The Odd Couple[1968]
Starring:
Walter Mattau
Jack Lemmon
Herb Edelman
average rating: ★★★★★
~
performance: ★★★★★
screenplay: ★★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★★
~
Comedy
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
High School Musical[2006]
Starring:
Zac Efron
Vanessa Anne Hudgens
Ashley Tisdale
Corbin Bleu
Starring:
Zac Efron
Vanessa Anne Hudgens
Ashley Tisdale
Corbin Bleu
average rating: ★
~
performance: ★
screenplay: ★
plot/storyline: ★
cinematography: ★★
~
Disney Channel High School Cliche
High School Musical, to put it simply, has no good aspects, period. We thought that it might at least be funny, since there was so much fuss about it. The reviews for the movie on www.imdb.com were, for the most part, ecstatic, saying how much they adored this Disney movie, how it was the best Disney Channel movie EVER and how it was cute and sweet and brought them back to their high school days.
Whoa.
The performances of main characters were ridiculously lame. I realize that the film isn't meant to be taken serious, but this was worse than just goofy. It was bad acting. Each one of those Disney stars (who were 18 through 22 years old, by the way) could have played their characters with more grace and reality, even if the movie was going for unrealistically cheesy.
The screenplay had about two lines that I found myself laughing at, but the rest was a ridiculous jumble of stupidness and mushiness. Ack. The story was all about peer pressure (fahhhhh, I'm so sick of peer pressure) and was otherwise stuffed with the same old high school cliches. Yeah, thanks, but we already learned about high school cliches in about thirty thousand other movies, such as Mean Girls and so forth. *scream*
Anyway, I don't have much more to say on the subject of this movie, because I honestly don't give a crap about it. It was stupid, cheesy, lame, not really funny, cliched, disgusting, blecky, and ultimately not worth watching.
Oh, and I didn't mention that the singing was excruciating. Efron and Hudgens were horrific, their voices edited to the point of vulgarity in the studio. Why couldn't they just let them sing? I guess they were just that bad.
~
performance: ★
screenplay: ★
plot/storyline: ★
cinematography: ★★
~
Disney Channel High School Cliche
High School Musical, to put it simply, has no good aspects, period. We thought that it might at least be funny, since there was so much fuss about it. The reviews for the movie on www.imdb.com were, for the most part, ecstatic, saying how much they adored this Disney movie, how it was the best Disney Channel movie EVER and how it was cute and sweet and brought them back to their high school days.
Whoa.
The performances of main characters were ridiculously lame. I realize that the film isn't meant to be taken serious, but this was worse than just goofy. It was bad acting. Each one of those Disney stars (who were 18 through 22 years old, by the way) could have played their characters with more grace and reality, even if the movie was going for unrealistically cheesy.
The screenplay had about two lines that I found myself laughing at, but the rest was a ridiculous jumble of stupidness and mushiness. Ack. The story was all about peer pressure (fahhhhh, I'm so sick of peer pressure) and was otherwise stuffed with the same old high school cliches. Yeah, thanks, but we already learned about high school cliches in about thirty thousand other movies, such as Mean Girls and so forth. *scream*
Anyway, I don't have much more to say on the subject of this movie, because I honestly don't give a crap about it. It was stupid, cheesy, lame, not really funny, cliched, disgusting, blecky, and ultimately not worth watching.
Oh, and I didn't mention that the singing was excruciating. Efron and Hudgens were horrific, their voices edited to the point of vulgarity in the studio. Why couldn't they just let them sing? I guess they were just that bad.
Persuasion[2007]
Starring:
Sally Hawkins
Rupert Penry-Jones
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Romance/Society
Exciting news! Masterpiece Theater is hosting a new 2008 Classic Series this winter beginning with the Complete Jane Austen. The lineup of Austen adaptations include: Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park, Miss Austen Regrets, Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Sense and Sensibility.
Sally Hawkins
Rupert Penry-Jones
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Romance/Society
Exciting news! Masterpiece Theater is hosting a new 2008 Classic Series this winter beginning with the Complete Jane Austen. The lineup of Austen adaptations include: Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park, Miss Austen Regrets, Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Sense and Sensibility.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/austen/index.html
Masterpiece Theater has also updated a few of the Jane Austen adaptations: Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park, and a new film called, Miss Austen Regrets.
The first presentation in the Complete Jane Austen was Persuasion, Sunday, January 13, starring Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones. This Austen story is about love and social classes, as are most of her novels. Below is the film's summary from MT's website:
Unhappily unmarried at age 27, and dealing with family financial peril, hope is fading from Anne Elliot's (Sally Hawkins, Little Britain) life. Circumstances bring Captain Frederick Wentworth (Rupert Penry-Jones, Casanova), a dashing naval officer she once deeply loved, back into her life eight years after Anne was persuaded by her family to reject his marriage proposal. Having returned from sea with a new fortune, Wentworth is surrounded by swooning women while Anne broods at the periphery, longing to be in Wentworth's favor. Now Anne comes face-to-face with the deep regret of her old decision, and her abiding love for Wentworth, as she wonders if a long ago love can be rekindled.
Sally Hawkins' performance as Anne Elliot was very good, and she did a fine job portraying Anne's situation; nearly too old for any marriage considerations, heartbroken from her long-ago love, and worried for her family's change in financial and social standing.
Rupert is a pleasant improvement as the British love-interest in this new adaptation. His portrayal of Captain Frederick Wentworth is good, although a little sparse, but his scenes seem to be enough to pull off the story's plot.
My only negative comment regarding this film, would be the fact that it's just too short. They crammed an entire Austen novel into 1 1/2 hours film time. Even the 1995 adaptation was longer, more detailed, and presented a more complete story line.
As Austen fans, Caroline and I are delighted to see Masterpiece Theater continue to update these excellent classics. (we LOVE last year's new Jane Eyre)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Charade[1963]
Starring:
Audrey Hepburn
Cary Grant
Walter Mattau
[poster courtesy of moviegoods.com]
Starring:
Audrey Hepburn
Cary Grant
Walter Mattau
average rating: ★★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
Murder Mystery / Romance
Charade is a very silly movie, actually, though I'm sure that back in the 60's it was considered scary. When we first watched it, however, I do remember thinking that it had a good plot for the era, one that was genuinely unpredictable.
The story centers around a young woman named Regina Lambert (Hepburn) who's husband recently died, leaving her with three thugs on her tail, chasing her for a quarter of a million dollars that they think she simply must have. At first she seems to have a man named Peter Joshua (Grant) on her side, a man whom she falls in love with. But is he really Peter Joshua, and who's side is he really on? Meanwhile, a man from the American Embassy, Mr. Bartholomew (Mattau) claims that this quarter of a million dollars belongs to the government, though he is someone who seems to really be on her side.
Performances of Audrey and Cary are the same as they are in any of their other movies, but just as endearing. One of the best parts of the movie is when Cary Grant, after being coaxed to take a shower in Audrey's room, stubbornly and hilariously takes a shower in his full suit, claiming that it was a "drip-dry" suit and that the manufacturers recommended it to keep the suit in shape.
The movie is quick-paced and funny - definitely worth the watch.
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
Murder Mystery / Romance
Charade is a very silly movie, actually, though I'm sure that back in the 60's it was considered scary. When we first watched it, however, I do remember thinking that it had a good plot for the era, one that was genuinely unpredictable.
The story centers around a young woman named Regina Lambert (Hepburn) who's husband recently died, leaving her with three thugs on her tail, chasing her for a quarter of a million dollars that they think she simply must have. At first she seems to have a man named Peter Joshua (Grant) on her side, a man whom she falls in love with. But is he really Peter Joshua, and who's side is he really on? Meanwhile, a man from the American Embassy, Mr. Bartholomew (Mattau) claims that this quarter of a million dollars belongs to the government, though he is someone who seems to really be on her side.
Performances of Audrey and Cary are the same as they are in any of their other movies, but just as endearing. One of the best parts of the movie is when Cary Grant, after being coaxed to take a shower in Audrey's room, stubbornly and hilariously takes a shower in his full suit, claiming that it was a "drip-dry" suit and that the manufacturers recommended it to keep the suit in shape.
The movie is quick-paced and funny - definitely worth the watch.
[poster courtesy of moviegoods.com]
Shakespeare In Love[1998]
Starring:
Joseph Fiennes
Gwyneth Paltrow
Geoffrey Rush
Colin Firth
average rating: ★
~
performance: ★
screenplay: ★
plot/storyline: ★
cinematography: ★
~
Shakespearian Comedy from the Land of the Mentally Lame
Okay, I would like to start out with a big fat "WHAT THE HECK?" in the general direction of Judi Dench, Colin Firth, Tom Wilkonson & Imelda Stauton. Four of my favorite British actors, agreeing to act in this disaster of a comedy. Oh and let's throw Geoffrey Rush in the list too, because he was lovely in Pirates.
While on iTunes the other day (after watching Shakespeare), I chanced upon the cover of the movie in the rentals section, so I clicked on it, to see if other viewers disliked it as much as I. Um, I was wrong. The average rating was 4 and a half stars and there were over 200 reviews, most of which proclaiming that this was one of the most charming movies, la de da. If I had seen these reviews before watching the movie I'm sure I would have fell for them and been sorely disappointed, but instead I was just dumbstruck.
Shakespeare In Love was supposed to be funny. It was supposed to be cute. It was supposed to be slightly interesting. Nada. The story was about Shakespeare (Fiennes) who was trying to write a new play but had writer's block of sorts. So then he meets this Lady Viola or something (Paltrow) who is the most American of America's girls playing this British woman. They fall in love at first sight (oh joy) and he begins to randomly write Romeo and Juliet with the help of friends. But being a lowerclass playwright, he isn't allowed to be with poor Viola. But they meet again when Viola dresses as a boy (mustache and all) to try out for the part of Romeo in his play.
Most of the movie was play practice with Viola in a fake mustache/goatee deal, Shakespeare and Viola sleeping together and necking and all sorts of yumminess irrelevant to plottage or humor, and Shakespeare and Viola quoting Shakespeare. Very funny, huh? Other than that there was the lame villian of Colin Firth who was to marry Viola, Imelda Stauton as Viola's lame maid, Judi Dench as the lame (but frankly quite terrifying - but what's new?) Queen of England, and Ben Affleck as a lame self-centered actor in the play. Oh, and there was Tom Wilkonson as the lame man who paid for the plays, Geoffrey Rush as lame the theater-owner.
In fact, we never reached the end of the movie, it was so boring. It was plotless, only about five lines were laughable, and there really didn't seem like there was an end in sight, and if there was, it certainly wasn't promising.
Fin.
[poster courtesy of impawards.com]
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Illusionist[2006]
Starring:
Edward Norton
Paul Giamatti
Jessica Biel
Rufus Sewell
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Mysteryish
We didn't particularly expect much from this movie, despite the exaggerated praise given by who wrote the review on the back of the DVD case. And as we expected, it wasn't very impressive.
The way the story unfolds is told backwards - beginning with a scene close to the end, and then starting back at the beginning as being told by the Chief Inspector (Giamatti) to the Crown Prince (Sewell).
The story is about a son of a cabinet-maker who was secretly best friends with a upperclass girl, and how they were found out and rudely separated, and how he then learned the art of illusions and ran away to make his fortune performing. And he did. Now older (Norton), he calls himself Eisenheim the Illusionist and he is apparently quite expert. He meets his childhood friend again, (Biel) who is now Duchess Sophie. But Sophie is to marry the Crown Prince Leopold, and can never be with poor Eisenheim. It's all very sad, I'm sure.
The rest of the story tells of how Eisenheim and Sophie concoct a plan that they don't tell the audience about, of how the Inspector is watching their every move - sometimes seeming evil, sometimes on Eisenheim's side - but all along wanting to know the secret of Eisenheim's magic, and of how the ugly Prince finds out that Sophie and Eisenheim are chummy... then, of course, disaster strikes, because he's a very evil Prince.
Generally, this was a sloppy movie. If it had been done well, it would have had a convoluted and mysterious plot, with a jolly great ending that left you wondering how you could be so stupid as to have missed those minor details that gave it all away. But it wasn't. I do think that such a plot was in the filmmakers minds when they started this movie, but it flopped, leaving us with an ending we all knew was going to be there and an explanation that was ridiculously silly.
The performances, costume design, and special effects were all mediocre and kind of flat. In fact, the only really interesting part of the movie was the locket that Eisenheim made for Sophie. Isn't that sad?
Edward Norton
Paul Giamatti
Jessica Biel
Rufus Sewell
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Mysteryish
We didn't particularly expect much from this movie, despite the exaggerated praise given by who wrote the review on the back of the DVD case. And as we expected, it wasn't very impressive.
The way the story unfolds is told backwards - beginning with a scene close to the end, and then starting back at the beginning as being told by the Chief Inspector (Giamatti) to the Crown Prince (Sewell).
The story is about a son of a cabinet-maker who was secretly best friends with a upperclass girl, and how they were found out and rudely separated, and how he then learned the art of illusions and ran away to make his fortune performing. And he did. Now older (Norton), he calls himself Eisenheim the Illusionist and he is apparently quite expert. He meets his childhood friend again, (Biel) who is now Duchess Sophie. But Sophie is to marry the Crown Prince Leopold, and can never be with poor Eisenheim. It's all very sad, I'm sure.
The rest of the story tells of how Eisenheim and Sophie concoct a plan that they don't tell the audience about, of how the Inspector is watching their every move - sometimes seeming evil, sometimes on Eisenheim's side - but all along wanting to know the secret of Eisenheim's magic, and of how the ugly Prince finds out that Sophie and Eisenheim are chummy... then, of course, disaster strikes, because he's a very evil Prince.
Generally, this was a sloppy movie. If it had been done well, it would have had a convoluted and mysterious plot, with a jolly great ending that left you wondering how you could be so stupid as to have missed those minor details that gave it all away. But it wasn't. I do think that such a plot was in the filmmakers minds when they started this movie, but it flopped, leaving us with an ending we all knew was going to be there and an explanation that was ridiculously silly.
The performances, costume design, and special effects were all mediocre and kind of flat. In fact, the only really interesting part of the movie was the locket that Eisenheim made for Sophie. Isn't that sad?
[poster courtesty of impawards.com]
My Man Godfrey[1936]
Starring:
William Powell
Carole Lombard
Gail Patrick
average rating: ★★★★★
~
performance: ★★★★★
screenplay: ★★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
Screwball Comedy Romance
This movie was very entertaining. The plot was twisty-turny funny, the conversations were funny, the performances were good, the characters were funny - everything was funny!
The story generally made fun of the upperclass people, and so the main characters were an utterly insane upperclass family, the Bullocks. So, while indulging themselves as upperclass families do, the two Bullock sisters are on a race to collect things in a scavenger hunt going on at the Grand Hotel, or something. Their goal is to a find a "lost man," so naturally, where better to find a lost man than in the dumps?! They meet a hobo named Godfrey, who pushes the older sister Cornelia into a pile of ashes. And then a few moments later, warms to the younger sister and goes with her to the party to see how the upperclass play.
On a whim, Irene invites this scrubby homeless man to be their butler (asking him bluntly "can you buttle?"). And then Godfrey is introduced to the intense family, starting with the loud, oblivious Mrs. Bullock, to the loud but sane Mr. Bullock, to the cold, spoiled Cornelia and then to the scatterbrained, infatuated Irene. Infatuated with him. Godfrey, however, doesn't believe that they should have a relationship, considering the difference in their class... unless of course, there really is a difference...
It's really all quite the laugh.
Series of Unfortunate Events[2004]
Starring:
Jim Carrey
Liam Aiken
Emily Browning
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
Fantasy/Adventure
This was an adaption of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, the series that seemed to capture the world of preteen literature for a while there. I read the first four or so books in the series and, being a girl who likes happy endings, dumped them as weird and stupid. Now, however, I have to say I've a certain respect for the author.
And this movie seemed a pure reflection of all he might have imagined. To begin with, the set & costume design was amazing, and the Oscar's thought so too, because the won an award in that category. Everything was grimy and vintage and just delicious, and it set the mood from the very beginning - that being of a mysterious, dark, depressing sort of mood.
The movie begins with Jude Law's yummy voice, narrating as Lemony Snicket. The Baudelaire children, Violet (Browning) the Inventor, Klaus (Aiken) the Scholar, and Sunny the Biter, are part of a wealthy family, and then suddenly, they are not, they are the Baudelaire orphans with no direct relations to live with. Timothy Spall plays the clueless lawyer in charge of their lives, Mr. Poe, who brings them to a man named Count Olaf (Carrey) who is apparently their closest relation. Olaf's house is cool, a rickety broken down place with lots of mold and dead rats and ragged curtains. Jim Carrey himself is great, playing a role that is just Jim Carrey's silly role - the malicious, mood-swingy, terrible actor of a man trying to adopt the children in order to gain their immense fortune.
The movie is actually a compilation of Lemony Snicket's first three novels, so after the evil Count Olaf attempts to murder the children, they are taken away to live with another distant relative, Professor Monty (Billy Connolly) who works with snakes. After a brief, kind of lame adventure that leaves Monty dead, they stay with a paranoid Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep). After about four minutes with her, tragedy strikes again and they seem to have been caught by Olaf yet again, this time for good, but then the day is saved and Olaf defeated and their lives generally plunged into a uncertain future.
The end.
The entire film is occasionally interspersed with Jude Law's voice, telling us what's going on, and trying to bridge the gaps and make the extreme speed with which the movie travels more believable. It doesn't quite work and the story is not finished, that you can tell. In general, however, the characters were fun and the situations sometimes entertaining, but mostly it was a visually good film.
Jim Carrey
Liam Aiken
Emily Browning
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
Fantasy/Adventure
This was an adaption of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, the series that seemed to capture the world of preteen literature for a while there. I read the first four or so books in the series and, being a girl who likes happy endings, dumped them as weird and stupid. Now, however, I have to say I've a certain respect for the author.
And this movie seemed a pure reflection of all he might have imagined. To begin with, the set & costume design was amazing, and the Oscar's thought so too, because the won an award in that category. Everything was grimy and vintage and just delicious, and it set the mood from the very beginning - that being of a mysterious, dark, depressing sort of mood.
The movie begins with Jude Law's yummy voice, narrating as Lemony Snicket. The Baudelaire children, Violet (Browning) the Inventor, Klaus (Aiken) the Scholar, and Sunny the Biter, are part of a wealthy family, and then suddenly, they are not, they are the Baudelaire orphans with no direct relations to live with. Timothy Spall plays the clueless lawyer in charge of their lives, Mr. Poe, who brings them to a man named Count Olaf (Carrey) who is apparently their closest relation. Olaf's house is cool, a rickety broken down place with lots of mold and dead rats and ragged curtains. Jim Carrey himself is great, playing a role that is just Jim Carrey's silly role - the malicious, mood-swingy, terrible actor of a man trying to adopt the children in order to gain their immense fortune.
The movie is actually a compilation of Lemony Snicket's first three novels, so after the evil Count Olaf attempts to murder the children, they are taken away to live with another distant relative, Professor Monty (Billy Connolly) who works with snakes. After a brief, kind of lame adventure that leaves Monty dead, they stay with a paranoid Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep). After about four minutes with her, tragedy strikes again and they seem to have been caught by Olaf yet again, this time for good, but then the day is saved and Olaf defeated and their lives generally plunged into a uncertain future.
The end.
The entire film is occasionally interspersed with Jude Law's voice, telling us what's going on, and trying to bridge the gaps and make the extreme speed with which the movie travels more believable. It doesn't quite work and the story is not finished, that you can tell. In general, however, the characters were fun and the situations sometimes entertaining, but mostly it was a visually good film.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Jane Eyre[Masterpiece Theatre, 2006]
Starring:
Ruth Wilson
Toby Stephens
Christina Cole
Andrew Buchan
Lorraine Ashbourne
average rating: ★★★★★
~
performance: ★★★★★
screenplay: ★★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
19th Century England/Gothic Novel Romance
As you might have noticed on our lists, this new version of Charlotte Brontë's classic is one of our all-time favorite movies. We caught it on TV when it first came out last year, in two parts. At the time we watched the first part, I had never read the book, nor was remotely interested in Brontë or Austen. However, I watched the first part on our bad receptionist of a TV and fell in love with it, so, in a mad sort of frenzy, found the book at the library and downed it before the next part of the movie aired the next week.
Ruth Wilson, who had acted in nothing before this movie, plays a brilliant Jane. She has very odd looks, but however shocking her face is to begin with, she grows on you almost immediately. She fits the Jane description well, I thought. Toby Stephens, who plays Rochester, fits Rochester's description to perfection, too. Dark hair, high forehead, not the best of looks, just the right age, just the right attitude. The two are perfect on screen together. As for the other actors, the Mrs. Fairfax is brilliant, as are Blanche Ingram, St. John Rivers and the others.
The screenplay is controversial, because it is definitely lacking many conversations between Rochester and Jane, among other things, but for the size of the book and the length of the movie, it is quite sufficient. The plot is intact and flows well, which is sometimes all that matters.
The story is of a girl named Jane Eyre whose parents died when she was very young, leaving her to an indifferent aunt and uncle. When her uncle dies, Jane is sent to an orphanage, where she spends eight terrible years. After advertising for a job as governess, she is accepted to be governess to a little French girl under the guardianship of a Mr. Rochester. Mr. Rochester is a mysterious, sardonic man with too much money and some sort of secret. Jane falls in love with him, but there is a catch... But you must watch it for yourself. :)
Though this film is definitely not as pretty as Pride and Prejudice (2005), but then the story is entirely different, and the way it was filmed reflects the mood very well. There are odd camera angles and lighting, and quite a few hand-held moments, but in general, the unconventional techniques grow on you as much as Ruth and Toby.
Ruth Wilson
Toby Stephens
Christina Cole
Andrew Buchan
Lorraine Ashbourne
average rating: ★★★★★
~
performance: ★★★★★
screenplay: ★★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★
~
19th Century England/Gothic Novel Romance
As you might have noticed on our lists, this new version of Charlotte Brontë's classic is one of our all-time favorite movies. We caught it on TV when it first came out last year, in two parts. At the time we watched the first part, I had never read the book, nor was remotely interested in Brontë or Austen. However, I watched the first part on our bad receptionist of a TV and fell in love with it, so, in a mad sort of frenzy, found the book at the library and downed it before the next part of the movie aired the next week.
Ruth Wilson, who had acted in nothing before this movie, plays a brilliant Jane. She has very odd looks, but however shocking her face is to begin with, she grows on you almost immediately. She fits the Jane description well, I thought. Toby Stephens, who plays Rochester, fits Rochester's description to perfection, too. Dark hair, high forehead, not the best of looks, just the right age, just the right attitude. The two are perfect on screen together. As for the other actors, the Mrs. Fairfax is brilliant, as are Blanche Ingram, St. John Rivers and the others.
The screenplay is controversial, because it is definitely lacking many conversations between Rochester and Jane, among other things, but for the size of the book and the length of the movie, it is quite sufficient. The plot is intact and flows well, which is sometimes all that matters.
The story is of a girl named Jane Eyre whose parents died when she was very young, leaving her to an indifferent aunt and uncle. When her uncle dies, Jane is sent to an orphanage, where she spends eight terrible years. After advertising for a job as governess, she is accepted to be governess to a little French girl under the guardianship of a Mr. Rochester. Mr. Rochester is a mysterious, sardonic man with too much money and some sort of secret. Jane falls in love with him, but there is a catch... But you must watch it for yourself. :)
Though this film is definitely not as pretty as Pride and Prejudice (2005), but then the story is entirely different, and the way it was filmed reflects the mood very well. There are odd camera angles and lighting, and quite a few hand-held moments, but in general, the unconventional techniques grow on you as much as Ruth and Toby.
Girl With A Pearl Earring
[2003]
[2003]
Starring:
Colin Firth
Scarlett Johansson
Tom Wilkinson
Essie Davis
Judy Parfitt
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Gothic Novel Romance
This movie is an adaptation of a novel of the same name, by Tracy Chevalier. I read the book many years ago, then watched the film to see how it compared. I can recall thinking that the film did a great job capturing the book's intensity with the main characters and lifestyle of the time.
I recently re-watched this movie with Caroline, and again, was reminded of how well the screenplay keeps up with the novel. Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson's performances were great given the type of characters they portrayed.
I think that it would have to be tough to adapt novels to the screen, since most novels come from the perspective of a main character and are loaded with his/her thoughts and feelings. It's difficult to incorporate those important aspects of the novel to the screen. This film is a perfect example of the thought-dilemma issue. Scarlett's character, Griet, shares her thoughts with the reader throughout the entire novel; how she feels about the events that take place in her life, all which are intense.
I feel Scarlett does an adequate job considering she can not openly share her thoughts with the viewer, as Griet in the novel does so easily. Scarlett can only use body language during those times/scenes. Colin also handles his character well, though a little flat at times.
Colin Firth
Scarlett Johansson
Tom Wilkinson
Essie Davis
Judy Parfitt
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★
cinematography: ★★★
~
19th Century England/Gothic Novel Romance
This movie is an adaptation of a novel of the same name, by Tracy Chevalier. I read the book many years ago, then watched the film to see how it compared. I can recall thinking that the film did a great job capturing the book's intensity with the main characters and lifestyle of the time.
I recently re-watched this movie with Caroline, and again, was reminded of how well the screenplay keeps up with the novel. Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson's performances were great given the type of characters they portrayed.
I think that it would have to be tough to adapt novels to the screen, since most novels come from the perspective of a main character and are loaded with his/her thoughts and feelings. It's difficult to incorporate those important aspects of the novel to the screen. This film is a perfect example of the thought-dilemma issue. Scarlett's character, Griet, shares her thoughts with the reader throughout the entire novel; how she feels about the events that take place in her life, all which are intense.
I feel Scarlett does an adequate job considering she can not openly share her thoughts with the viewer, as Griet in the novel does so easily. Scarlett can only use body language during those times/scenes. Colin also handles his character well, though a little flat at times.
And that's about that.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
How To Marry A Millionaire[Twentieth Century Fox, 1953]
Starring:
Marilyn Monroe
Betty Grable
Lauren Bacall
William Powell
Rory Calhoun
average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★★
screenplay: ★★
plot/storyline: ★★★
cinematography: ★★
~
Marilyn Monroe!
Personally, I don't recall watching many, if any, Marilyn Monroe movies, so I was curious to see her in this film. To my surprise, Marilyn's performance is fun and endearing. She's pretty young, 28 years old, and already seems to have a good sense of comedy timing. In this film, Marilyn doesn't seem to have the starring role, but is supporting Betty and Lauren. Even still, Caroline and I enjoyed her performance.
This film is about three women (models) who have decided to intentionally seek and snag millionaires for husbands. Lauren's character was the ring-leader, instructing the other girls on the proper way to attract millionaire men, and above all, stay away from "gas jockeys."
Marilyn and Betty's characters were meant to be rather simple and silly. Marilyn's character, Pola, wore glasses and was "blind as a bat" without them. Since she considered wearing glasses as a horrible, unattractive thing, she always took them off around other people. So, Pola bumped into walls and doors, etc., it was pretty funny.
The movie had a predictable, funny ending that tied in with the beginning and middle, which was surprising, considering other films we've watched from the same era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)