I saw this tonight with a free pass, in advance screenings. And quite frankly, I wasn't expecting much. Except of course a giant perve at James McAvoy. Which I got. Oh yes, I did.
Anyway.
The movie is the stort of Jane Austen before she became a published author. After crap previews (all sequels or three-quels, terrible business) I was feeling even more negative. I'm not naturally predisposed to period pieces, and after the debacle earlier in the year with Marie Antoinette (yes! I got in another dig!) I wasn't expecting to magically become disposed. I don't generally like the whole disposing of human emotions and reactions for the sake of the tone of the period thing.
But that's where the beauty of Becoming Jane lay (except in James McAvoy, i would like to lie with him myself ha ha ha). The tone of the period remained intact, but the chemistry between Jane Austen and Thomas Lefroy was never denied, and in fact it was often acted upon - not in a totally modern day jump into bed kind of fashion, but there was more than the standard issue period piece long brooding gazes. The onscreen chemistry between Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy was enough to make me think they MUST have hooked up at least once after a day of filming, and in fact the performance even allowed Anne Hathaway to endear herself to me - not an easy task.
Additionally, I was concerned that the parallels between what was going on in the movie and the book she was writing at the time (Pride and Prejudice) were going to be smacking me in the face but they were thankfully subtle. The film was a bit long which is a standard gripe for me, and proceedings could definitely have been a little more succinct. And there was a bizarre bit at the end where it was 15 years into the future or whatever that I didn't really appreciate, but all in all this was a really enjoyable film experience, and a cut above most period pieces.
8 out of 10.
ps: James McAvoy. Omg.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Hot Fuzz
I saw this movie last weekend, and can't remember many specific details except to say....
It was hilarious. It was clever. And for me, it was every bit as awesome as Shaun of the Dead.
8 out of 10.
It was hilarious. It was clever. And for me, it was every bit as awesome as Shaun of the Dead.
8 out of 10.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Bobby
Bobby deals with the day leading up to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in the US, and loosely with the politics surrounding the event. I say 'loosely' because that really was the problem with Bobby - the whole thing was too loose.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
I have a weak spot for this period of American history - the Vietnam war, the political climate in the US, the whole bit. In addition, the cast roll call was outstanding, leading me to believe that I was potentially going to watch an outstanding movie. I had faith in Emilio Estevez to make something great! But as one of my friends said 'that's what you get when you let a brat packer be in charge of a movie'. So true.
The structure itself had potential, it looked at the lives of a number of characters in the Ambassador Hotel, a lot making comment on several notable aspects of the time period. Whilst there were lots of admirable characters and I didn't feel smacked in the face with the lack of subtlety, they just weren't developed properly - I didn't care what happened to any of them. Additionally, there were two glaringly obvious stereotypes in the form of the characters of retired doorman played by Anthony Hopkins, and a spaced out hippie played by Ashton Kutcher.
The movie looked good, but failed to get me in. It began very slowly and stayed slow until a good 3/4 of the way through. It picked up pace and there was a portion of the film that was genuinely very moving, but unfortunately even that tapered off towards the end. The end that encompassed the inevitable flash of the American flag in the last frame.
I was entertained enough for a few hours (another point, it was too long) but in retrospect, the aspects of this film that kept me in were the archival footage, and the political/historical angle, none of which the film makers can take credit for. Anyone as enamoured with this period of history as I, go see it. But if you're not, this film just doesn't cut it, considering the credentials behind it.
7 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
