Colin Firth .... Fitzwilliam Darcy
Jennifer Ehle .... Elizabeth Bennet
David Bamber .... Mr. Collins
Crispin Bonham-Carter .... Mr. Bingley
Anna Chancellor .... Miss Bingley
Susannah Harker .... Jane Bennet
Barbara Leigh-Hunt .... Lady Catherine de Bourgh
Adrian Lukis .... Wickham
Julia Sawalha .... Lydia Bennet
Alison Steadman .... Mrs. Bennet
Outstanding ... MacFadyen is a worthy Darcy and a darned good actor to boot! The scenery, backgrounds, and country folk were much more realistic than previous versions. The costumes and hairdos also seemed in keeping with the times. Another great addition is the priceless Donald Sutherland who, in a perfect world, would have had more scenes with Judy Densch. If those two can't chew up the scenery, nobody can. And, finally, Keira Knightly is a jewel. Her beauty is so apparent that it almost detracts from the fact that this is a very good actress who can hold her own in any room. This was a delight and I only wish that it could have been 6 hours long.
Pride and Prejudice
Love Actually
In London, from five weeks before Christmas up to a month after Christmas, the lives of different persons are linked by love. The Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) and the member of his household, Natalie (Martine McCutcheon); his sister Karen (Emma Thompson), her husband Harry (Alam Rickman) and Harry's secretary, Mia (Heike Makatsch); Harry's employees, Sarah (Laura Linney), a woman with a serious problem in her life, and the designer Karl (Rodrigo Santoro); the writer Jamie Bennett (Colin Firth) and his Portuguese maid Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz); the grieving widow Daniel (Liam Neeson) and his son, Sam; a porn actress and her colleague; the singer Billy Mack (Billy Nighy) and his manager; the just married couple Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Juliet (Keira Knightley) and their best man Mark (Andrew Lincoln); a British young man that travels to USA, trying to score women in that country. "Love Actually" is a delightful homage to love. There are different situations, some of them dramatic, others funny, sometimes touching but never corny. The interconnection of the stories has a perfect timing. The cast is a constellation, highlighting the shining beauty of Keira Knightley and the nice role of Hugh Grant. There are many wonderful moments, such as the collective interview of the Prime Minister and the American president; or the moment when Karen finds that her Christmas gift is a CD of Joni Mitchell; or when Mark declares his secret love for Juliet; or the relationship of Daniel and Sam; or when Daniel meets Carol; or when the manager of Billy makes a comment about Elton John; or the narration in off in the beginning of the movie. I believe I could list many other magnificent moments, but better off the reader of my review rent or buy the DVD and have a good time. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Simplesmente Amor" ("Simply Love")
Becoming Jane
I saw this film on March 28th, 2007 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival's Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "…explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.
The "Jane" is Jane Austen and this is a fictional depiction of her young adult life before her novel writing career. I suppose half of the tale is based on fact such as she rejected a marriage proposal, and half the tale is made up to create engaging story-telling. But that's not important.
The essence of the story is the mores of proper English society around 1800. Woman had their place. And that place was to give oneself to an arranged marriage and become a dutiful wife and mother. It was even more important to be in these roles if you were a daughter of a minister of modest means who had lots of children to care for. Jane was one of those children.
But Jane has spunk and smarts and a stubbornness to live her own life as she sees fit. Anne Hathaway plays young Jane convincingly and Anne's good looks are played down as much as possible. It's Jane's inner self that makes her attractive and not her exterior appearance.
And she is so attractive that she has three suitors; the rich and dull one, the poor and roguish one, and a secret and nefarious one. This circumstance allows us to see England from the various social strata, which is fun and informative.
Jane, 200 years ahead of her time, shows beauty and grace and charm and spirit, and will not buckle to her day's lot in life. We should all have such courage "… to follow our bliss" knowing we have but one life to live.
FYI – There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past Truly Moving Picture Award winners that are now either at the theater or available on video.
Atonement
Wright shows us a beautiful, intriguing and dark painting called 'Atonement'. Based on Ian McEwan's novel, is based on three principal characters and how a lie told by one of them changes all three of their lives forever. The character Briony is one of the most interesting characters in recent cinema. While the story is impactful, 'Atonement' is also marvelous to look at. The frames, the amazing cinematography (especially long shots e.g. set in Dunkirk, closeups and underwater shots), the music and the sets and locations are more than impressive and highly add to the poetry of the story.
The complex characters in demand strong performances. Sadly, Keira Knightley does not impress. I've never thought of her as a great actress. Here, she just lacks the nuances of a woman of that time (the film is set in the 30s) and she seriously needs to eat. James McAvoy is great. Child actress Saoirse Ronan is brilliant (certainly not the irritating child performances we so often see in films). She underplays her part with a certain dignity. Romola Garai is phenomenal in a briefer role. Supporting cast, that includes Gina McKee, Brenda Blethyn and Vanessa Redgrave, is good (as the aforementioned actresses have hardly ever disappointed).
'Atonement' is cleverly told from two different perspectives, that of what really happened and what Briony thinks/imagined. At times, it the film's sudden shift of gear (e.g. switching to the war scenes) feels odd but it comes to an almost full circle towards the end. I found the smoking habit of the characters (which was sort of in your face) annoying. Also, at times, the pacing was very slow. The ending is quite profound and it is left for the viewers to interpret and to seek an answer to a question that will definitely stay in mind long after the film's ended. In one word, I'd describe this film as a brilliant piece of work.
Forrest Gump
FORREST GUMP (1994) **** Tom Hanks, Sally Field, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson. Brilliantly directed and inspiring comic drama about the truly extraordinary life and times of mentally challenged Forrest Gump (Hanks in the best role of his career won his second Best Actor Oscar in back-to-back winning roles), a simple, honest, and decent man whose childlike innocence is his lucky charm through his altering experiences that span the past two decades flawlessly. Mind-boggling Oscar-winning computerized effects by Industrial Light & Magic has Gump meeting the famous and infamous. Hanks is a wonder (dare you not to get a lump in your throat when it finally registers that he has a child - watch his face!) and gets fine support especially Wright as the love of his life and Sinise as his best friend (Best Supporting Actor nominee) superior adaptation of Winston Groom's novel by Eric Roth (also an Academy Award recepient) that truly captures lightning in a bottle. Oscars also went to director Robert Zemeckis and for Best Picture. *** One of my all-time favorite flicks. I still cry, particularly Forrest telling Jenny why he loves her so much ("You're my girl!") and at the gravesite when the birds fly overhead.
Juno
If people didn't realize what a joke the Academy Awards have been, certainly Juno will go a long way to show just that.
Juno is nothing but a huge PR campaign masquerading as an indie film. That's exactly what the Academy wants to be known for.
The fact that Juno is completely fake, from the absurdly hip bio of its writer to its forced (supposed) humor is what the Academy is all about.
Academy Awards have ceased a long time ago to be about quality. That's why they love Juno. They saw the hundreds of trade ads and voted for Juno, and the other films that bought cover ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.
It may be good business for trade newspapers, but it's a shame for film and for the public.
Samantha Who?
Here is an original idea. What if we all had the chance to forget the transgressions we committed in our life up to this time? What would happen if you woke up from a coma not knowing the first thing about your past? Such is the premise of "Samamtha Who?", a charming fantasy-comedy starring Christina Applegate, formerly of "Married...With Children". I suspect that most of us, given the chance, would probably not like a few things about our past lives, but Samantha, pre-amnesia, was a bit more unlikeable than most. Miss Applegate has progressed quite a bit as a comedic actress over the years, and her character here gets a chance to show her considerable comedic talents. Her reactions and expressions remind one of the early Marlo Thomas in the "That Girl" series. This series deserves a chance to succeed, if only the writers can keep up the writing end, not running out of ideas based soley on the amnesia gag. There is promise here.
Pushing Daisies
I guess stealing from yourself is not as bad as stealing from someone else, but it does tend to keep you in the same rut. The creator of "Pushing Daisies", Bryan Fuller, simply recycled his premise from "Dead Like Me", even having the characters headquartered out in a waffle (pie) house. The only substantial changes are a surreal production design and an "Ameilie" type storytelling technique; presumably to give the thing a more absurdest feel. CW Television has also stolen Fuller's DLM idea for a spectacularly bad show called "Reaper", which premiered this fall.
I instantly disliked this show despite a very favorable bias. My biggest question is how much better I would have liked it had I not been a fan of "Dead Like Me"? I think that I would have probably liked it a bit better but not enough to become a regular viewer or fear its early cancellation. My other question is how anyone can consider this even remotely original, given its obvious rip-off status? Since everything is relative maybe those making the originality claim have spent the past two years on a steady diet of "Hannah Montana" or "The Suite Life of Zack and Cody".
So why can't I recommend it to fans of "Dead Like Me", or even to fans of "Tru Calling"? Mostly because it somehow fails to capture the humanity elements of Fuller's earlier show (which is available on DVD if you are interested). "Dead Like Me" balanced its supernatural premise with a very clever coming of age story. It had its absurdest elements but they were offset by a realistic production design; which kept it grounded. The strength of "Dead Like Me" was its foundation of normalcy, despite the supernatural elements the characters behaved in ways that viewers instantly identified with. "Pushing Daisies" is more like "Austin Powers", you might find it funny at times but there is never a strong connection with the characters.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
The Tudors
Airs Next: Showtime at Sunday 10:00 PM (60 min.)
Status: New Series
Premiered: April 1, 2007
Show Categories: Drama, Movie/Mini-Series
The Tudors focuses on the life and romances of the young King Henry VIII. The ten one-hour episodes take a look at the often overlooked early political relationships as well as Henry's trysts with such notable women as Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. The series is shot on location in Ireland. Michael Hirst ( Elizabeth ) is the series creator, writer, and executive producer.
Problem is some people will think "this" show is the real history and take it for truth without bothering to look up the real truth....that's very sad and a disservice to the people.
Why embellish when the actual story is dramatic enough? I mean, com'on...embellish some, but stick to the basic facts at least! There are movies that embellished on Henry VIII...like HBO's HenryVIII, but, they stuck to the basic facts and the actors were cast brilliantly.
At this point, for those of us who know our history, it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't help it...as horrible as it is, you can't turn away.
I watch more now to see just how badly they can keep on screwing up. I do know if I can make it through the first season, I won't be watching the second.
Most of us "haters" were excited about the show coming out because that was a very dramatic time in history...to be more accurate we are now "dissapointed" by the show and feel let down. It's not so much as we "hate" the show for it's obvious slaughter of history, it's just a huge disappointment. After all, it is called the The Tudors...one would expect it to be a fairly accurate account of The Tudors...*all* of them.
If they wanted to make a series about a King and his court, then do it...but don't call it by a name that is part of history then rape the real stories of the real people.
That's just my 2 cents...
