Pip (Douglas Booth) is a rather ordinary little boy. He lives with his sister and her husband, a blacksmith, and wants nothing more than to follow his brother-in-law into the trade. Then his entire life changes. First he encounters an escaped, chained convict named Magwitch (Ray Winstone), who makes Pip steal a file from the forge. He obliges out of fear, but he also brings along a piece of pie. Then Miss Havisham (Gillian Anderson), a great lady, asks him to her house to play with her adopted daughter Estella (Vanessa Kirby). Though his life may have been unexciting before, young Pip now has great expectations for the future.
This movie is very, very well done. Though a little dark and weird in the first hour (my sister says that grown Pip looks like a vampire in that part; I don't disagree), it brightens up with Pip's expectations. The acting, writing, and directing are all par with most British mini-series. In other words, they're fantastic. But even more than the production value, the filmmakers' decision to make it into a character study of nearly all the characters in the film makes it a worthwhile movie.
The entire focus of this version of Great Expectations is on the characters. It doesn't wallow in Pip's bad circumstances, and neither does it depict the story as a slow, painful descent into deeper and darker places. (In other words, it's nothing like the 1999 version with Ioan Gruffudd.) Instead, the filmmakers, sometimes lovingly and sometimes callously, push aside the well-known story in favor of the well-known but often neglected characters.
"Neglected" is not a word generally used to describe the character of Miss Havisham - even those who have not read the book know who she is. But any real complexity in her character seems to be overlooked in favor of the basic idea of her: She's a cold woman out for revenge on men. In contrast, this version of the film embodies her in an entirely different way. In this version, she is a woman whose anger never really allowed her to grow up. Her high-pitched voice, curled hair, thin body, and nervous habits together help to create the impression that she is a child possessed by childish rage. For another example, the sneaking, evil Orlick (Jack Roth) is small, thin, and looks almost like a wild animal - a wild animal tired of being chained and mocked. Pip looks the very picture of innocent youth. The list could go on, I believe, until every character in the movie has been listed.
The material point, to put it in the immortal words of I-don't-remember-which-BBC-movie-character, is that Great Expectations is about its people. There's certainly a story (complete with the requisite Dickens twists), but the story is dependent on the characters' choices and interactions, not the other way around. Ultimately, the point of Great Expectations is to show which people are, at heart, good and which are bad. Who can receive redemption, and whose heart is simply too black to even want it? Who is willing to change to receive it? You'll have to watch the movie to find out.
Note: Since I haven't read the book in years, I can't comment on how faithful this movie is. I've heard that it's not particularly close to Dickens' original - so purists beware!
My Rating: T (mild sexual content, sexual references, spooky images)
Showing posts with label british. Show all posts
Showing posts with label british. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Concerning He Knew He Was Right
(Based on the book by Anthony Trollope.) Louis Trevelyan (Oliver Dimsdale) is a happily married man. He has a beautiful, spirited young wife named Emily (Laura Fraser) and an adorable son. But, as he tells his good friend Hugh Stanbury (Stephen Campbell Moore), marriage isn't always a bed of roses. In fact, Louis is very worried about his marriage. Emily's godfather Colonel Osborne (Bill Nighy) has been seeing a lot of her lately. He's known for dallying about with married women, and Emily is so inexperienced in society. Of course, Louis doesn't really suspect her of doing anything wrong. But then, Colonel Osborne seems to have a way with women...
Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.
First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.
Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.
The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.
Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.
My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)
Reviews of similar movies:
Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.
First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.
Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.
The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.
Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.
My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)
Reviews of similar movies:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
In Relation To Jane Eyre (2011)
(Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.) A lonely, lost young woman collapses on the doorstep of a minister and his sisters. She says her name is Jane Elliot, but her real name is Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska). Her life has been rather hard, and she flees from something - or someone - in her past. After a miserable childhood, she was happy during her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, particularly when her employer Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was at home. But something happened to crush her happiness and make her willing - adamant, in fact - to leave her life and start afresh under a new name.
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
In Relation To Nanny McPhee
Cedric Brown (Colin Firth) has a problem. Seven of them, actually. They're his children, who have gotten rid of seventeen consecutive nannies. He loves them very much but, well, the best, toughest nanny in the land just ran away from them screaming her head off. Meanwhile, the scullery maid Evangeline (Kelly Macdonald) pines away, knowing that a self-respecting man - possibly like Mr. Brown, although Evangeline would never say so - couldn't fall in love with an illiterate servant like her. Enter Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson), who claims to be a "government nanny." The kids know better, of course. She's a witch. That's the only explanation for her dreadful face and unusual abilities.
There are dozens of reasons why I love this movie, including but not limited to: Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, seven adorable children, Evangeline, a food fight, and a breathtakingly beautiful dress. Colin Firth is a wonderful actor, and poor Mr. Brown only tries to do his best for his children. Plus, the way he talks to his deceased wife is very sweet. Emma Thompson is fabulous as Nanny McPhee, which is to be expected since she wrote the screenplay. The kids are so cute, especially little Sebastion (Samuel Honywood), known to my circle of friends as "the secret toast one." Evangeline is a sweetheart, although I wish she was in a few more scenes. The food fight and the dress... well, you'll have to watch the movie to find out more about those.
The other thing in this movie that I would like to touch on is the idea of personal responsibility for one's actions. At one point in the movie, Nanny McPhee asks one of the children, "Are you prepared to accept the consequences?" This line neatly wraps up the whole idea of Nanny McPhee. Throughout nearly the entire movie, she gives the children a taste of exactly what would happen if they did what they said. The results are, of course, catastrophic from the children's point of view, and they eventually get the idea that well-behaved children have a better time than ill-behaved scoundrels. This sort of laissez-faire approach wouldn't work with real-life parenting, but it works for Nanny McPhee because she has a magical stick that helps accelerate and accentuate the consequences of the children's actions.
Personal responsibility, wonderful acting, a hilarious script, and adorable kids. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: OK (mild rude humor, mild sexual content and references)
Reviews of Similiar Books or Movies:
There are dozens of reasons why I love this movie, including but not limited to: Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, seven adorable children, Evangeline, a food fight, and a breathtakingly beautiful dress. Colin Firth is a wonderful actor, and poor Mr. Brown only tries to do his best for his children. Plus, the way he talks to his deceased wife is very sweet. Emma Thompson is fabulous as Nanny McPhee, which is to be expected since she wrote the screenplay. The kids are so cute, especially little Sebastion (Samuel Honywood), known to my circle of friends as "the secret toast one." Evangeline is a sweetheart, although I wish she was in a few more scenes. The food fight and the dress... well, you'll have to watch the movie to find out more about those.
The other thing in this movie that I would like to touch on is the idea of personal responsibility for one's actions. At one point in the movie, Nanny McPhee asks one of the children, "Are you prepared to accept the consequences?" This line neatly wraps up the whole idea of Nanny McPhee. Throughout nearly the entire movie, she gives the children a taste of exactly what would happen if they did what they said. The results are, of course, catastrophic from the children's point of view, and they eventually get the idea that well-behaved children have a better time than ill-behaved scoundrels. This sort of laissez-faire approach wouldn't work with real-life parenting, but it works for Nanny McPhee because she has a magical stick that helps accelerate and accentuate the consequences of the children's actions.
Personal responsibility, wonderful acting, a hilarious script, and adorable kids. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: OK (mild rude humor, mild sexual content and references)
Reviews of Similiar Books or Movies:
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
In Relation To Howl's Moving Castle
(Written by Diana Wynne Jones.) Life isn't fair. Sophie certainly knows the truth in that statement. After all, she's eldest of three sisters in her family, and, as simply everyone knows, the eldest never succeeds in life. Sure enough, when her father dies, her sisters get placed into good jobs that put them in the way of happy lives, while Sophie is stuck making hats in the back of her family's hat shop. To top it all off, the Witch of the Waste shows up in the shop one day and turns Sophie into an old woman! Sophie simply can't stay in her old life looking like an old woman. She goes to seek her fortune, and happens to stumble across the moving castle that belongs to the wicked Wizard Howl. It is said that no young woman is safe with Howl, who either collects their souls or eats their hearts (it depends on who is telling the story). But then, that isn't a problem for Sophie - she isn't a young woman any longer.
I absolutely love this book! The characters, dialogue, narration, and imagination are just delightful. Best of all, the authoress has managed to write a hopeful book in which the heroine and especially the hero are flawed and almost nothing is as it seems. I could detail the many ways in which things are not as they seem, but that would take a long time and give away much of the book. Instead, I'll focus a bit on the book's personality.
Howl's Moving Castle naturally takes on the personality of Sophie. After all, she is the main character, and books often display the same characteristics as their main characters. With Sophie, what you see is what you get. She is an unpretentious determined young lady who puts her mind to whatever task she has at hand, whether she knows exactly where she's going or not. For example, when the Wicked Witch of the Waste turns her into an old woman, Sophie makes up her mind to leave and does so. However, she likes to resort to secrecy and even tricks now and again when honesty fails.
This trait, the trait of resorting to secrecy and tricks when honesty fails, is the predominant trait in Howl's Moving Castle. In other words, deceptive appearances abound. I won't detail all of them here, but there is more than one red herring dragged across the trail throughout the course of the book. Honesty is used by the authoress until it is no longer useful, and then the secrecy and tricks come into play. The real challenge for the reader is the ability to discern which are the honest parts and which are the tricks. The two are mixed together rather liberally, and are only really separated at the end.
My Rating: OK (violence, scary ideas)
I absolutely love this book! The characters, dialogue, narration, and imagination are just delightful. Best of all, the authoress has managed to write a hopeful book in which the heroine and especially the hero are flawed and almost nothing is as it seems. I could detail the many ways in which things are not as they seem, but that would take a long time and give away much of the book. Instead, I'll focus a bit on the book's personality.
Howl's Moving Castle naturally takes on the personality of Sophie. After all, she is the main character, and books often display the same characteristics as their main characters. With Sophie, what you see is what you get. She is an unpretentious determined young lady who puts her mind to whatever task she has at hand, whether she knows exactly where she's going or not. For example, when the Wicked Witch of the Waste turns her into an old woman, Sophie makes up her mind to leave and does so. However, she likes to resort to secrecy and even tricks now and again when honesty fails.
This trait, the trait of resorting to secrecy and tricks when honesty fails, is the predominant trait in Howl's Moving Castle. In other words, deceptive appearances abound. I won't detail all of them here, but there is more than one red herring dragged across the trail throughout the course of the book. Honesty is used by the authoress until it is no longer useful, and then the secrecy and tricks come into play. The real challenge for the reader is the ability to discern which are the honest parts and which are the tricks. The two are mixed together rather liberally, and are only really separated at the end.
My Rating: OK (violence, scary ideas)
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Welcome Back to Middle Earth! We Hope You Enjoy Your Stay...
A picture of Thorin is out on theonering.net! Plus, IMDb has stills from the movie! (For those of you who have been on a trip to Mars and only just returned, a two-part version of The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien's prelude to Lord of the Rings, is coming out in 2012 and 2013.)
Other pictures have come out, but the one of Richard Armitage (North & South, and that dreadful Robin Hood show) as Thorin is the one I have really looked foward to. My first reaction was a grimace. Richard Armitage is a very good-looking man, and as Thorin he looks rather, well, dwarvish. But I soon recovered and decided he looks just fine. After all, he still has his piercing eyes. And I'm thrilled that Martin Freeman (Sherlock) is playing Bilbo Baggins. He doesn't look as much like Ian Holm as I would wish, but he'll make a great Bilbo.
To expand from the pictures to the movie, I'm really excited that this project is finally becoming a reality. It took forever after ROTK came out (2003!), but real progress is being made. All I can say is: They'd better stick to the story. Some of the ideas that were apparently bandied about during the making of LOTR terrify me. (For example, sending Arwen to Helm's Deep to fight alongside Aragorn in TTT was apparently an option. Also, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron at the Black Gate in ROTK, but the Dark Lord was replaced by a troll in the final version of the film.) So, as long as they don't do anything too weird with the story (like insert a romance; romances add a lot to most stories, but there's no place for one here), I'm definitely seeing it in the theater and buying the (extended version?) DVD when it's released.
Other pictures have come out, but the one of Richard Armitage (North & South, and that dreadful Robin Hood show) as Thorin is the one I have really looked foward to. My first reaction was a grimace. Richard Armitage is a very good-looking man, and as Thorin he looks rather, well, dwarvish. But I soon recovered and decided he looks just fine. After all, he still has his piercing eyes. And I'm thrilled that Martin Freeman (Sherlock) is playing Bilbo Baggins. He doesn't look as much like Ian Holm as I would wish, but he'll make a great Bilbo.
To expand from the pictures to the movie, I'm really excited that this project is finally becoming a reality. It took forever after ROTK came out (2003!), but real progress is being made. All I can say is: They'd better stick to the story. Some of the ideas that were apparently bandied about during the making of LOTR terrify me. (For example, sending Arwen to Helm's Deep to fight alongside Aragorn in TTT was apparently an option. Also, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron at the Black Gate in ROTK, but the Dark Lord was replaced by a troll in the final version of the film.) So, as long as they don't do anything too weird with the story (like insert a romance; romances add a lot to most stories, but there's no place for one here), I'm definitely seeing it in the theater and buying the (extended version?) DVD when it's released.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Pertaining To Upstairs Downstairs
It's 1936, and Sir Hallam Holland (Ed Stoppard) and his lovely wife Agnes (Keeley Hawes) move to London after spending time abroad. The couple is delighted to have their own home - until Hallam's mother Maud (Eileen Atkins) shows up. Hot on Maud's heels is Agnes's younger sister Persephone (Claire Foy), an awkward young lady who is clueless about proper conduct in society. Meanwhile, the newly-acquired servants develop their own problems and friendships. Neither the upstairs nor the downstairs can avoid the chaos spreading throughout Europe as fascism attempts to take hold in England.
I wasn't too sure about this show before I hit the "play" button. Upstairs Downstairs centers on the personal lives of a small group of people living in the same house - can anyone say "soap opera?" However, I was pleasantly surprised. Somehow the filmmakers managed to make a show entirely focused on people and their relationships without descending into crazy, tangled story lines or sex.
One great thing about this show is that essentially all the characters are both likeable and human at the same time. Nearly all of them make mistakes, but most are just immature or misguided and end up all right. (I say "most" because there are one or two exceptions - but I musn't say anymore.) Sir Hallam is, of course, absolutely wonderful, and I found the butler, Mr. Pritchard (Adrian Scarborough), to be one of my favorite British costume drama characters of all time. Even Ivy (Ellie Kendrick), the young maid I found excruciatingly immature and annoying in the first episode, became more likeable as the series went on. (But could any other Americans understand what she said? Her accent was so heavy I couldn't understand her half the time.)
It was also interesting to see the historical aspects of Upstairs Downstairs. It's easy to forget that there were Nazi sympathizers in England (and, undoubtedly, in other allied countries) shortly before WWII, but the second and third episodes highlight this fact very clearly. Also, a different portrayal of King George VI (Blake Ritson) from the one in The King's Speech was rather interesting to see. In Upstairs Downstairs, King George (who was still the Duke of Kent) has no noticeable stammer at all, whereas he can sometimes barely speak in The King's Speech. I'm not sure which is more historically accurate, though I suspect it is the latter. However, the Duke has a very small part in Upstairs Downstairs, so the absence of a stammer is not too distracting.
My favorite thing about this series is that it is pro-life. First, Lady Agnes has had a miscarriage and wants nothing more than to get pregnant and deliver a live, healthy baby. This view of babies as wonderful, even miraculous little beings is counter-cultural right now. *Spoiler Warning* Second, Hallam is determined to do right by little Lotte (Alexia James) when her mother dies under his roof. He practically adopts her, despite stiff opposition from his mother and his over-wrought wife, and pursues her when she is sent away without his knowledge. Finally, Hallam's joy at the discovery that his sister is alive completely overshadows the revelation that she is pretty severely mentally challenged. Understandably angry with his mother for lying to him about the death of his sister, he clearly shows that he would rather have a mentally challenged sister than no sister at all. In spite of what society might think of her, he immediately takes her home to live with him. This is a truly lovely embrace of a person who may be considered by some to be better off dead. Taken together, the positive portrayals of babies, adoption, and those with mental challenges all add up to a definite pro-life theme. *End of Spoiler*
Without gushing too much over Sir Hallam, I must say that I absolutely loved this show. Upstairs Downstairs has likeable characters, exciting history, and even a few pro-life elements. It also avoids the bottomless pit of soap opera-like melodrama. Things like well-written humor and fine acting are just the icing on the top of this delectable cake - and there are very few shows or movies, British or otherwise, that can boast that.
My Rating: T (sexual content including two bedroom scenes between an unmarried couple (not sex scenes))
I wasn't too sure about this show before I hit the "play" button. Upstairs Downstairs centers on the personal lives of a small group of people living in the same house - can anyone say "soap opera?" However, I was pleasantly surprised. Somehow the filmmakers managed to make a show entirely focused on people and their relationships without descending into crazy, tangled story lines or sex.
One great thing about this show is that essentially all the characters are both likeable and human at the same time. Nearly all of them make mistakes, but most are just immature or misguided and end up all right. (I say "most" because there are one or two exceptions - but I musn't say anymore.) Sir Hallam is, of course, absolutely wonderful, and I found the butler, Mr. Pritchard (Adrian Scarborough), to be one of my favorite British costume drama characters of all time. Even Ivy (Ellie Kendrick), the young maid I found excruciatingly immature and annoying in the first episode, became more likeable as the series went on. (But could any other Americans understand what she said? Her accent was so heavy I couldn't understand her half the time.)
It was also interesting to see the historical aspects of Upstairs Downstairs. It's easy to forget that there were Nazi sympathizers in England (and, undoubtedly, in other allied countries) shortly before WWII, but the second and third episodes highlight this fact very clearly. Also, a different portrayal of King George VI (Blake Ritson) from the one in The King's Speech was rather interesting to see. In Upstairs Downstairs, King George (who was still the Duke of Kent) has no noticeable stammer at all, whereas he can sometimes barely speak in The King's Speech. I'm not sure which is more historically accurate, though I suspect it is the latter. However, the Duke has a very small part in Upstairs Downstairs, so the absence of a stammer is not too distracting.
My favorite thing about this series is that it is pro-life. First, Lady Agnes has had a miscarriage and wants nothing more than to get pregnant and deliver a live, healthy baby. This view of babies as wonderful, even miraculous little beings is counter-cultural right now. *Spoiler Warning* Second, Hallam is determined to do right by little Lotte (Alexia James) when her mother dies under his roof. He practically adopts her, despite stiff opposition from his mother and his over-wrought wife, and pursues her when she is sent away without his knowledge. Finally, Hallam's joy at the discovery that his sister is alive completely overshadows the revelation that she is pretty severely mentally challenged. Understandably angry with his mother for lying to him about the death of his sister, he clearly shows that he would rather have a mentally challenged sister than no sister at all. In spite of what society might think of her, he immediately takes her home to live with him. This is a truly lovely embrace of a person who may be considered by some to be better off dead. Taken together, the positive portrayals of babies, adoption, and those with mental challenges all add up to a definite pro-life theme. *End of Spoiler*
Without gushing too much over Sir Hallam, I must say that I absolutely loved this show. Upstairs Downstairs has likeable characters, exciting history, and even a few pro-life elements. It also avoids the bottomless pit of soap opera-like melodrama. Things like well-written humor and fine acting are just the icing on the top of this delectable cake - and there are very few shows or movies, British or otherwise, that can boast that.
My Rating: T (sexual content including two bedroom scenes between an unmarried couple (not sex scenes))
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
On Dear Frankie
Frankie (Jack McElhone), a nine-year-old deaf boy, has been writing letters to his absent father for years. Except that his father hasn't received any of the letters, much less written any replies. Actually, Frankie's mother Lizzie has been the one corresponding with him under the guise of his father's name. Lizzie has told her son that his father is a sailor on board the Accra. But when the ship, which Lizzie thought existed only in her imagination, comes to town, Lizzie finds herself in a tight spot. She does what any mother would do - she hires a total stranger to play her husband for a day.
Putting aside some moral issues, Dear Frankie uses wonderful acting, a stream-lined script, and lovely Scottish accents to make a sweet little tale. Slow-paced, relaxed, and gentle, it paints a beautiful picture of a woman and her son struggling with their troubles. Frankie doesn't seem too bothered by his deafness, but he won't even speak to his mother, much less anyone else. Lizzie is struggling with single motherhood and the tragedies that have befallen her and her loved ones, and at times it seems like her mother's feistiness and her son's fragility are the only things that keep her afloat.
At the same time, Dear Frankie doesn't resort to too much drama. There are several scenes that are entirely without dialogue, and many others where the dialogue is very simple. That isn't to say the filmmakers wrote a boring or amateurish script. In fact, the script uses impressively few words to convey major parts of the story. Instead, it just means that the movie is about simple people with complicated problems.
One of the simplest characters in the movie is the man Lizzie hires to play her husband. The credits identify him merely as "The Stranger" (Gerard Butler). He has "no past, no present, and no future," but he has a very good heart. All it takes to talk him into helping Lizzie protect her son from the truth is a picture of Frankie taken just before his father disappeared. As the movie goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that he will do almost anything to make Frankie feel like his father truly loves him.
When tragedy hits, many people are prompted to ask "why?" Dear Frankie shows that it is not only possible to survive tragedy, it is possible that tragedy can lead directly to things that are more wonderful than anything that happened before tragedy struck.
My Rating: MT (language, sexual references - two made by children)
Putting aside some moral issues, Dear Frankie uses wonderful acting, a stream-lined script, and lovely Scottish accents to make a sweet little tale. Slow-paced, relaxed, and gentle, it paints a beautiful picture of a woman and her son struggling with their troubles. Frankie doesn't seem too bothered by his deafness, but he won't even speak to his mother, much less anyone else. Lizzie is struggling with single motherhood and the tragedies that have befallen her and her loved ones, and at times it seems like her mother's feistiness and her son's fragility are the only things that keep her afloat.
At the same time, Dear Frankie doesn't resort to too much drama. There are several scenes that are entirely without dialogue, and many others where the dialogue is very simple. That isn't to say the filmmakers wrote a boring or amateurish script. In fact, the script uses impressively few words to convey major parts of the story. Instead, it just means that the movie is about simple people with complicated problems.
One of the simplest characters in the movie is the man Lizzie hires to play her husband. The credits identify him merely as "The Stranger" (Gerard Butler). He has "no past, no present, and no future," but he has a very good heart. All it takes to talk him into helping Lizzie protect her son from the truth is a picture of Frankie taken just before his father disappeared. As the movie goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that he will do almost anything to make Frankie feel like his father truly loves him.
When tragedy hits, many people are prompted to ask "why?" Dear Frankie shows that it is not only possible to survive tragedy, it is possible that tragedy can lead directly to things that are more wonderful than anything that happened before tragedy struck.
My Rating: MT (language, sexual references - two made by children)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
On Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
(Written by Lewis Carroll.) A curious little girl sees a white rabbit with a waistcoat and watch hurry by her and promptly decides to follow him. She tumbles down an amazing rabbit hole with bookshelves and all sorts of things lining the sides, taking absolute ages to get the bottom. Then, well, you know the rest...
Considering that this book or its sequel are mentioned in dozens of movies and books from The Matrix to Regina Doman's Black as Night, I was rather surprised at its simplicity. Though many people have read all sorts of double meanings and dark underlying themes into this book, I found it to be a children's story at heart.
The biggest connection I made was one that Lewis Carroll may or may not have intended: Alice's conversations with the different animals and other creatures in Wonderland are remarkably similar to conversations in academia. No one will give a straight answer, and many people tend to change the courses of conversations so that they don't actually lose even when they're in the wrong. What started out as a debate about one thing can very often (I might even say almost always) morph into a debate about something else - a distraction. When the losing person realizes that he or she is even losing the distracting argument, the subject is changed once again. That can be every bit as frustrating as Alice's attempts to have intelligent conversations with the creatures in Wonderland.
I realize that people have written miles and miles of words about this book and its sequel (complete with distracting arguments), but I don't really see that it contains a meaning much deeper than any other coming of age story. However, like many other surreal or fantastic (as in fantasy) classic books, people have felt the need to dissect it over and over again. I say they should just curl up with a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in one hand and a cup of hot chocolate in the other and leave their dissecting tools in the cupboard for a little while. Alice needs no deeper meanings to be enjoyed.
My Rating: AGC
Considering that this book or its sequel are mentioned in dozens of movies and books from The Matrix to Regina Doman's Black as Night, I was rather surprised at its simplicity. Though many people have read all sorts of double meanings and dark underlying themes into this book, I found it to be a children's story at heart.
The biggest connection I made was one that Lewis Carroll may or may not have intended: Alice's conversations with the different animals and other creatures in Wonderland are remarkably similar to conversations in academia. No one will give a straight answer, and many people tend to change the courses of conversations so that they don't actually lose even when they're in the wrong. What started out as a debate about one thing can very often (I might even say almost always) morph into a debate about something else - a distraction. When the losing person realizes that he or she is even losing the distracting argument, the subject is changed once again. That can be every bit as frustrating as Alice's attempts to have intelligent conversations with the creatures in Wonderland.
I realize that people have written miles and miles of words about this book and its sequel (complete with distracting arguments), but I don't really see that it contains a meaning much deeper than any other coming of age story. However, like many other surreal or fantastic (as in fantasy) classic books, people have felt the need to dissect it over and over again. I say they should just curl up with a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in one hand and a cup of hot chocolate in the other and leave their dissecting tools in the cupboard for a little while. Alice needs no deeper meanings to be enjoyed.
My Rating: AGC
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Pertaining To Flawless
Laura (Demi Moore), a female employee in the all-male world of the 1960s London Diamond Corporation, is just about at the end of her rope. Then the jolly night janitor, Hobbs (Michael Caine), comes to her with a proposal: Help him steal enough diamonds from the London Diamond's vault to fill a thermos. Laura refuses at first. Then she discovers she is about to be fired - and decides to wreak some revenge on the ungrateful corporation that wants to toss her aside.
This movie is, admittedly, a bit slow in the beginning. Laura struggles a long time with what she wants to do, and with the question of whether she is happy or not. This is all rather boring because anyone can see that 1) she wants to rob London Diamond and 2) she is not happy at all.
But once the heist begins, the action really picks up - or should I say the questions become more interesting? Something completely takes Laura by surprise, and suddenly she has to walk a delicate line between Hobbs and a detective named Finch (Lambert Wilson).
Speaking of Finch, I rather liked his character. There aren't many likeable characters, since most of them are rather too rich and inconsiderate of others (there's a line describing a character that goes something like this: "He paid for the bullets and the coffins"). But Finch seems to take his job seriously enough, and he's a bit sharper than Laura gives him credit for.
However, my favorite part of the movie was Laura. In the first place, Demi Moore played her very well. Her American/British accent was a bit annoying at first, but then it was revealed that she is an American who has lived in Britain for the last fifteen years or so, making her funny little accent a lot more believable. Secondly, I really like her idea of feminism. More on that in a spoiler post.
My Rating: T (language (including one F word), very mild sexual content)
This movie is, admittedly, a bit slow in the beginning. Laura struggles a long time with what she wants to do, and with the question of whether she is happy or not. This is all rather boring because anyone can see that 1) she wants to rob London Diamond and 2) she is not happy at all.
But once the heist begins, the action really picks up - or should I say the questions become more interesting? Something completely takes Laura by surprise, and suddenly she has to walk a delicate line between Hobbs and a detective named Finch (Lambert Wilson).
Speaking of Finch, I rather liked his character. There aren't many likeable characters, since most of them are rather too rich and inconsiderate of others (there's a line describing a character that goes something like this: "He paid for the bullets and the coffins"). But Finch seems to take his job seriously enough, and he's a bit sharper than Laura gives him credit for.
However, my favorite part of the movie was Laura. In the first place, Demi Moore played her very well. Her American/British accent was a bit annoying at first, but then it was revealed that she is an American who has lived in Britain for the last fifteen years or so, making her funny little accent a lot more believable. Secondly, I really like her idea of feminism. More on that in a spoiler post.
My Rating: T (language (including one F word), very mild sexual content)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Regarding Sense & Sensibility
Two sisters, two entirely different personalities. Elinor Dashwood (Hattie Morahan) is "sense" to her very core. She allows her head to lead her heart, no matter what befalls her or her family. Her younger sister Marianne (Charity Wakefield) is "sensibility." She allows her emotions to dictate her actions every minute of the day, regardless of how it affects those around her. When tragedy strikes, the two sisters try to muddle through as best they can, hoping to pick up the pieces of their lives and find some measure of happiness.
I greatly prefer this adaptation to the one by Emma Thompson. For one thing, the characters are much nearer their proper ages. (While this might seem like I'm nitpicking, it's very distracting to watch a movie with a heroine who is supposed to be teenaged but looks like she's nearly forty.) For another, this one is closer to the book, although perhaps a bit more exaggerated. But then, that's what Jane Austen did best. If there was ever an exaggerated character, it was Mrs. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice.
While this adaptation is very close to the book, there are a couple difference. The biggest one is probably Edward Ferrars (Dan Stevens), who seems more handsome and less awkward than in the book. I was exceedingly disappointed in John Willoughby (Dominic Cooper), though. While his character is very close to my recollection of it in the book, the actor was a bad choice. He's not nearly as handsome as he should be, and his acting skills are perhaps not quite up to par. I much prefer Greg Wise in Emma Thompson's version.
The differences from the book notwithstanding, I love this movie. The scenery is absolutely beautiful, Hattie Morahan is perfect as Elinor (one of my favorite heroines of all time), and the writing is very good. While it doesn't come close to touching The Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, Sense & Sensibility is definitely one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations.
Note: Based on the book by Jane Austen
My Rating: T (sexual content and references (all in the first scene, which I have never seen; it might deserve an MT rating), thematic elements)
I greatly prefer this adaptation to the one by Emma Thompson. For one thing, the characters are much nearer their proper ages. (While this might seem like I'm nitpicking, it's very distracting to watch a movie with a heroine who is supposed to be teenaged but looks like she's nearly forty.) For another, this one is closer to the book, although perhaps a bit more exaggerated. But then, that's what Jane Austen did best. If there was ever an exaggerated character, it was Mrs. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice.
While this adaptation is very close to the book, there are a couple difference. The biggest one is probably Edward Ferrars (Dan Stevens), who seems more handsome and less awkward than in the book. I was exceedingly disappointed in John Willoughby (Dominic Cooper), though. While his character is very close to my recollection of it in the book, the actor was a bad choice. He's not nearly as handsome as he should be, and his acting skills are perhaps not quite up to par. I much prefer Greg Wise in Emma Thompson's version.
The differences from the book notwithstanding, I love this movie. The scenery is absolutely beautiful, Hattie Morahan is perfect as Elinor (one of my favorite heroines of all time), and the writing is very good. While it doesn't come close to touching The Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, Sense & Sensibility is definitely one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations.
Note: Based on the book by Jane Austen
My Rating: T (sexual content and references (all in the first scene, which I have never seen; it might deserve an MT rating), thematic elements)
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
In Relation To Pride and Prescience
Written by Carrie Bebris; Book One in the Mr. & Mrs. Darcy Mysteries
Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet are now Mr. and Mrs. Darcy. But, to Elizabeth's vexation, their joint wedding reception with the new Mr. and Mrs. Bingley is marred by Caroline Bingley's engagement announcement. Miss Bingley and her fiance, an American named Mr. Parrish, seem determined to steal the attention of society away from the former Miss Bennets and their new husbands, planning an extremely elaborate wedding ceremony in London just one week after their engagement announcement. Elizabeth's vexation at Miss Bingley's pretentiousness is gradually lessened, however, as the vain young woman begins to act increasingly strangely - to the point of trying to kill herself.
I am not a huge fan of fan fiction. In fact, I think authors who write fan fiction are poor writers; a truly great writer would invent his or her own characters, without having to rely on someone else's creations. Stories are important, but it's the characters that really bring a book to life.With such a low opinion of fan fiction books, I went into this one with trepidation. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy may well be my favorite literary couple of all time, and the last thing I wanted was to see their characters ruined. I was pleasantly surprised, at least with regard to Mr. Darcy. His character is portrayed faithfully; firm, honorable, and madly in love with Elizabeth (though perhaps he has a little better sense of humor than Austen gave him). Elizabeth is not as faithfully shown, however. A rather big deal is made of her wonderful perceptiveness at times, which is utterly ridiculous considering how unperceptive she turns out to be in Jane Austen's original story. Jane and Bingley are perfect, though I would have liked them to be in the story a bit more than they were.
While the characters are much like they're supposed to be, I'm afraid the writing style is not quite true. While I don't mind some sentences being modernized (after all, no one reads books filled with double negatives nowadays), I didn't care for the modernized dialogue. At select times it was excruciatingly painful. I highly doubt the expressions "handle it" or "check on" had been invented at the time of Austen's classic. If they were, they were not used among polite society.
The dialogue was a little tiresome; the story was more tiresome still. The resolution was much too obvious for my taste; I had almost all the details worked out little more than halfway through the book. Furthermore, I got the distinct impression that the authoress was intentially trying to imitate the kind of story one might find in a gothic novel. The book revolved around the supernatural, something that evidently showed up often in gothic novels. However, I highly doubt Austen would have approved of her characters being transplanted into these novels. After all, Northanger Abbey is practically a satire of gothic novels' mysterious and mystical elements.
My Rating: T (non-religious supernatural elements, slightly gruesome murder, thematic elements)
Picture from carriebebris.com
Monday, January 31, 2011
On Murder On the Orient Express
Agatha Christie's Murder On the Orient Express is a Hercule Poirot mystery. The little Belgian detective with the egg-shaped head and fearsome moustache boards a train traveling from Stamboul (Istanbul, Turkey, I presume) across Europe. Among the other passengers on the train there is a rich American gentleman by the name of Ratchett. Poirot, as well as nearly everyone else on the train, takes an instant dislike to Ratchett. However, it still comes as a surprise when Ratchett is found murdered one morning... stabbed twelve times with a knife. Poirot must put his "little grey cells" to work to catch the killer - or is it "killers"?
Pros: This story is another example of how one can have no idea of the solution the first time through, but groan at how obvious it is the second time through. I don't know how she did it, but Christie was definitely the queen of crime.
Cons: There's a fuzzy moral ending, though I'm not sure if it actually is moral or not. It's hard not to sympathize in this case.
My Rating: T (a couple sexual references, one mild, one not. Very annoying.)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Concerning Persuasion
Anne Elliot (Amanda Root) was persuaded to reject Captain Wentworth's (Ciaran Hinds) offer of marriage when she was merely nineteen. He had no money and no connections, and it was deemed wise for young Anne to wait for someone who would be more worthy of her. Eight years later, Captain Wentworth suddenly reappears in Anne's life. They are both still single, but Captain Wentworth appears to have quite gotten over his love for her. Anne suffers in silence as she watches him shower his attentions on a distant relative of hers. But then she meets a new man. Mr. Elliot (Samuel West), her estranged cousin, enters her life and is immediately attracted to her quiet prettiness and gentle heart. Anne quietly accepts his attentions, but somehow she can't quite cut the ties that bind her heart to the navy man she once rejected.
Pros: It's a wonderful love story. It's also funny, with many, many lines straight out of the book. Amanda Root is my ideal Anne Elliot. Samuel West is absolutely perfect as Mr. Elliot. They could have picked a handsomer Captain Wentworth than Ciaran Hinds, but otherwise he's great.
Cons: Lady Russell (Susan Fleetwood) and Mrs. Clay (Felicity Dean) are both horrible. Lady Russell looks like she has short hair (short hair! In a Regency period story!) and Mrs. Clay is not nearly pretty enough.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Pertaining To The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) Pevensie are miserable. Their parents went off to America, taking their older siblings with them and leaving Edmund and Lucy behind in England. To be more specific, leaving them behind at their aunt and uncle's house - to live with their cousin, Eustace Clarence Scrubb (Will Poulter), a boy who almost deserved his name. But when the painting in Lucy's room magically transports the siblings - and their cousin - into Narnia to join now-King Caspian's (Ben Barnes) adventuresome voyage, life suddenly looks a lot brighter.
Pros: They got Aslan right! In the first two movies, little line tweaks messed up his character a little, but in this one... he was perfect. I was very pleased with how much was similar to the book, and with how much was changed. I love a lot of the elements of the book, but it bothered me that there wasn't really a drive behind the voyage. In other words, I really wished there was a more urgent objective other than sailing around looking for the lost lords. And the movie added that. Will Poulter was an awesome Eustace, and was definitely the best part of the movie! Also, a pre-release trailer showed Peter and Susan back in Narnia - but that part never made it into the theater version of the movie. I could really go on and on about what I liked; just suffice it to say I liked everything that didn't make it into my "cons" list.Cons: Georgie Henley isn't a real great actress, although she's great at screaming. Another thing that bothered me is the rating. Now, I love movies that are intense or creepy (well, to a certain point, anyway), but this movie deserved a PG-13 rating for scariness and creepiness. There were little kids in the theater I went to who were crying by the end of the sea serpent scene. I love the scene; I just don't think it's appropriate for little kids. Also, what about Caspian and Ramandu's daughter?! She was awesome, but there's supposed to be a bit more than "I hope I see you again!" Grr.
Note: Based on the book by C.S. Lewis.
My Rating: T (gross and scary sea serpent, battles)
Picture from impawards.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
On The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) is in trouble. His aunt has just had a baby boy, and his uncle Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), who has been king in all but title since Caspian's father died, now has no use for Caspian. Where Miraz is concerned, that means there's no need for Caspian to remain alive. On the advice of his old tutor, Caspian flees into the woods, taking something called "Queen Susan's Horn" with him. When he is attacked by strange creatures, Caspian blows the horn, calling for the old kings and queens of Narnia - the Pevensie children from England - to return.Pros: This is a really cool movie. The special effects are awesome, and it's really exciting. Despite what nearly everyone I know says, I really like Peter (William Moseley). Lucy (Georgie Henley) is very sweet, as always. Oh, and Reepicheep (Eddie Izzard) and Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage) are hilarious. Also, the book, though filled with deeper meanings and stuff, is very much written for little kids - at least, as far as the style goes. This movie was definitely made to appeal to teenagers as well as kids. Finally, I believe the point of the book, which is faith, remained in the movie despite how much they changed things. (As a side note, Prince Caspian is downright gorgeous.)
Cons: The top of this list is definitely Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Caspian falling in love. I really can't stand Susan, so I can't stand that part of the story. Next comes the tweaking of a couple of Aslan's lines. Changing those took away from him as an image of Christ. Also, although Reepicheep and Trumpkin are funny, they're not really how they're supposed to be. Trumpkin doesn't believe in Aslan, and he's a glass half empty kind of guy, but he's not sullen, and Reepicheep is supposed to be ridiculously puffed up with dignity, not really sarcastic.
Note: Based on the book by C.S. Lewis.
My Rating: OK (frightening images, non-graphic battle scenes)
Picture from impawards.com
Friday, December 10, 2010
Regarding Jane Eyre (1983)
Jane Eyre (Zelah Clarke) is a poor, penniless orphan who lives off the dubious charity of her aunt. She is sent to a rather cheerless boarding school, where she spends eight years before leaving to become a governess to a little French girl named Adele (Blance Youinou). Adele is a sweet little thing, but her guardian, Mr. Rochester (Timothy Dalton) is moody and mysterious. As Jane becomes more and more comfortable in her new home, she also becomes more and more attracted to its master. But Mr. Rochester is not moody and mysterious for nothing - his past holds a deep, dark secret that could destroy Jane's happiness altogether.
Pros: Lots and lots of lines are straight out of the book. Timothy Dalton doesn't look the part of Mr. Rochester, but he acts him pretty well. And someone finally got St. John Rivers (Andrew Bicknell) right! Also, this one had a lot more time to develop as a story than the other versions I've seen, as it is nearly four hours long.
Cons: It's definitely a 1980s British movie. The sets, costumes, lighting, etc. aren't particularly well done. Zelah Clarke was far too old to play Jane. She was almost thirty; Jane is supposed to be eighteen! Plus, I know the fidelity to St. John's character was one of my pros, but I can't stand him!
Note: Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
Pros: Lots and lots of lines are straight out of the book. Timothy Dalton doesn't look the part of Mr. Rochester, but he acts him pretty well. And someone finally got St. John Rivers (Andrew Bicknell) right! Also, this one had a lot more time to develop as a story than the other versions I've seen, as it is nearly four hours long.
Cons: It's definitely a 1980s British movie. The sets, costumes, lighting, etc. aren't particularly well done. Zelah Clarke was far too old to play Jane. She was almost thirty; Jane is supposed to be eighteen! Plus, I know the fidelity to St. John's character was one of my pros, but I can't stand him!
Note: Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Concerning Dombey & Son
Paul Dombey (Julian Glover) dotes on his son. The third in a line of successful businessmen, Mr. Dombey wants his son to take his place in the firm someday and expand the family fortune. Unfortunately, his obsession with his son and his business are to the exclusion of everything else - including his sweet, patient daughter Florence (Lysette Anthony). As time goes on, Mr. Dombey's neglect of Florence turns into a deeply ingrained dislike. But when tragedy strikes again and again, will Mr. Dombey be able to turn to her for help or will his pride or her wounded heart keep them apart?
Pros: The story kept me interested, although it could wander a little bit sometimes. Florence is a very Dickens-y heroine - very sweet and kind, but with a heavy burden to carry. The side characters can be funny, especially Captain Cuttle (Emrys James). It would really be a great re-make (so long as they handled a couple of parts in the story with grace and dignity - something I highly doubt).
Cons: This is so a 1980s BBC movie. The costumes and makeup are so-so, but the lighting and the sets and some of the props are not very good. Neither is the sound; some characters speak a lot louder than others. Oh, and Mr. Dombey's son is not a very good actor. During a lot of the early scenes I caught myself wondering "And what's the point of this scene?" I think almost every scene becomes important to the story at some point in the movie, but some of them seem pretty pointless at the time. Finally, viewers don't get emotionally involved, which is a must for any movie. (Yes, it is; who doesn't want to feel excited during an action/adventure movie, or creepy-crawly during a spooky movie?) Finally, the climax scene (at least, I suppose it was the climax scene) was really odd. A friend and I each interpreted it a different way. *Spoiler Warning* Did the bad guy commit suicide or was it an accident? I think it was an accident; my friend thought it was suicide. Either way, it was a pretty lame and confusing part.
Note: Based on the book by Charles Dickens.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
Pros: The story kept me interested, although it could wander a little bit sometimes. Florence is a very Dickens-y heroine - very sweet and kind, but with a heavy burden to carry. The side characters can be funny, especially Captain Cuttle (Emrys James). It would really be a great re-make (so long as they handled a couple of parts in the story with grace and dignity - something I highly doubt).
Cons: This is so a 1980s BBC movie. The costumes and makeup are so-so, but the lighting and the sets and some of the props are not very good. Neither is the sound; some characters speak a lot louder than others. Oh, and Mr. Dombey's son is not a very good actor. During a lot of the early scenes I caught myself wondering "And what's the point of this scene?" I think almost every scene becomes important to the story at some point in the movie, but some of them seem pretty pointless at the time. Finally, viewers don't get emotionally involved, which is a must for any movie. (Yes, it is; who doesn't want to feel excited during an action/adventure movie, or creepy-crawly during a spooky movie?) Finally, the climax scene (at least, I suppose it was the climax scene) was really odd. A friend and I each interpreted it a different way. *Spoiler Warning* Did the bad guy commit suicide or was it an accident? I think it was an accident; my friend thought it was suicide. Either way, it was a pretty lame and confusing part.
Note: Based on the book by Charles Dickens.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
Friday, December 3, 2010
Regarding Sherlock: The Great Game
(Third movie in the BBC series with the twenty-first century Sherlock Holmes.) Someone is playing a dangerous game with Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch). The police consultant gets a phone call from a woman who's been strapped to a bomb. Someone will kill her unless Sherlock solves a case within a set time limit. His only clue? A pair of old shoes. Who would play such a cruel game? Why? Only Sherlock, with a little help from his associate, Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman), can find out.
Pros: Pretty intense story! And talk about a surprising ending... and about the best cliff-hanger I've ever seen. (Can't wait for them to make more!) Funny, as usual. Oh, and DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves) is back, which is good. For my thoughts on this series in general, read my review of Sherlock: A Study in Pink.
Cons: It was a bit hard to keep up with at times, but I suppose that's because Sherlock speaks so quickly sometimes...
My Rating: T/MT ((depends on the person's exposure to homosexual people) sexual references, mild homosexual references)
Pros: Pretty intense story! And talk about a surprising ending... and about the best cliff-hanger I've ever seen. (Can't wait for them to make more!) Funny, as usual. Oh, and DI Lestrade (Rupert Graves) is back, which is good. For my thoughts on this series in general, read my review of Sherlock: A Study in Pink.
Cons: It was a bit hard to keep up with at times, but I suppose that's because Sherlock speaks so quickly sometimes...
My Rating: T/MT ((depends on the person's exposure to homosexual people) sexual references, mild homosexual references)
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Pertaining To Sir Percy Hits Back
(Written by Baroness Orczy. Eleventh book in the Scarlet Pimpernel series.) Fleurette has long been sheltered from the world outside by her doting father. But her perfect little world is shattered when her sweetheart, Amede, is arrested for treason against the French Republic. Desperate for his safety, Fleurette leaves her home to find her father, who is a man of some influence. Little does she know there's someone far more powerful already looking out for her - the Englishman known as Sir Percy Blakeney, alias the Scarlet Pimpernel.Cons: Sir Percy isn't in it nearly enough. The climax scene is rather predictable, particularly if you've read other Scarlet Pimpernel novels.
My Rating: OK (violence)
Picture from paperbackswap.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)