く読み解いています
原作・関連書籍
映画化された原作や関連書籍を読んで、映像との違いや独自の世界観を楽しみましょう。
興行成績
興行収入: $8,721,243 (13億円)
※製作費・興行収入はTMDBのデータを参照しています。収支は(興行収入 - 製作費)で算出したFindKey独自の推定値であり、広告宣伝費や諸経費は含まれません (1ドル=150円換算)。
No synopsis available.
AIが作品の魅力を深く読み解いています
映画化された原作や関連書籍を読んで、映像との違いや独自の世界観を楽しみましょう。
興行収入: $8,721,243 (13億円)
※製作費・興行収入はTMDBのデータを参照しています。収支は(興行収入 - 製作費)で算出したFindKey独自の推定値であり、広告宣伝費や諸経費は含まれません (1ドル=150円換算)。
監督: Marc Munden
脚本: Frances Hodgson Burnett / ジャック・ソーン
音楽: Dario Marianelli
制作: デヴィッド・ハイマン / Dan MacRae / Rosie Alison
撮影監督: ロル・クローリー
制作会社: Heyday Films / StudioCanal / StudioCanal UK
I had the opportunity to watch this new production of the classic Frances Hodgson Burnett novel shortly after viewing the 1975 seven part series based on the same book. I thought it would be interesting to compare the two versions. On the plus side for this movie version, the quality of the production is much higher, with stunning colors and lovely scenes and vistas. It is also very imaginative. In fact, there is a strong element of fantasy throughout, showing both scenes from the past and images in the present time of people who are dead as if they were still alive. Of course, it being a movie instead of a seven part series means that there is less time to develop the plot, so some is left out. And perhaps for the modern audience, there is a dramatic plot device used to hasten the ending that I suspect was not in the book at all. Now I feel like a I should re-read the book after decades since my first reading, just to compare these adaptations to the source material. Not that I would automatically decide the one closest to the story is the better one, but just out of curiosity. I think both versions have reason to like them: this new version for the camera work and imaginative scenes, and the old series for the patient plot and simple,charm.
