Feeds:
Articole
Comentarii

Posts Tagged ‘Victorian Mist’

An adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s novel with the same name.
I love Elizabeth Gaskell and everything she wrote is pretty cool.
“Wives and daughters” is one of my favorites and it certainly has a delightful something that North&South lacks.It’s…(I hate using quotes) the magic of ordinary days and little things that make us happy.
Here we have the 19th century through the eyes of women.Lacking activity,being obedient,loving and waiting because…well,they were women in the 19th century.
I was sort of touched by the finesse of the movie.The characters seem kind of ethereal,especially Molly with her goodness and delicacy.The same with miss Matty from Cranford.
Elizabeth Gaskell had a flair for describing that kind of women that are almost like beings from out of this world.
The W&D miniseries feature Justine Waddell who also played Estella in “Great Expectations” and Tess Durbeyfield in “Tess of the D’Urbervilles”.
The plotline is rather simple and wikipedia is there for everyone
The movie is lovely:not very complex,light,sometimes funny,sometimes sad,innocently serious and of great sensibility.
That’s the thing with these british novel adaptations,isn’t it?They’re all so sensible(except for the Thomas Hardy ones but I don’t really dig those).
I had the intention of naming my favorite moments in the movie,but I can’t think of any even though right now I can’t think of a movie I’d like to rewatch more.I guess this movie stuck with me more not because of remarcable moments,but because of the impression it left me with.
Anyway,Molly being the most impressive character in the movie(due to her kindness and obedience and,as I already said,her being ethereal),I liked Cynthia immensely,much more than Molly(whom,to tell the truth,I can’t understand fully,but then again,I can’t understand any docile person,and she is so much like a Dickens character)
Cynthia is interesting and cool and not the kind of person that should live in a small village.I’d’ve loved to meet her,we would’ve been friends.
Molly is like the perfect 19th century girl.She has no flaws.She’s discreet and doesn’t stand out,yet she is remarcably intelligent, obedient yet independent in thought and with rare bursts of passion.
Oh,she is so flawless,I can’t want to be her.
I didn’t get to like Osborne,I think the actor may have done a less than good job,’cause at times I thought he was creepy or something close to creepy,like cheesy,while I don’t think that was the intention.
As for Roger,oh,maybe they don’t make guys like that anymore.And even if they do,I don’t think one of those would be a good match for me.
I actually liked mr Preston.Of course,the heart goes to the main characters,that’s what the director wants,but,oh well,he wasn’t exactly the vilain,he was just the unwanted.
Other interesting characters are squire Hamley and Hyacinth.Oh,I just realised what the best moment in the movie was,it was the squire’s way of telling the doctor that his new wife is ridiculous,”I’m not saying she was very silly,but one of us was silly and it wasn’t me”.HA!
Squire Hamley was perfectly pictured by sir Michael Gambon.
Lovely movie.I think it’s a little underrated though,it’s not as appreciated as it should be.BBC makes great movies,it’s a pitty they don’t make more.

Read Full Post »

Oscar Wilde was a genius! as we all know.An Ideal Husband is not his best work,his best work is The Importance Of Being Ernest,but AIH is a pretty good second.
The point of the story is that we are all humans,make mistakes.Nobody is perfect and one should love people with their defects included and even love them for their defects.There is no such thing as an ideal husband and no one should live under the pressure of trying to preserve the image of perfection.
2937-1
For plotline,go to wikipedia.
The dialogue is very much the same as in the play… as in it doesn’t deviate from the point,but it’s adapted,placed in other settings and order.But that’s not a problem at all,I actually admired the creativity and resourcefulness of whoever made this movie.
For example,in the play,the scenery doesn’t change much.We are at the Chiltern’s,at Goring and then back at the Chiltern’s.It’s dull,but practical if you’re at the theatre.However,in the movie,Lady Chiltern encounters mrs Cheveley while riding,all the characters go to the theatre to see “The importance of being ernest” and you actually can hear the ending line “Not at all,aunt.I only just understood the importance of being ernest” or something like that,after which Oscar Wilde comes out from behind the curtain and salutes the audience.It’s brilliant.People in an Oscar Wilde play watching an Oscar Wilde play.And there’s a lot more other inventive modifications that do not in any way alter the play,but improve it.I think Oscar Wilde wouldn’t have minded a bit.
I appreciated the fact that mrs Cheveley’s character is modified too.She is not accused of stealing,nor does lord Goring have to steal the letter from her.She gives it to him willingly after hearing Robert’s honorable speech.She acknowledges defeat very gracefully.I liked mrs Cheveley very much in this adaptation.She has scrupules,but you can still hate her.She’s manipulative,but you’ve got to like her.I also thought Julianne Moore was a great choice for this new,improved character.It actually proves Oscar Wilde’s point.People aren’t all black and white,good and bad.Good people have done bad things and bad people have done good things.
Other stuff to mention…Cate Blanchett is gorgeous,Rupert Everett is so lovable with his distinguished detachment and Minnie Driver is perfect to be Mabel…childish, beautiful, picky, witty and funny.
Bottom line,great film,do watch!
Oh,I feel I haven’t said enough about Cate Blanchett.Well,she’s amazing!

Read Full Post »

I watched “The young Victoria” and I didn’t love it.
The movie is about three or four years of Victoria’s inactive life from before and after she was queen and her relationship with cousin Alfred,whom she married.
Young-Victoria_large
Historically it was pretty accurate.
The happenings,the politics,the characters flow naturally and historically.
The king’s insulting speech towards Victoria’s mother is about 2/3 exactly what he said.Also the part where Conroy is trying to make Victoria sign the regency agreement while she’s sick and she throws it on the floor,is true.
Alfred,however,was never shot in an attempt of murder towards the queen.According to wikipedia,this annoyed the queen.
What annoyed me was that I couldn’t find something I loved about this movie.
young-victoria
I don’t understand why Victoria and Albert liked each other.I didn’t like them as a couple and I couldn’t like them as individuals.Victoria seemed dizzy,silly.She was actually downright stupid holding her husband as a visitor,not bestowing obligations on him,trusting Melbourne more than him,needing Melbourne’s approval to share her work with Albert and considering that he is nothing more than her husband.
If this was really Victoria,I despise her.
As for Albert…for a long part of the movie he doesn’t show much personality and occasionally reminded me of a child lacking love.Towards the end he starts to show some guts and just when I was beginning to like him,he got shot in a murder attempt.Well that ruined it for me and in conclusion I hated this movie,I thought Victoria was stupid and Albert was bland.
As for the ending…I didn’t get it.After 20 years,when she was 40,Victoria still looked slim as Emily Blunt and pretty as an 18 year old girl.
Honestly,I never disliked a movie so much.I even hate the poster.I think the poster is dumb.
I hated the scene when Albert and Victoria dance.It was dumb.She slided to the middle of the room as if she was on rollerskates.Dumb!
Honestly!DUMB!
tommy

Read Full Post »