Great Expectations (2011)

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)

Onegin (1999)

Onegin (Ralph Fiennes) is a lonely, bored, spoilt aristocrat. He has no real friends, a cash supply that can no longer support his decadent lifestyle, and absolutely no goals in life. Then his uncle dies and leaves him an inheritance that includes both money and a country estate. Onegin leaves St. Petersburg for this estate - and, once there, decides to stay. Suddenly life seems better. He makes a close friend and meets a beautiful young lady named Natalya (Liv Tyler). Can a man ever really change? Or does a long life of sophistication and pride leave him without the backbone to alter his future?

This movie really hasn't much story development. At least, compared with the five to eight hour masterpieces made by the BBC. Suffice it to say that the novel on which Onegin is based was written in verse - and that this is highly appropriate in light of the poetic justice that is meted out at the end. Choices - some good and some bad - are paramount. This is true with the choices made by the filmmakers as well.

Onegin moves at a dreamlike pace in parts. The movie is really only about an hour and forty-five minutes long, but it seems much longer. This is helped in part by the frequent use of slow-motion filming. In general, slow motion should not be used in movies. It jerks the viewer out of the movie and into his/her seat and lends a very melodramatic atmosphere to whatever scene upon which it has been inflicted. The slow motion in Onegin, on the other hand, is sometimes used in good taste. Feelings like boredom and despair are portrayed well by the use of slow motion. But the technique is used too frequently, and it becomes evident that slow motion is being used to create the illusion of a longer movie.

Having said all that, one of the most redeeming qualities of the movie is that it is visually quite pretty. The filmmakes chose Liv Tyler as the lead female role. Normally a bad actress and a bit strange looking, she fits Tatyana's part perfectly and is absolutely gorgeous. Her clothes and hair are stunning throughout the movie. She shines particularly brightly in the last few scenes of the movie, when her hair is not as severely twisted and her clothes are richer in color and texture. The choice of setting is very pretty as well. The Russian countryside is beautiful in both the winter and summer scenes.

Finally, the filmmakers chose to convey as much as possible visually and through dialogues that would naturally take place. For example, we see rather than are told that Onegin is a ladies' man (although I personally think this could have been left out, it's handled rather delicately). Later, Tatyana speaks of her troubles to no one, but what passes through her mind is evident by what she does (again, this could have been skipped or shown in a more family-friendly way). This is a good approach for a filmmaker to take. There are few things in movies that are more cringe-inducing than when unnatural dialogue, which would never have taken place in real life, is used to explain to the viewer certain plots developments. Like slow motion filming, such unnatural dialogue almost inevitably tears the viewer from the story.

In all, Onegin is a strange mixture of good and bad choices. This is evident in the story (which I will not reveal for spoiler reasons), but it is also evident in the way in which the filmmakers made the movie. The slow motion is sometimes effective - and sometimes not. The use of "show, don't tell" is effective - but also a bit risqué. In other words, it's a flawed but interesting movie, perfect for anyone willing to spend a slice of time on watching the consequences of choice.

My Rating: MT (bedroom scene between a man and wife, sexual content, sexual references , violence)

Note: Could be appropriate for younger teens if a few scenes are skipped

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:

• Upstairs Downstairs
• Wives and Daughters
• Cranford

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:

• Jane Eyre (1983) with Zelah Clark and Timothy Dalton
• Jane Eyre (2006) with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens
• Jane Eyre the book

Pertaining To The Conspirator

Zzzzzzz... What? I'm sorry. Fell asleep for a minute there.

Okay, something about a woman who is (perhaps) falsely accused of conspiring to kill President Lincoln. She stands trial in a closed military court with Union generals as the deciding body. A young man in the war department is her defense. He's reluctant at first, but then starts to believe the trial is unfair and she may be innocent. He's willing to risk his career to see her get a fair trial.

That about covers it. I've heard the movie is relentlessly accurate (historically, I mean). However, I doubt that very much. It seems a little too liberal to be accurate. The writing is so-so (what's with the contractions in the dialogue?). The acting is kept afloat by Robin Wright as Mary Surratt, the accused woman, and, to a certain extent, James McAvoy as Aiken, her defense lawyer. (Although I think he occasionally had trouble dropping his British accent.)

Aside from the sheer boredom, I also had a problem with the portrayal of the military court. Whether the generals were truly on a witch hunt or not is beside the point. What matters is what audiences bring away from this movie. Unfortunately, The Conspirator implies that military trials are necessarily biased. With the recent (and still unresolved) controversy over suspected terrorist trials, this seems like a thinly veiled condemnation of the military trials that many conservatives want to use. I have heard that this movie was in the works well before the War on Terror, so it seems that the man behind the movie did not intend it as a condemnation. However, I am perfectly willing to believe that director Robert Redford intended it as a condemnation.

Additionally, military trials are called "unconstitutional." Shortly after Surratt's trial, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens cannot be tried in military courts. I would agree. But this was an extraordinary period in the history of this country. Nearly all enemy combatants were citizens because it was a Civil War. The filmmakers also forgot to mention little details like: Abraham Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Imagine that! The man that everyone includes in their top five best presidents list suspended something that the Supreme Court has recently (and perhaps wrongfully) given to non-citizens. Also, if Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights without a huge uproar, why would anyone at the time think it untoward that Surratt got a military trial?

Finally, the story seemed a little stilted. For most of the movie, it is implied that Surratt is innocent. Only at the beginning and the end does Aiken seem to doubt her innocence. In the beginning, he is convinced that she is guilty. In the end, he admits that he doesn't know; he just wants her to have a fair trial. In between, he seems to never doubt her innocence. The flimsiness of the evidence presented against her also seems to imply that she is innocent. In the mystery genre, it's a good thing to mislead audience by getting it caught up in the moment. In the historical genre, it's just bad storytelling.

In conclusion, this is a good movie to watch when you need to catch up on some sleep. Robin Wright was wonderful as Mary Surratt, and James McAvoy was pretty good as Aiken. But they were the only bright lights in an otherwise drab (and probably politically slanted) movie.

My Rating: T (mild language, violence (including stabbing), several people are hanged)


Reviews of similar books or movies:

• The Winslow Boy
• Bright Star

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))

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)

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.

My Rating: AGC

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)

Regarding Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe (Anthony Andrews) has just returned from the Crusades. The son of a Saxon lord, he defeats Brian de-Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill), Front de Boef (John Rhys-Davies), and De Bracy (Stuart Wilson), the three best Norman knights in England, in a tournament. Unfortunately, he is injured in the process. When a wealthy Jewish merchant named Isaac of York (James Mason) and his beautiful daughter Rebecca (Olivia Hussey) decide to take him to their home in York in order to heal, the three become attached to the party of Ivanhoe's estranged father - and his childhood sweetheart, Rowena (Lysette Anthony). The little group is captured as they travel past the castle of Front de Boef, and find themselves in the clutches of three knights with less than honorable intentions.

Pros: Rebecca is an awesome character, and Olivia Hussey played her very well. A lot better than Elizabeth Taylor did in an older version of this movie. I also like Rowena, although she's kind of boring compared to Rebecca (partly for reasons discussed in my "Cons" section). *Spoiler Warning* I think Brian de Bois-Guilbert is probably my favorite villain of all time - although villain isn't the right word to describe him - he's a hero. Even though he acts like an unfeeling jerk through nearly all of the story, he gives his life to save Rebecca in the end and redeems himself.

Cons: Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular, don't come off very well in this story. But then, the story is a good deal about prejudice - about how Normans and Saxons hated each other, and about how both groups hated Jews, who hated them in return. But the main characters - Ivanhoe, Rebecca, Rowena, and King Richard - aren't prejudiced at all. Also, Ivanhoe might be the title character, and might be the one character that really ties everyone together, but he's not much more than a prop. Talk about a boring character! Oh, and I really like Rowena's character, but the actress was not very pretty, and she couldn't act at all.

Note: Based on the book by Sir Walter Scott.

My Rating: OK (violence, mild sexual references)

In Relation To The Winslow Boy

Young Ronnie Winslow (Guy Edwards) has been accused of stealing and, in consequence, thrown out of the royal naval academy. Convinced of his young son's innocence, Arthur Winslow (Nigel Hawthorne) enlists the help of Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam), a famed attorney. As Sir Robert does everything in his power to win the Winslow Boy case, the Winslow family begins to realize it will take many sacrifices to clear Ronnie's name.

Pros: I love Sir Robert Morton! He's a really cool guy who cares more about the Winslows (and one particularly attractive one, I might add. Don't look at her in the picture; she's really a lot prettier than that) than about his career or reputation. The ending rather surprised me.

Cons: This movie was based on a play, which is quite obvious. Too many of the lines are repeated (how many times do they have to say everything?!).

My Rating: OK (Ronnie's older brother Dickie is rather a dissolute character)

Picture from impawards.com

Regarding The Inheritance

Edith Adelon (Cari Shayne) has lived with the Hamiltons since she was a tiny baby. But now things are changing. A cousin of the Hamiltons, one miss Ida Glenshaw (Brigid Brannagh), is coming for a visit. Ida is on a husband-hunt, and her prey is James Percy (Thomas Gibson), a very rich man who is also coming to visit the Hamiltons. But James falls for Edith. Then Ida turns her eye to Frederick Arlington (Paul Anthony Stewart), someone who lives near the Hamiltons. When he, too, is attracted by Edith, Ida becomes wildly jealous.

Pros: There are two great things about this movie. The first is Mr. Hamilton (Tom Conti). He is absolutely hilarious if you like sarcastic humor. The second one is James. He's not that great of an actor, but he's so darn handsome. Normally the hero's looks don't play into my liking or disliking of a movie that much (like in Bleak House or Little Dorrit or Wives and Daughters). Good looks are just a bonus if the hero is likeable. But the guy in this movie is really, really handsome.

Cons: I should have seen the ending coming. Plus, the stupid horse riding by Edith is such a cliche and totally unrealistic! A friend told me that part of the story isn't even in the book, which only makes the movie that much worse!

Note: Based on the book by Louisa May Alcott. Oh, and the little stone house in this movie is the same one Missie lives in during the later Love Comes Softly movies.

My Rating: OK (mild language, very mild sexual content)

Picture from dvdnear.com

Pertaining To The Scarlet Pimpernel

Sir Percy Blakeney (Anthony Andrews) is not only a very rich English nobleman, he is also a fop. At least, that's what society believes. But society doesn't know that he has a secret identity - the Scarlet Pimpernel, a dashing hero who rescues French aristocrats from the very shadow of Madame Guillotine. When Sir Percy helps the brother of beautiful actress Marguerite St. Just (Jane Seymour), a romance is born. But neither of them counted on the jealousy of Marguerite's former suitor, nor the possibility that Sir Percy's secret might come between them.

Pros: I must admit, I came into this movie baised against it. Who could ever beat Leslie Howard as Sir Percy? But then I saw Anthony Andrews. Never was there a more perfect Sir Percy! He is absolutely exactly how he's supposed to be! And Jane Seymour is really one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen - which is quite unusual. It's typical of movies (particularly old ones) to have not-so-pretty women play the beautiful ones, and beautiful women to play the not-so-pretty ones. Very little in this movie seemed like it was filmed in the eighties. Could the lighting have been better? Yes. The sets? Perhaps. The costumes? Likely not. The acting for the lead parts? Never!

Cons: Despite what I said about the acting, I was disappointed in Sir Ian McKellen. I guess I was expecting him to play Chauvelin as well as he played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings and Creakle in David Copperfield. However, he is still a passable bad guy. And why didn't they pick a handsome guy to play Sir Andrew?! I love Sir Andrew in the book! Although I suppose the actor they chose might have been considered handsome back in 1982...

My Rating: T (mild sexual content not involving hero or heroine, thematic elements)

Picture from topdvdcollections.com

Concerning Bleak House

Jarndyce and Jarndyce has been going on for years. This case, involving several contradicting wills left by a very rich old man, has been in court for decades, and it never seems to near its end. Then two wards of the court, Ada Clare (Carey Mulligan) and Richard Carstone (Patrick Kennedy), together with their orphaned companion, Esther Summerson (Anna Maxwell Martin), are placed under the guardianship of a rival in the Jarndyce case - a Mr. John Jarndyce (Denis Lawson) of Bleak House. Another rival in the Jarndyce case is Lady Dedlock (Gillian Anderson), who is married to old Sir Leicester Dedlock (Timothy West). She is every inch a lady, but she is bored. When her husband's lawyer brings a legal document to show to Sir Leicester, Lady Dedlock recognizes the handwriting - and she faints from shock.

Pros: Gillian Anderson is awesome! Especially considering she is an American playing a British role. I love Ada and Esther. This movie is very funny, very engrossing, and very... long. Over seven and a half hours!

Cons: I can't think of a single thing I don't like about this movie.

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

In Relation To Love Finds a Home

Dr. Belinda Owens (Sarah Jones) has a near-perfect life. She has a wonderful husband named Lee (Jordan Bridges), and a beautiful (matter of opinion) adopted daughter named Lillian (Courteney Halverson). But Belinda can't be perfectly happy - her inability to get pregnant clouds her otherwise-perfect life. Then her old schoolmate, Annie (Haylie Duff), comes for a visit. Annie is pregnant with her first child, and seeing a pregnant friend so close at hand increases Belinda's anxiety.

Pros: The cons are a really long list, so I have to say right now that I like this movie. Lee is great! Lillian's boyfriend, Joshua (Michael Trevino), is really cute. (Even if the actor has distractingly pierced ears!) He's also very responsible and sweet. Annie's mother-in-law, Mary (Patty Duke), is hilarious and acted very well.

Cons: Aaaaaaaaaah! The latest Love Comes Softly movies have had this sort of "squelched girl syndrome" (as Steven D. Greydanus of Decent Films says). They all have women who are restricted somehow by their husbands. I find that extremely annoying. Lillian, despite what everyone says, is not "beautiful," although she can look pretty. Haylie Duff was a terrible choice! She doesn't look "pioneerish" in any sense of the "word." Her skin is too dark, her hair too short and streaked, and her eyebrows too dark for her hair color. Plus, she doesn't act like a pioneer woman - and she certainly doesn't look pregnant! The writing and acting could be better, though I've seen worse.

My Rating: OK (birthing scene)

Picture from movieberry.com

Regarding Bright Star

Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is a fashionable young lady who loves witty remarks. John Keats (Ben Whishaw) is a shy poet who likes jokes, but doesn't care to dance. They're hardly an ideal pair. Yet, Fanny is attracted to Mr. Keats the very first time she meets him - despite his need for a new coat. She determinedly pursues a friendship with him, ignoring the discouragement she recieves from his obnoxious friend, Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider).

Pros: This movie is absolutely gorgeous. I caught my breath both times I saw the scene in the field with the blue/purple flowers. Fanny and Mr. Keats's love story is beautiful and almost entirely chaste (chastity runs deeper than simple abstinence). Mr. Brown's Scottish accent is awesome! The acting is almost impossibly good. Fanny's younger sister Toots (Edie Martin) is very cute and sweet.

Cons: "A poem needs understanding through the senses. The point of diving into a lake is not immediately to swim to the shore, but to be in the lake, to luxuriate in the sensation of water. You do not work the lake out, it is an experience beyond thought." -Mr. Keats, in a conversation with Fanny. Replace "a poem" with "this movie" and you have what I think of Bright Star. The first time I watched it, I didn't like it. I wanted it to pull me in, to capture my imagination and my emotions. It didn't. The second time I watched it, I was determined to become immersed in it. While even then it didn't affect me like many other movies I've seen, it was a lot better.

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

Picture from movieberry.com

Concerning Stranded

David Robinson (Liam Cunningham) is a preacher who refuses to swear allegience to the crown. Because of this, he and his family are put on a ship and sent to a penal colony in the Pacific Ocean. But then the ship wrecks in a storm. The youngest Robinson, Jacob (Andrew Lee Potts), is placed in a lifeboat, but the rest of the family gets trapped in the hold and left behind. They make it to a nearby island and slowly build a life there. Then, after a period of seven years, a young lady shows up on their shores and brings trouble. A pirate ship is right on her heels, captained by a lieutenant from the prison ship and an unusual first mate - a seventeen-year-old boy named Jakie.

Pros: Um... The scenery and wildlife are stunning. Fritz (Jesse Spencer) is very good looking.

Cons: It's a not-too-good adaptation of Swiss Family Robinson, though they had to change the title because the family is British, not Swiss. The Disney movie is far superior. There are tons of storylines (father/son conflict, Jacob's conflict over choosing family or friends, sibling rivalry, Captain Blunt's (Roger Allam) inexplicable attraction to Lara Robinson (Brana Bajic)), but none are fleshed out. In short, they tried to cram as much as possible into a roughly three-hour movie, but failed to make it work.

My Rating: OK (violence)

Concerning Jane Eyre (2006)

Jane Eyre (Ruth Wilson) grows up in Lowood Institution, a rather severe boarding school for orphans. She becomes a teacher and soon finds a job as a governess for a little French girl named Adele Varens (Cosima Littlewood). Adele's guardian, Mr. Rochester (Toby Stephens), is moody and rough, but Jane finds herself increasingly attracted to him. Matters come to a head with the arrival of Miss Blanche Ingram (Christina Cole), the local beauty and Mr. Rochester's likely future bride.

Pros: Every movie based on a book must, in my opinion, follow the book as closely as possible to be a good movie. This one gets a B in that category. A vast number of lines and scenes are directly (or nearly directly) out of the book. Ruth Wilson is perfect for Jane. Toby Stephens plays a good Mr. Rochester.

Cons: Adele is more annoying than she should be. She's simply vain in the book; not arrogant as well. They drained the life out of Mr. Rochester in two key scenes. The most important scene in the movie was entirely ruined, not only is it inaccurate according to the book, but it's immoral as well!

My Rating: MT (fleeting, non-explicit sex scene not involving the hero or heroine, thematic elements)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

In Relation to Wives and Daughters

Based on the book by Elizabeth Gaskell, Wives and Daughters is about young Molly Gibson (Justine Waddell). Molly is sent by her widowed father Dr. Gibson (Bill Paterson) to spend a few weeks at Hamley Hall. Dr. Gibson promptly gets engaged to an elegant but self-absorbed governess named Hyacinth (Francesca Annis), who has a daughter about Molly's age. The new additions to the Gibson household alternately wreak havoc and blessings on everyone around them.

Pros: I love Molly Gibson! She's very sweet, but has a bit of a temper. Dr. Gibson is one of my favorite characters of all time. It's nice to watch a movie with a strong father character! Roger Hamley (Anthony Howell), though clueless like most men in nineteenth century novels, is very kind. Lady Harriet Cumnor (Rosamund Pike) is a great character - but she isn't in the movie nearly enough!

Cons: The music can be distracting at times. Osborne Hamley (Tom Hollander) could have been taller and handsomer. Hyacinth gets almost painfully superficial.

My Rating: AGC

Picture from coverbrowser.com

Concerning Cranford

Cranford, based on the stories by Elizabeth Gaskell, is about a small town in 1840s England. Largely untouched by new-fangled inventions such as railroads, Cranford has been quietly managed by a small group of older women headed by Miss Deborah Jenkyns (Eileen Atkins). Everyone who joins the town, from Capt. Brown (Jim Carter) to Miss Mary Smith (Lisa Dillon) to young (and unmarried!) Dr. Harrison (Simon Woods), must conform to the town's ideas of proper conduct or face severe disapproval.

Pros: This movie is not only extremely well acted, it's also hilarious! The little old ladies who run the town, particularly Mrs. Forester (Julia McKenzie), are so funny. They continually make mountains out of molehills and molehills out of mountains. There's also many a tear-jerking moment involving various deaths and other tragedies. Miss Matty (Judi Dench) is a wonderful character and very, very well acted.

Cons: There's no great heroine and hero who make a great couple. The closest thing is Sophy Hutton (Kimberely Nixon) and Dr. Harrison - but they're not the sort of people one overly admires.

My Rating: OK if certain scenes are skipped, T if not (surgery scenes)

Picture from coverbrowser.com