Showing posts with label period film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label period film. Show all posts

Friday, November 14, 2008

North & South :: Exceeds Expectations


North and South
[BBC, 2004]

Starring:
Richard Armitage
Daniela Denby-Ashe
Sinead Cusack
Others That Were Lovely Too

entertainment rating:
~
performance:
screenplay:
plot/storyline: ★
cinematography: ★
~
BBC Drama

******SPOILER ALERT******
(There are spoilers in this review! After the three paragraphs, spoilers will pop up! It's a kind of predictable story, so you probably shouldn't worry about it, but, just so you know...)

I'm back! And better than ever! With a terrifically long post! It's been a long time since I posted a review, but then again, it's been a long time since I've watched anything worth noting. After we finished the Eliott series, we were unsure of what to do next - the libraries seemed out of things to reserve, there was nothing we wanted to rent... There were a few things we did watch: there was the shallow but cute Nim's Island; Get Smart, which "missed it by that much;" the kind of depressing Evening; and the delightfully colorful Pushing Daisies; the hilarious and charming Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day. And, of course, let's not forget Star Trek, the Next Generation, Season One.

And after all of this modern or futuristic film (c'mon, you know Star Trek is futuristic! Do you have a holodeck?), we were starting to hurt from 17th Century England withdraw. "Ouch!" we said, as Riker gets out his phaser and blasts a alien enemy. "Nooo," we say, "he's not attractive unless you put him in a tailcoat and cravat! Or even better, no cravat!" Tell-tale signs of BBC withdraw. And so you can imagine how excited we were to find that we could replace Star Trek (though it has its time and place) for a gorgeous and relatively new BBC drama. And not only was it just any drama, but it was adapted from an Elizabeth Gaskell book. Gaskell wrote Cranford, as well, which was adapted by BBC last year. A very good series.

Here is the brief version of my review, which contains NO spoilers. :)

North and South at first seems to be very much like other period dramas. The story told through the eyes of Margaret Hale (Denby-Ashe) and John Thornton (Armitage). Margaret is a strong young woman who, until the start of the story, lived in the comfortable, green South. (I capitalize the compass points for drama!) Her father uproots Margaret and her mother to move to the cold and dirty North, to a town called Milton, where the cotton industry and poverty rule the streets. John Thornton is the master of a prominent cotton mill - formidable, intelligent, to-drool-over without his cravat on... Moving on. The story revolves around how Margaret conforms to the ways of the North, how she adapts and learns to understand the people who live there - including the apparently unscrupulous Mr. Thornton.

We loved it. It is becoming our next Jane Eyre.

That is my brief version. :) I don't blame you if you chose to read the itsy-bitsy version and leave the rest and go about your daily life. But you see, I have *so* many thoughts on the movie that I simply had to continue writing about it, so my more in depth and spoiler-filled thoughts are as follows...

North and South seems, at first, to be like other period dramas. It is a perfect mix of a Jane Austen-like story, in the world of a Charles Dickens tale. Who could ask for more?!

Upon settling in Milton, Margaret's first acquaintances are the Thorntons, who own the most prominent cotton mill in Milton, Marborough Mill. And here is where you meet the leading man - Mr. John Thornton, Master of Marborough Mill. I loved how he was introduced: First viewed by Margaret, standing over his workrooms, and then, in a flying rage, beating a worker for smoking on the job. You immediately dislike him (despite his dreamy British qualities) - and so does Margaret. It fits! Finally, the prejudiced young woman *and* the audience doesn't like him much! I mean, who really didn't like Mr. Darcy, despite his incivility? Incivility doesn't affect an audience, nay, the more incivility the better, but to beat a helpless worker? To shout at her, telling her to get lost?

The characters in this story are very 3-dimensional. Mr. Thornton starts out seeming harsh, and slowly, through all four hours of the show, you see his depths. He isn't so bad, not at all. He is a self-made man, a sensible, clever man, who, despite his hard outward appearance necessary for his trade, is sensitive as well. His mother, Mrs. Hannah Thornton (Cusack), developed very much like her son - you begin by thinking she is an annoying, uppity, harsh woman, but as time goes on you see that she loves her son to death and her pride for him is explained. Some of the best scenes in the entire movie are between John and his mother. John's father died when he was young, so John and his mother have a close relationship - while his sister Fanny, who gave an absolutely hilarious performance - is just tolerated.

Margaret and her family are interesting, as well, though her parents aren't the most lively of people. Her mother is ill and her father is slightly simple, but neither are stupid. Margaret acts as the head of the family, independent and confident, though conforming to the ways of the North was a hard process. She befriends the workers, and as time goes on, she becomes familiar with the North, calls it her home as warmly as she before called the South so.

Margaret and John's relationship is hilter-kilter throughout. They begin on very bad terms, what with Margaret's deep loathing of him. They end up arguing at every meeting and generally make a mess of every conversation. However, Margaret is different than a stereotypical prejudiced young lady. She learns, she doesn't hold onto her grudges. Her opinions change, and though she once thought John was a harsh, horrible man, she adapts as she finds the reasoning to his methods.

All in all, it was a very enjoyable performance. The actors were great - Richard Armitage, whom we had never seen in anything before this, was really good (and so pale, my heavens.) His character had equal portions of acting with intensity, and with subtlety. Not many actors are equally good at both, but Richard aced it. Daniela Denby-Ashe was also a newbie for us, however, we liked her immensely. I love her eyebrows! She was really, really great at subtle acting, just the slightest change to her facial expression conveyed exactly what she was thinking about. And Sinead Cusack? Wow, she was fantastic, really awesome character portrayal and that accent...

We were also really impressed by how pretty the movie was - the colors and feel of all of the settings and clothes really reflected the story and setting. Very pretty colors; muted and dingy in the North, colorful and vibrant in the South.

I want to watch it again, already! We've watched it twice so far, but I have a feeling it's going to be viewed many more a time.


P.S. I promise that do so *not* have a thing for period drama guys with open shirt necks! What an accusation... Cross my fingers - I mean - heart!


Friday, August 29, 2008

successfully entertained me :)



House of Eliott
[BBC, 1991]

Starring:
Louise Lombard
Stella Gonet

average rating:
~
performance:
screenplay:
plot/storyline:
cinematography:
~
20's Fashion, lol

"House of Elliot" is a BBC TV drama made in the early 90's, about two sisters in the early 20's. Right before this, I had been on an "Alias" streak (because "Alias" is awesome, most of the time). The only movie store that owns all the seasons of Alias is a Vision Video in town, and when we made the trip over there and found that one of the discs we wanted was checked out, we had to find something else to occupy our designated, very important movie time.

So we were scouring the shelves (and finding the most entertaining box covers and old shows, but nothing we wanted to spend money on) when we came across a few BBC series. We like BBC, in general, they make such fun dramas, and when we saw "House of Eliott" we were interested, but we passed because it looked rather ancient. We know about ancient - aesthetics dictate that "ancient" when applied to "movies" often produce "awful." It's like 'i before e, except after c': it's true the majority of the time, but once in a while you find something that breaks the rule.

However, not but a few days after that a friend of ours (Sarraahhh) told us she had been watching "House of Eliott" and we about died. How weird is that? So we trollop over to the movie store again and pick up a few discs, though already forewarned that the series was "about practically nothing, but very hooking all the same."

And very true that is. The starring characters of "House of Eliott" are the two strong-minded Eliott sisters; Beatrice (Bea), who is a slightly conservative, nearly-middle-aged spinster; and Evangeline (Evie) who is a creative, beautiful, and innovative young woman. The two sisters, having been used to wealth, comfort, and seclusion, are suddenly left flailing in society when their father dies and leaves them no money and a slowly emerging scandal. While the two sisters (who are very close) struggle to find fair jobs in 1920 London, they stumble upon a few lovable characters and a few not-so-lovable ones. Jack Maddox, a popular photographer, takes Beatrice on as a secretary and becomes a very lovable part of the cast as the charming, sarcastic, supportive and (at first) somewhat questionably respectable best friend.

The acting is really quite splendid for a series that was broadcast by BBC in the early 90's. We've seen plenty of horrifying BBC productions from the early ages (haha), and in comparison, and actually in general, the acting is great. The two sisters are very, very natural together. *applauds*

The plot line is very simple, but at the same time it grabs your attention. The characters face ordinary troubles, yet you are just dying to know how they resolve them. Also, the feel of the 20's is always present, especially since the series evolves until the sisters own their own dressmaking business. The clothes are outrageous (I love them) and they are very consistent with their manner of speaking and the social ladder and the jazz music (which sends Mum into the realms of insanity).

We are only three discs into the first series, so I will post another review for the second season. Still, I would recommend this series to anyone who loves British people, adores simplistic stories, is infatuated with all things British + Simplistic + Slightly-Over-Dramatized....(I do!) Anyway, I can't wait to get on with the story. :)


Monday, January 21, 2008

Northanger Abbey
[Masterpiece Theatre, 2007]

Starring:
Felicity Jones
JJ Fields
Carey Mulligan

average rating: ★
~
performance: ★
screenplay: ★
plot/storyline: ★
cinematography: ★
~
Jane Austen

Friday, January 18, 2008

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.

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

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?

[poster courtesty of impawards.com]
Mrs. Brown

[Masterpiece Theatre, 2006]

Starring:
Judi Dench
Billy Connelly

average rating: ★★★
~
performance: ★★
screenplay: ★★
plot/storyline: ★★★
cinematography: ★★
~
19th Century England Drama
Based on a True Story


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.



Girl With A Pearl Earring
[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.

And that's about that.

Monday, December 31, 2007

Sense & Sensibility
[Columbia Pictures, 1995]

starring:
Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant
Greg Wise, Alan Rickman, Robert Hardy, Elizabeth Spriggs,
Gemma Jones


average rating: ★★★★★
~
performance: ★★★★★
screenplay: ★★★★★
plot/storyline: ★★★★★
cinematography: ★★★★½
~
jane austen, need i say more?


This is one of the best Jane Austen movies out there, period. Emma Thompson, who plays one of the main characters, wrote the screenplay and it is a superb adaption to the original story, or what I have read of it. The performance is excellent. Hugh Grant is the best stutterer I've ever seen, Emma pulls off her character quite perfectly, Kate Winslet is very good as the extremist, and Alan Rickman and Greg Wise are both great. And though each of these are really good, the most entertaining actors in the movie are Robert Hardy and Elizabeth Spriggs, who are the best laughers ever, and Imelda Stauton and Hugh Laurie, who play a funny mismatched couple.

The screenplay is great, making the story flow very nicely. Out of all of the Austen movies, this is the most comedic. There's lots of jokes and funny lines and is generally warmer than the others. The story itself is a classic Austen, troubles with men and money. But the characters are endearing, down to the very last actor.


[watched for no-one-knows-how-many-ith time, 12-31-07]
[poster courtesty of www.impawards.com]