toast-15 Reviews

Amélie (2001)

Everything is perfect

[10/10 · 16 September 2011]

The first time I saw Jean-Pierre Jeunet's masterpiece I was swept away by its story, the second time by its music, the third time by its atmosphere, the fourth time by its nuance and style, the fifth time by its whimsy, the sixth time by its justice, the seventh time by its compassion. I've seen this movie more times than I can count and each time I do, I see something new to love. This is the only movie that I was determined to buy both the movie DVD and the soundtrack CD. I must have played and replayed the scene where Amélie (Audrey Tautou) is skipping stones while Yann Tiersen's hauntingly beautiful Comptine D'un Autre Ete: L'apres Midi plays in the background countless times as well. The first time I heard it was the first time that I realized that modern classical composers are just as good or better than those that are only revered in death. Everything about this movie is beautiful. This movie is like a perfect flower, delicate and beautiful but fully apparent only to those that take the time to see its true essence in all of its myriad of miracles that touch the senses.

Delicatessen (1991)

very dark but gloriously absurd

[8/10 · 15 September 2011]

Almost from the start, with the closeups of fat faces in very strange expressions, I sensed that I had seen the style elsewhere. Then I realized that this movie reminded me of Amelie. Sure enough, it is the same director although this was made about a decade earlier. Amelie is one of my favorite movies; not just for the story but also for the unique imagery. This movie shares that unique visual style but in a more grotesque fashion. Faces are shown in closeup that border on nightmarish. Colors and atmosphere meld to form a bleak, murky, misty and dreary filmscape. It is at once charming and horrifying. One of my favorite scenes is when Louison (Dominique Pinon) is blowing bubbles in the hallway. The two mischievous boys (or "young rascals" played by Boban Janevski and Mikael Todde) are immediately entranced and Louison is spared from any future harassment from them. Indeed, at one point they save his life with their mischief on others. Another of my favorite scenes is when Louison and Juliet (Marie-Loure Dougnat) are playing a duet, she on the cello, he on the saw(?!). Together with the music it was a magic moment. In fact, whenever Louison is shown clowning around, the music is soft and whimsical. Another wonderful moment is when Louison and the Butcher's lover (Karin Viard) are unintentionally playing a song from squeaky mattress springs. In another scene, she and Louison are dancing in his apartment. It looks well enough until you notice that Louison has 3 legs giving new meaning to having 2 left feet. These delightful moments are a stark contrast to the rest of the film. I guess I should expound on what the movie is about.

Louison is an out of work clown whose partner has been eaten. He tries to get a job as a handyman for a butcher (Jean-Claude Dreyfus) who is also a tenement owner. The butcher sizes him up and is not sure he will do. He thinks Louison is a bit too scrawny. However, Louison's luggage is all over the street so he gets the job just to clear the way. It would have been better had he not because in an earlier scene, you see someone hiding in a trash can and then getting butchered as the screen goes black. That someone was the last handyman. This movie is set in a post apocalyptic future where food is scarce and indeed, grain has become currency. The world has become divided between those that live underground and still use grain as food instead of currency and those that hoard grain and eat... well, anything else they can get their hands on except grain. I don't think I've ever seen a blacker comedy than this but if you enjoyed Amelie, I think you will also like this movie.

Le code a changé (2009)

life and love

[6/10 · 8 September 2011]

The story follows several couples from the 21st of June of one year to the next. They are all gathered, bravely disguising their unhappiness, around a dinner table trying to make small talk. Text messages are surreptitiously viewed or sent under the table like naughty children in class while other messages from the more desperate are lobbed verbally across the table for all to hear. Some find it amusing but one person sees it as a call for help and answers it with a kiss when they find themselves alone later in the evening. A romance ensues even though both are married. A very successful divorce lawyer is wooed into joining another lawyer's firm. Affairs meant to be hidden are exposed. A prayer is answered with an accident. One couple ends up divorced while another stays together. What one person understands as marital bliss another may take as entrapment. Most end happily, but not all.

This film could have been improved had the focus been on one or two characters with the rest of the cast in supporting roles. Instead, with no focus, it did not develop beyond a superficial tone. The characters of Piotr (Dany Boon) and Sarah (Emmanuelle Seigner) were compelling in that they were two creative types with spouses married to their work, but with so little screen time, not enough was made of the potential.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

timeless and classic

[10/10 · 4 September 2011]

I avoided seeing this film for years because I thought it was a grim prison uprising tale from Stephen King. Well, I was one third right, it is set in a prison but it is a very good story about friendship, honesty, forgiveness/redemption, patience and loyalty. I'm going to really try and not give away too much of the film because if you haven't seen it yet, you are missing out on a great story. It's set in a prison in the late 40's. Some of the inmates have been there since the early part of the 20th century and with repeated parole denials and no rehabilitation in sight, many have been institutionalized and have lost hope and even lost sight of their own identity. When one such inmate is released, he walks into a world that he barely recognizes. He tries but in the end, fails to make it in the real world and succumbs to desperation and hopelessness. We see some of the guards greedily taking part in violence that is so vicious that it is difficult to discern the prisoners from the prison staff. But, ultimately it is a tale of redemption and the story unfolds with hardship, humor and grace. This is a film that I will see again and again.

Queen to Play (2009)

visually striking story of self discovery

[9/10 · 3 September 2011]

From the first scene I wanted to physically BE where this film was made. The location shots are absolutely stunning. Hèléne (Sandrine Bonnaire) is a maid who works in a hotel as well as the private home of an expat American, Dr. Kröger (Kevin Kline). While at the hotel, you get the impression that she is harangued and bothered all day long. She is an invisible worker who people only notice when they have something to complain about. However, on this particular day, one of the rooms she enters has a young couple playing chess on the veranda. They are separated from her by nothing more than a loose, sheer panel that sways gently in the breeze but they may as well be miles away. They beckon her to enter the room and she does but she cannot take her eyes off of them while half-heartedly trying to focus on cleaning the room. They each in turn notice her prolonged gaze but they do not mind. She is asked if she plays chess and says no. In that instant, she realizes the great chasm between her life and the two lovers on the veranda. They are carefree, they are in love, they are fulfilled, they are confidant, they are happy, they understand the game. She perceives their status to be out of her reach. She wants to occupy that space but she just doesn't know how nor does she truly believe that she can.

By the end of the movie, we see Hèléne achieving her goal of playing an intellectually stimulating and sensually arousing game of chess with her own secret lover but her version far surpasses the scene she first glimpsed early on in the film that started the whole ball rolling. The last chess scene is a scene that says so much about the characters, their deep understanding of the game, their devotion and love to each other, intellectual equals duking it out with an invisible board and chess pieces all visualized and strategized in their minds. Their moves are whispered quietly, eyes transfixed on each other, as they parry for the win. The scene plays homage to the superficially simple yet complex game of chess and to the deep and abiding friendship and love between Dr. Kröger and Hèléne. She always had the power, she just didn't know it, nor did she understand how to use it. Dr. Kröger filled in the blanks and then some. The last scene between them is probably one of the best love scenes I've ever had the privilege to see on screen. And so I leave you with this: Wow!

P.S. I found it interesting how this film compares and contrasts with the Japanese film, "Shall We Dance".

The Help (2011)

quiet tome

[8/10 · 2 September 2011]

I wish I could say that all racism is in the past but I think we all know that is not true. However, we can appreciate a film that brings this particular injustice to the forefront. This movie brings everyone to the table in that respect. Many would rather not be there and many more will simply not see this film but perhaps however slowly, we may all eventually come to recognize racism when we see it. Maybe someday we can rise above the amount of melanin in a person's skin, but coming in a year when our (first black) President was forced to prove he is a citizen of the United States by showing his birth certificate in a press conference for the first time ever (even though 3 years prior he had already shown the legal form for his state), and coming in a year when the debt ceiling was held hostage for the first time ever, and coming in a year when the Speaker of the House for the first time ever, publicly rebuffed a sitting president's date request to give a speech to both the House and Senate, it is clear that day is not today.

This film is not perfect but it is necessary even so many years after the civil rights act became law. I can't think of a sadder statement.

Memento (2000)

ever heard of a journal?

[6/10 · 1 September 2011]

At first, a rather likable but pitiful guy seems to engage the viewer and you want to be interested in his plight but you soon realize that the lead character is not really a protagonist. And about 1/3 of the way in, you start questioning why this mentally handicapped individual doesn't take better notes. Why not a journal or tape recorder, even a camcorder? He leaves himself pictures of people and things with 1 sentence notes that he sometimes describes as "fact" but are little more than here-say or supposition. Now this would be fine for someone who just needs to jog their memory but for someone with no short term memory at all the scenario is ludicrous. For example, instead of simply stating "don't trust so and so", a journal entry or tape recorded message fully stating why not to trust someone would be perfectly understandable but it isn't done. At one point, this person who is completely reliant on pens has no pen or any other writing utensil. In fact, he sees the person he is conversing with hiding all of the pens and he doesn't question that? OK, I need to suspend my disbelief. It does become apparent at the very end, that there is no "wife killer" and he really isn't all that innocent in his wife's current condition. He seems to dispatch anyone who confronts him with truth or reality yet he welcomes those who would use him for their own means. Killing is killing to him I guess; and reasons can be manipulated to achieve the end result as long as the end result is another death. Shoddy notes are just a means to an end. One gets the impression that he might enjoy killing, and manipulating his memory is just as good an excuse as any in his demented mind. In the end, the only one being taken for a ride is the viewer.

Buddy (2003)

pleasant movie

[7/10 · 1 September 2011]

I really liked this film. It reminded me of Four Weddings and a Funeral with the ensemble cast and gentle comedy/drama genre that involves friends and lovers, misunderstandings and miscommunications. The actors are pretty believable in their roles and the characters stay with you even after the film has ended. Kristopher (Nicolai Cleve Broch) keeps a video diary of silly, goofy exploits that he and his friend Geir (Aksel Hennie) perform while tooling around town in between hanging up billboard signs. They are twenty-something and carefree until love and other commitments vie for their attention. Kristopher is well meaning and sometimes finds it difficult to navigate his life. The two friends decide to move in with Stig Inge (Anders Baasmo Christiansen). They barely know Stig but as one of them puts it, the "rent is cheap". They end up becoming very chummy with their new roommate and when Stig offers a room for rent to another new roommate, Henriette (Pia Tjelta) they become chummy with her too. Kristopher is unceremoniously dumped by his girlfriend at the beginning of the film. He is very hurt by this but she continually gives him the brush off whenever he tries to reconcile the relationship. During one particular dangerous escapade around town, Kristopher drops some of his video tapes while being chased by a security guard... and then the fun begins.

It was nice to see how people in other countries live. And it was nice to see how other countries look as well. I thought it showed how we are all alike in some ways; probably more alike than not. In the vast expanse of the universe, we all inhabit the same blue planet and we really do have common basic needs like love, life, and laughter. Buddy is a very heart warming movie with good character development. Definitely see it if you can.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

slasher horror flick masquerading as epic fantasy

[1/10 · 18 July 2011]

**contains spoilers** Have you ever had a miserably bad experience at a restaurant that you previously had thought would be stellar because of all the good reviews? This movie is that restaurant. It's all hype but the king has no clothes, though few would admit it. What it really is is a badly done horror movie hiding behind the facade of a fantasy wrapped in a war movie. What better ploy to show gobs of blood and gore? This movie is a blood fest and the only love the director shows for any of his characters, is the loving embrace by the camera every time blood is in the scene. Someone is stitching his own mouth: Close-up please! Someone is being beaten about the head: Close-up please! Someone is being tortured: Close-up please! Someone needs an amputation: Close-up please! It was so ridiculous that I almost expected to see "Blood" make an appearance in the screen credits. You know you're watching a bad movie when every single major character takes actions that are completely out of character and it doesn't take long to figure out that the reason for such is that you are being rather obviously manipulated because the director has another blood fest to embrace in the next scene. Incidents don't occur to advance the plot, they occur to advance the gore. In one scene the rebels actually start a campfire in midday in clear view of the enemy base camp. At first you think that no rebel army could be so stupid and that it is probably a trap. Well, think again. There is no trap; they actually did start a fire in the middle of the day for no other apparent reason other than, one presumes, to warm their lunch! The rebel army is composed of morons who leave astonishingly stupid clues behind so that key benefactors can later be implicated and/or murdered (in gory close-up, of course). The rebels have a spy at the enemy base camp but do you think the spy would take the opportunity to poison the enemy leader? No, of course not. Instead, the spy uses her plumb position to act as postal carrier! When she actually does have a prime opportunity to kill the enemy leader, she instead squanders it by simply cutting his mouth open. (How else could you have the self-stitching close-ups later on?) She then leaves and walks right past the very people who apprehended her in the first place. Did she honestly think she wouldn't get caught walking in plain view of them? The stupidity of the characters in this movie is mind boggling. This isn't Hitchcockian suspense, it's more like B movie schlock fest alerts; every time someone does something stupid, you know blood will follow. The stupidity isn't what you would expect from characters in a real first rate movie. However, the stupidity is exactly what you would expect in a movie like Freddie vs. Jason or some such teen slasher movie. And that's really all that this is; it's a slasher masquerading as a fantasy wrapped in a war movie. After all, you have to at least pretend to have some semblance of a plot. When someone finally does decide to poison the enemy leader, he occasionally stumbles but otherwise, the lethal dose has little impact; exactly what one would expect from the hard-to-kill "Jason" type character typical of most slasher movies. But what I found most offensive of all was the death scene where the little girl is by herself with the spy a few steps away, not even comforting/hugging her but instead humming a wordless "lullaby" that sounds more like a depressing and wordless funeral dirge. Aberrant and abhorrent.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

dumb and boring

[1/10 · 2 January 2010]

I actually had high hopes for this movie. I went with a big crowd of people and while they planned to see Avatar I was going to see Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately for them, Avatar was sold out so they all joined me in this train wreck of a movie. To be fair, there are about 10 minutes total that are kind of interesting. But the movie is 2 hours and 15 minutes long so there's the problem. There are so many plot holes that a mack truck could drive through and even with suspension of disbelief, it is truly a hodge podge of dreck with loud noises interspersed amongst the dreck to keep you awake. We are supposed to believe that Irene Adler is so strong as to heave a drugged and out-of-it Holmes from off the floor by the fireplace and onto a bed and then strip and handcuff him to the bed posts. They don't show you any of this because it would be laughably unbelievable. She must be super human to accomplish such a feat. There are other ridiculous stupidities that I thought perhaps were aimed at teens but the teens that were with me actually fell asleep because it was so boring. Every once in a while one of the sleeping teens would nod awake at a loud explosion. One such explosion completely engulfed the major characters yet in the next scene, not a burn mark is to be found. Apparently people in Holmes' day were made of asbestos. Don't waste your money. I like R.D.J. but this was a waste of time and money.

The Wicker Man (2006)

ridiculous

[1/10 · 6 October 2009]

If the ratings included going in the other direction, i.e., giving a -1 or -10, I would have done so because 1 star is just too much for this drivel. I don't understand why this movie was even made! Couldn't they figure out a better way to waste money? How about a better way to spend money like on research (faustmanlab.org) or charity (purple hearts) or relief efforts (Katrina and Indonesia). But someone somewhere decided that this movie just had to be made and the works were set in motion to waste a boatload of money on something that would have left the world better off, quite frankly, had it not been finished. This movie is so bad that I was actually wondering if I was missing my cue to laugh as my mind had thoughts that this might in fact be a comedy. Alas, the laughs are unintentional and it is just dreck.

Going through the motions is not acting, memorizing lines is not acting, putting words on a page does not a good script make, yelling "cut" or "action" is not all there is to directing. This was dreck from every conceivable angle.

Poirot: Taken at the Flood (2006) Season 10, Episode 4

aside from the ending, it's quite good

[10/10 · 15 May 2009]

I was once only able to see Poirot if PBS's "Mystery" broadcast a series and they haven't for quite a while, several years in fact so I mistakenly thought that the Poirot series had ceased production about 10 years ago. I was very happy to discover how wrong I was! I thought the production values and the acting in this one have far surpassed what I had remembered and I think I ought to say that I was already quite fond of Poirot a decade or more ago. Nevertheless, I would have liked to see some even handedness in how the villainy was dispersed. Apparently it's not murder if you knock someone out cold and kill him then club him in the back of the head to frame someone else then go on to bribe another person to commit perjury in a deposition. No, you get off scot-free for that. Blackmail and impersonating someone else is just fine and dandy too. Verbal harassment? No problem. Nothing to see here. Move along. Embezzeling funds from a pension fund is no big deal either. But the clincher: it's not considered murder if you go along with a plot to bomb a house filled with people. You're apparently only considered a murderer if Poirot feels like saying so. The judgments were not doled out even handedly at all. Being catholic doesn't melt your brain or turn off your moral radar. Whatever the fake sister did, she did of her own volition and should have been held accountable for it. That includes making false claims at a deposition (perjury), being an accomplice to murder, receiving stolen goods, and fraud. But, I guess since she has big eyes and 2 x chromosomes, then that makes it okay? And Rowley should have gone to jail too. And what about the embezzler? In spite of that, I gave this a 10 because I am so happy to find out there are a boatload of Poirot's that I have yet to see, and because I liked the chemistry between Elliot Cowan's character and Amanda Douge's character. It was magical I thought. The party scene and the garden scene alone make it worth watching... the best on screen kiss I have ever seen, even better than Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious" and that's saying something. Pity the ending was so ridiculous.

Egypt: The Secrets of the Hieroglyphs (2005) Season 1, Episode 6

fascinating

[10/10 · 13 May 2009]

I was riveted from start to finish. I had absolutely no idea that it took so long and was so laborious to decipher hieroglyphs from the rosetta stone. For some reason I had the impression that the rosetta stone unlocked its own secrets but this was far from the truth. Champollion was a genius who did so much in the short time that he had on earth but it was such a life well lived. He was like a human super nova... brilliant and fleeting. I loved the acting, the music and the atmosphere, it hardly seemed like a documentary at all. I wish all documentaries were this entertaining... maybe they should all have Elliot Cowan in them. Excellent job from start to finish.

Lost in Austen (2008)

it's fun and keeps you guessing

[10/10 · 20 April 2009]

Even though I had never seen it before, it wasn't too difficult to figure out that a scene was missing because in one moment, Amanda Price is being goaded into singing and the next moment, they're all clapping at her performance. Hopefully the DVD will include any missing scenes. Anyway, when I first started watching it, I liked it quite a bit but I kept panicking... a lot like Amanda did when things start to go haywire. I know it's silly but the phrase "...it's supposed to be Lizzy!" kept popping into my head. When Amanda Price verbalized my precise reaction, I had to laugh. I've read P&P and seen almost every live action adaptation there is. I love Jane Austin and thought, as time went on, that I would be offended by the changes but it never happened. Instead I found that I adore this series! It's made so well and seems to go out of its way to understand the book and the fans that have made the book so successful. The actors all know their characters inside and out and it's just made with so much love and attention to detail that it is a treat to behold. The actor who plays Fitzwilliam Darcy is fabulous. I never thought Colin Firth would have any competition but there it is... Elliot Cowan's Darcy is described by Amanda Price (Jemima Rooper) as "smoldering" in one scene, and I would have to agree. In fact, the Darcy in "Lost in Austen" has probably some of the most romantic language of the lot and his facial expressions are very often quite subtle and poignant. This is a romance that won't leave you cold or crying. It's fun, it's funny, it's a treasure and I love the ending. As a fan of Austen, I applaud this series and hope there are more of them. I understand that a movie may be made of this to be released in 2011. If that is true, then I hope they keep the cast. They were all brilliant, especially Jemima Rooper and Elliot Cowan.

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

the poppy is only a 24 hour flower and like the flower, this movie quickly fades

[1/10 · 24 March 2009]

I have to admit, the first time I tried to watch this I turned it off 10 minutes in after the gross and incomprehensible scene with the soused friends, 3 nipples, and fake breasts as chicken filets that made their debut after dancing all night in their owner's bra. The next day, however, I decided to give it another go and turned it back on. I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I'd like to think that the main character is a good person. But on the other hand, I am a realist and I know without a doubt that if a guy had behaved as she had and made the lewd comments that she did, he'd be out on his rear and possibly sued for verbal sexual harassment. There would be no hidden glory to his charms, he would be seen as a rogue, a sexual predator. Can you even imagine if the Poppy character had been a guy and the driving instructor a female? There would be no sympathy. Yet here we have Poppy (the 24 hour flower) making sexual jokes, lewd and unseemly sexual jokes (calling the driving instructor a gigolo repeatedly, mentioning a pubic pyramid and shouting "Bang on!") knowing all the while that it makes the driving instructor uncomfortable. She enjoys this immensely, but is that justification? I don't think so. Yes, the instructor was a few cards short of a deck but that's no excuse to harangue him. He needed medical help not sexual innuendo. I'm sorry but I just didn't really care for the main character. Apparently she can show tremendous compassion for a man who already went over the edge (the tramp), but for the ones who are not yet there, she does her best to help them over the cliff to total insanity. I believe I understand what the film was trying to get across but did anyone involved in making this not see the hypocrisy...the double standard? She is not a likable character.

The Bostonians (1984)

A delicately performed ode to a James Masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 January 2009]

I'm giving this a 10 because, 1) I think it's a good film and 2) some have not been fair with the rating of this film so I'm balancing it out.

I love this film. Decades ago, I used to read a lot of Henry James. The funny thing about a James novel is that it always leaves you scratching your head. James' brother, William, was a psychiatrist I believe, and it seems that Henry may have been using a little psychological gamesmanship while crafting many of his intriguing characters. For example, The Turn of the Screw is a book that rather famously has an open ending: one chilling, the other supernatural. Which will the reader choose? I bring this up because "The Bostonians" is also up to interpretation and this is where the actors, especially Reeve, give us another dimensional glimpse into their characters. On the one hand, this film can be taken as a love story, and a good one at that. On the other hand, however, one has to wonder if Reeve's character truly loves his target or is he just trying to "possess" her and therefore, keep her from becoming the vessel of all that he despises. Is she a conquest or a lover? Basil Ransom, Reeve's character, has just come from the South in a post civil war era. All that he knew as a child growing up in Mississippi is gone. He visits his cousin Olive played by Redgrave, at her request, only to find that she, unlike himself, is still very well off, her life is remarkably unchanged since the war's end. But she immediately comes to despise him for his beliefs. She refers to him as the "Enemy". Even though the Civil War is over, she is thinking of another kind of war, the war of the suffragettes. And in true James fashion, even this is complicated by Olive's perceived homosexuality as opposed to Reeve's clearly hetero thoughts and ideas. She sees Ransom as a threat to her own happiness with Verena (Potter). So there are layers of motive here for Olive's hatred of Ransom.

Ransom's beliefs, however, are what he clings to relentlessly, purposefully, deliberately, because they are all he has left of his bygone era. His history, his lifestyle, has died. He has already suffered the loss of one war, will he see this new challenge as an opportunity to finally win? Indeed, toward the end, as he puts the black cloak over Verena's head, the look on his face could be that of a warrior admiring, and protecting a hard fought prized possession. Or is it the look of tenderness as that of a lover beaming at his cherished bride? You decide. That's what James would have wanted.

Oddly, Verena becomes, not a human with her own ideas but rather a vessel for other people to live out their own thoughts and ideas. It is ironic because she speaks publicly and passionately about the exact opposite yet everyone that surrounds her, from her parents to a local reporter, to Olive and Ransom... they all want something from Verena, they are all using her but she seems oblivious to it all. In the end she finally seems to make a decision purely for herself but again, perhaps not.

An interesting scene plays out between two characters played by Nancy Marchant and Redgrave, they seem to be brokering the future of Verena but in the end, Olive (Redgrave) decides to hide away with her. The ending could have been quite different but selfishness apparently won out. Here again, motives are not exactly all that they seem. They both agree they are for equal rights of women yet the dialogue is all about using Verena as a chess piece to further their own goals. It is a masterpiece of irony and hypocrisy.

Linda Hunt as the already liberated female doctor who does not particularly care for speeches and the "movement" seems to inhabit the role and without a word seems to highlight the hypocrisy of others. She is remarkably believable and seems to breeze through as if she really does live in the time and place set in the movie. Her character is already liberated but doesn't see the need to preach it from the pulpit, she just lives it. She's very happy, without a man, with her own medical career, but no one seems to notice except Ransom. Ransom gets along very well with her and they immediately become friends.

Christopher Reeve, Vanessa Redgrave, Linda Hunt, and Nancy Marchant did this Henry James novel proud; and that's no easy task.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008)

starts terribly at first but stick with it, it gets better

[7/10 · 25 October 2008]

Amy Adams' ridiculous overacting and talking like a 5 year old did this movie in for me. I thought it held promise at first because I liked the era it was set in and the feel and look of the movie. It had a certain promise of being a well done period piece in the mold of a mad dash Cary Grant movie like "The Awful Truth" - a favorite of mine. Unfortunately, Amy Adams seems to think that rich young women of that period are all about behaving and talking like a baby. The clincher came when she stared straight ahead and whispered in what can only be described as "nauseating-spoiled-brat mode" and said, "Miss Pettigrew... I love you!" Does everything she says have to be said in a half whisper with an excited squeal at the end? I could take this over acting in "Enchanted" but she was playing a cartoon character... literally! What is the point of playing a cartoon character in a movie with no cartoons? Arggh! ************************

Okay, that was what I wrote after I stopped the movie after the "Miss Pettigrew, I love you!" remark because I couldn't take it anymore. But a day later I thought perhaps I should actually sit through the whole thing before writing this one off as irritatingly bad as I at first found it. And you know what? It does get better. It gets a LOT better! The Amy Adams character stops being a cartoon character and stops with the breathless, half-wit banter. Once that happens, the plot actually takes shape and the characters become people you would actually care about. I'm leaving my first impression up there however, because I want people to know that the ditsy, breathless, baby-talk goes away after about a half hour into it. So if you're like me and you think you just can't take it anymore, stick with it. It's a movie worth watching. Okay, it's not as good as "The Awful Truth" but it's certainly not as bad as the beginning makes it out to be.

Other people have given a synopsis but briefly, a young, ambitious star-wannabe is living in the flat of her employer who owns a nightclub where she sings. She's involved in an affair with the son of a powerful theater mogul and she's trying to get a starring role in a musical. Meanwhile, a musician loves her and asks her to marry him and join his band as a singer. Miss Pettigrew, an old spinster who judges everyone around her harshly, finds herself in a position where she has to come to grips with the fact that nobody is perfect, and neither is she. As she views the problems swirl around her, she realizes her own past mistakes in not living life when it was once her turn to make a decision about life and love. She advises her charge accordingly and all ends happily. As a Jane Austen fan, I like happy endings and this one, although certainly not an Austen piece, doesn't disappoint. So sit this one through, and if you can endure the beginning, it's a movie worth watching.

Persuasion (1971)

warm and sincere adaptation

[10/10 · 2 July 2008]

I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.

Persuasion (2007 TV Movie)

melancholy rules the day

[7/10 · 2 July 2008]

In the beginning of this adaptation, it showed a lot of promise. Excepting the ridiculous scene where Anne has to explain to Lady Russell why they are moving (which is ludicrous, because it was Lady Russell who took great pains in drawing up a budget with Anne so that the Elliot family could get out of debt), I nevertheless held out hope that this would be a magnificent production. Boy was I wrong. I liked the fellow who played Captain Wentworth but there was no real explanation why he would ever have loved, or continue to love... someone like Anne. They show, competently enough, her hellish existence as an old maid, someone who is overlooked and unappreciated in her own family but valued everywhere else. In the book she actually sheds a few tears while playing piano as everyone else dances. However, in the book, as uncomfortable as she is being near Captain Wentworth at the start, she eventually learns to deal with it and speak at ease in his company so much so that when she is in Bath you actually see the roles reversed and Captain Wentworth, realizing that he still loves Anne and always will, seems unable to approach her and seems awkward in her presence. This role reversal that played such an important part in the book is nonexistent in this move version and that's the main reason why I disliked it so. There is no dynamism in the characters' growth, they are static, never changing. As a result, they are not real, they are not believable and to me, that signifies a very poor interpretation of a Jane Austen novel because character growth and development are hallmarks of this great writer. A pity they were so absent here and the running scene at the end was beyond the pale. If you can't drum up drama with skill, have the lead character run madly all around Bath. It was stupid and that scene, thank God, is nowhere to be found in the book. Very disappointing. I would like to add that a running scene was written by Jane Austen but for Northanger Abbey with a very naive, even gauche 17 year old heroine, not by 27 year old Anne in Persuasion. You have to let the action fit the character. Jane Austen understood this. It is my opinion that the characters she created went through much deliberation on her part as to motivation/conversation/dress/attitude, etc. If she went through all this trouble, why change it? Nevertheless, I gave this 7 stars because it does achieve one goal in showing Anne's profound sadness and I liked the writing scenes because they often contained Jane Austen's prose. The blowing out of the candle by Anne at the end of one such scene was exquisite.

Just one more thought. I think that it would have been beneficial to include a flashback of Captain Wentworth and Anne before the breakup. This would have presented an opportunity to contrast their moods and behavior to the omnipresent melancholic tone.

Mansfield Park (1983)

major flaw hurts otherwise great acting by all others

[4/10 · 26 June 2008]

Okay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone "Susan B. Anthony" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.

Emma (1996 TV Movie)

A very good Emma

[10/10 · 20 May 2008]

This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

mixed feeling

[8/10 · 21 April 2008]

I gave this an 8 but it left me decidedly with a sense that the movie was unfinished. It also was a bit confusing as it shows that the family is completely dependent on their patron to commission paintings. Yet when he wants a servant painted, the wife flips out when she finds out. Where does she think the money is coming from? Wouldn't it be obvious that a painter, one who makes his living painting beautiful things for others to buy, would want to paint beautiful scenes, people, events? Did the wife ever think that he would only paint ugly people? I know there's supposed to be a hidden love story here but to me, it was more of a friendship, an understanding of art. I loved the scenery, I loved watching this film, but the main plot and the conflict were, I thought, kind of ridiculous. Does the wife want to eat or does she want her husband to sell paintings? It was stupid. Any mother would opt to have her children fed over the dislike of her painter husband painting a salable, commissioned portrait. I'm being too logical I guess, using common sense over drama. I simply could not suspend my disbelief long enough to buy the main plot line. But again, the movie as a visual display, was rich and very appealing. It was like watching a portrait in motion and in that respect, I found it quite beautiful.

A Room with a View (2007 TV Movie)

I was expecting

[4/10 · 17 April 2008]

to watch a Jane Austen episode of Masterpiece Theater but instead, E.M. Forster's "A Room with a View" came on. I recorded it anyway, knowing that this was a happy novel and I thoroughly enjoyed the 1985 film. So I sat there and watched and thought that I really enjoyed this one much better because I sensed more character development but then the ending came. What a tragedy, a needless tragedy put into a happy novel. Why??? Obviously, Mr. Davies needs a lesson in fiction from Oscar Wilde, "The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means."

It was supposed to have a happy ending! What a downer, life is already full of sorrows and disappointments, can we not even have our happy moments in fiction? Oh, Mr. Davies, I'm so disappointed in you.

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

brilliant

[10/10 · 15 April 2008]

I don't know what I can say that hasn't already been said before but I feel I must pay homage to this magnificent telling of the classic Jane Austen novel, Pride and Prejudice. The attention to detail helps to transport the viewer back to early 19th century England and the trip is one that will always be treasured. Colin Firth is fantastic as Darcy, the tortured lover, a prisoner of his own pride but blind to the circumstance until Elizabeth Bennet reveals the truth to him. She has her own troubles in that she is prejudiced against Darcy right from the start and even allowing that others try to tell her the truth about people and circumstances, she is unwilling to let go of her first impression of him. This is the closest telling to the book that you will find and the settings are sumptuous. I intend to buy the DVD for my collection. It is a treasure.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

it's not that it's so bad

[3/10 · 13 April 2008]

It's just that it's been done so much better already . The 1995 BBC production for T.V. is far superior to this, rendering the 2005 movie version, nearly unwatchable. Jane Austen novels are gems in and of themselves but too many times, we see modern day feminists trying to wrangle in their views into a story line or setting where it was never meant to be. This not only makes the final outcome untrue to the novel but a sacrilege to Jane Austen fans. In real Jane Austen story lines there are men who are good, and men who are not, there are women who are good and women who are not. There is no one side is better than the other garbage. Jane Austen was not a feminists, she was a humanist. She saw good in both sexes. The men in this movie are either twittering idiots, indolent, charlatans or conceited. Case in point, Bingley is described in the book as easy going, friendly and socially proficient but in this movie he is a numbskull and couldn't hold a conversation if his life depended on it. Also, they didn't live side by side with filthy animals roaming about in their house. The Bennet girls also took great care in their appearance which wasn't evident at all in this movie. I just don't understand why so much was changed. It was a disappointment.