September 11, 2010
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.
Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.
This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.
What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.
On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.
Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).
Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.
Reviewer: Jeff Burton
Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.
What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.
On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.
Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).
Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.
Reviewer: Jeff Burton
Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 2:57 PM
0 comment(s)
Share
September 6, 2010
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.
Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.
This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.
What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.
On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.
Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).
Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.
Reviewer: Jeff Burton
Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.
This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.
What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.
Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).
Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.
Reviewer: Jeff Burton
Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 12:00 PM
0 comment(s)
Share
July 8, 2010
The Messenger (2009)
Should I see it?
No.
No.
Short Review: Previous generations got John Wayne. We get Woody Harrelson putting down his pot long enough to get his lines right. Only this generation would allow someone like Harrelson anywhere near a film that attempts to show American Veterans in a sympathetic light. Harrelson is the man who wrote the article I'm An American Tired of the American Lies in the British paper The Guardian in 2002. In the article he claimed the War on Terror was "a racist and imperialist war." and "But in wartime people lose their senses. There are flags and yellow ribbons and posters and every media outlet is beating the war drum and even sensible people can hear nothing else. In the US, God forbid you should suggest the war is unjust or that dropping cluster bombs from 30,000ft on a city is a cowardly act." All of this and more in a foreign paper.
Remember this if you watch the movie. The soldier he presents he believes is a racist coward who killed innocents for nothing.
Congratulations vets - this is who is representing you now. Welcome home.
Remember this if you watch the movie. The soldier he presents he believes is a racist coward who killed innocents for nothing.
Congratulations vets - this is who is representing you now. Welcome home.
Films are not just a reflection of our society. They are a mode of communication that also provides direction on how the population should think about itself.
Regarding the War in Iraq, Hollywood has broken things down into two distinct camps.
1) Prior to The Surge, American Soldiers were ruthless, torturing barbarians unleashed by a corrupt and brutal Government (search for the film Redacted for the best example of this line of thinking).
2) Following The Surge in 2007, Hollywood couldn't portray soldiers as negatively since we were "winning" and the death toll was declining. Film makers quickly switched to presenting American vets returning from the battlefield. These veterans are all shown as despondent, confused, probable substance abusers and potential psychopaths. (such as In the Valley of Elah (2007) & The Torturer (2008)) No one escapes Iraq without PTSD.
While PTSD certainly exists and soldiers have come back with all manner of difficult problems to overcome, Hollywood seems compelled to only show the ugly side of their service. No films show heroic deeds. No films showing the men and women of valor doing their duty. Certainly no films showing the brutal nature of the enemy they were facing or the obscene and violent culture our service people were forced to confront.
Hollywood spent the first few years of the war undermining the troops. The war turns and things get better - do they go to spending their resources portraying soldiers as heroes who have served with honor? Nope. Since 2007 we have had a continual flow of messed-up, used-up, potential psychos/drunks suffering like rape victims with crew-cuts.
This film shows Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) who has just returned from IraqMontgomery suffers from the injuries he obtain from a IED and is simply waiting for his enlistment to run out. He is put to work on a Casualty Notification Team, even though he has no experience telling people their family member is dead. He is teamed with the more experienced Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson). Stone is, of course, a former drunk.
Montgomery falls for one of the widows, Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Morton). The widow Pitterson. Pitterson. Pitterson = pity = sympathy. Heck, why not just name the character Olive Branch and call it a day?
In short, they're all screwed up. Everyone's moral compass is broken. It's all misery and despondency back home.
The film itself is not half bad. There's good performances by Foster and Harrelson and they make for an interesting pairing. The issue here is that the film is thick with self-importance. Every moment seems loaded with a "this is heavy stuff" vibe that simply kills the production. Instead of simply being dramatic, the film want you to know its being dramatic and overplays its hand.
The other issue is that this is just another in the line of films that is essentially a slap in the face of our returning vets. If film makers would have spent any time at all presenting the war outside of an Abu Ghraib-esque light, movies like these would be easier to swallow. Given the string of Iraq War movies and what they are saying about our troops? This seems to be just another lump of agitprop against the military.
Related Reviews:
Ben Foster movies
30 Days of Night (2007)
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Christianity Today
Meet in the Lobby
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
Labels: Ben Foster, film, Jena Malone, movie review, Samantha Morton, Steve Buscemi, Woody Harrelson
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 8:00 AM
0 comment(s)
Share
March 14, 2010
Movie Trailer: The Messenger
This is a very strong trailer. It hits on all the right emotional chords without being too melodramatic. As somber as this is, the ad does a very good job of selling. The music is a nice touch.
The film itself? As is the case with any film about the military over the past forty years, it all depends on how seriously they take it. It is hard to imagine a film maker being irresponsible or clumsily political while dealing with this kind of topic - but would you really be surprised if they were?
This does look good, but it does strike me that with only a few exceptions like The Hurt Locker, film makers can only bring themselves to discuss our soldiers only by focusing on them after they come home, dead or alive (In the Valley of Elah, Home of the Brave, Cost of a Soul, Taking Chance, Grace Is Gone, Stop-Loss, The Lucky Ones, Brothers). No investigation on what our men and women are seeing "over there". No mention of the absolute depraved condition of the Muslim world or the struggling people looking for freedom. No discussion of if what we've been doing all this time has been worth it or why we've been doing it. We just get a line of films showing our men and women in uniform racked with guilt, post-traumatic stress disorder, maimed or dead.
By avoiding the war and the moral questions involved in its execution, film makers can continue to undermine our troops. The entertainment industry was comfortable painting our soldiers as barbarians while the Iraq War was at its height. Now, we're seeing that the industry has changed from attacking our men by slander to attacking them with sympathy. What we have is film makers holding up returning soldiers (the same that were maligned for years) and saying to the world "look at what we've done to these poor souls." Instead of identifying them as returning heroes, it seems Hollywood is more satisfied to cite them as pitiable victims.
It is a good thing to talk about our men and women in uniform and discuss the issues they are faced with. It is important that we give them the context they deserve and be very careful about reducing them to mere props.
Screenwriters: Oren Moverman (I'm Not There) and Alessandro Camon (The Bandit K.)
Director: Oren Moverman
Actors: Ben Foster (Hostage), Jena Malone (The Ruins), Woody Harrelson (2012), Steve Buscemi (Armageddon), Eamonn Walker (Cadillac Records) and Samantha Morton (Minority Report)
The film itself? As is the case with any film about the military over the past forty years, it all depends on how seriously they take it. It is hard to imagine a film maker being irresponsible or clumsily political while dealing with this kind of topic - but would you really be surprised if they were?
This does look good, but it does strike me that with only a few exceptions like The Hurt Locker, film makers can only bring themselves to discuss our soldiers only by focusing on them after they come home, dead or alive (In the Valley of Elah, Home of the Brave, Cost of a Soul, Taking Chance, Grace Is Gone, Stop-Loss, The Lucky Ones, Brothers). No investigation on what our men and women are seeing "over there". No mention of the absolute depraved condition of the Muslim world or the struggling people looking for freedom. No discussion of if what we've been doing all this time has been worth it or why we've been doing it. We just get a line of films showing our men and women in uniform racked with guilt, post-traumatic stress disorder, maimed or dead.
By avoiding the war and the moral questions involved in its execution, film makers can continue to undermine our troops. The entertainment industry was comfortable painting our soldiers as barbarians while the Iraq War was at its height. Now, we're seeing that the industry has changed from attacking our men by slander to attacking them with sympathy. What we have is film makers holding up returning soldiers (the same that were maligned for years) and saying to the world "look at what we've done to these poor souls." Instead of identifying them as returning heroes, it seems Hollywood is more satisfied to cite them as pitiable victims.
It is a good thing to talk about our men and women in uniform and discuss the issues they are faced with. It is important that we give them the context they deserve and be very careful about reducing them to mere props.
Screenwriters: Oren Moverman (I'm Not There) and Alessandro Camon (The Bandit K.)
Director: Oren Moverman
Actors: Ben Foster (Hostage), Jena Malone (The Ruins), Woody Harrelson (2012), Steve Buscemi (Armageddon), Eamonn Walker (Cadillac Records) and Samantha Morton (Minority Report)
Labels: Ben Foster, Eamonn Walker, film, Jena Malone, movie trailer, Samantha Morton, Steve Buscemi, Woody Harrelson
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 6:00 PM
0 comment(s)
Share
August 7, 2008
The Ruins (2008)
Should I see it?
No.
No.
Short Review: The trash heap.
The only good things I can say about this film is that it doesn't drag on too long, and it avoids the sanguine torture scenes so prevalent in horror movies today. If you're looking for mindless horror, you can do worse than this. If you're looking for something that is actually good, you will need to look elsewhere. Its as frivolous as it looks.
Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Thing (1982)
28 Days Later (2002)
Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Reel.com
Labels: film, horror, Jena Malone, Joe Ansderson, Jonathan Tucker, movie review
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 6:00 PM
0 comment(s)
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.