Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel (1987)

Sept. 8-10, 2011

74. Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel (1987) [a.k.a. Anne of Avonlea]—REWATCH

Starring Megan Follows, Colleen Dewhurst, Wendy Hiller, Frank Converse, Jonathan Crombie
Directed by Kevin Sullivan

Plot: “Staying faithful to L.M. Montgomery's beloved books, this continuation of the award-winning miniseries picks up where the first installment left off, with redheaded heroine Anne Shirley (Megan Follows) beginning a new life as a teacher and an aspiring writer. She also encounters career hurdles and unfriendly townsfolk, but with her typical enthusiasm and good cheer.” (Summary from Netflix)

That first line of the summary above is actually wrong—this movie does not stay “faithful to L.M. Montgomery’s beloved books.” According to Wikipedia:

“When Kevin Sullivan was commissioned by CBC, PBS and The Disney Channel to create a sequel he started by combining many different elements of Montgomery’s three later books: Anne of Avonlea (1909), Anne of the Island (1915), and Anne of Windy Poplars (1936) into a cohesive screen story. Sullivan invented his own plotline relying on several of Montgomery’s episodic storylines spread across the three sequels, He also looked at numerous other nineteenth century female authors for inspiration in fleshing out the screen story.”

And IMDb:

“Though the American title is ‘Anne of Avonlea’, it is only partially based on that Lucy Maud Montgomery book (second in the series), and is in fact based on parts from books 2-4 in the series (out of 8). This was because Kevin Sullivan thought there wasn't ‘enough dramatic material for a film’ in the sequel ‘Anne of Avonlea’ alone.”

My point is that this sequel is not entirely faithful to the books…but it is still a wonderful movie. However, I basically grew up watching the two Anne films over-and-over. So I might be a bit biased by sentimental reasons.

This is almost embarrassing to admit, but before watching this the other day (probably the 164th time I've seen it) and doing a little Googling, I NEVER knew that this wasn't strictly based on the second novel! You see, I have read all of the Anne books except the first two. Back then I was young[er] and stupid[er] and thought since I had seen the movies that the books would be boring. Thus I never knew that the plot of this movie wasn't true to the book.

Clearly I need to read/reread the series very soon (it's been years since I first read them). Still a great movie, but I'm kind of a literary purist about some of these things. I wish that they would've followed the books more carefully and made future movies based on them (please, let's not even talk about the third movie—*shudder*—and that ghastly 'prequel' which I refuse to see). Part of me wishes for a remake of this series which follows the book more. But…I just have a hard time thinking that anyone else can play Anne, Marilla, Matthew, Rachel, Diana, etc. quite like this cast did.

Okay, so back to the film at hand. I think Megan Follows does an amazing job playing Anne. She gives so much life and spunk to the character.

{Click image for source} Is it just me or is Anne's hair not RED enough?

Love this picture

Jonathan Crombie I'm not totally fond of, though. He always just seemed a bit namby-pamby to play Gilbert (who in my opinion is one of the ultimate romantic heroes in fiction. So I’m kind of sad that I don’t love the actor who plays Gil). He’s not really awful, just not my favorite.

The rest of the cast is virtually perfect. Colleen Dewhurst as Marilla is wonderful, and Wendy Hiller is amusing in her scenery-chewing role (“drrrrenched”). I also really enjoyed the plot development of Katherine Brooke. Her character gets some fantastically quotable lines. For example: “What is to be the pill in all this jam, Miss Shirley?” and “Have you girls no propriety? This is not a Turkish bazaar!”

To summarize: this film has wonderful atmosphere, casting, costuming, characterization, romance, humor….and warmth to spare. It is really one of my favorite films and I never seem to tire of rewatching it. It may not be perfect but I enjoy it too much to really care. :)

The Help (2011)

 
Aug. 20, 2011

71. The Help (2011)

Starring Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, and Jessica Chastain

Directed by Tate Taylor

Plot: “A look at what happens when a southern town's unspoken code of rules and behavior is shattered by three courageous women who strike up an unlikely friendship.” (from IMDb)

Yes, a new movie! The first film I’ve seen in theaters in quite awhile. I was going to wait and read the book before I saw this, but my sister was in town and wanted to go see it, so I did. This wasn't my favorite movie ever, but I definitely enjoyed watching it. I'm not sure what I think of it on a critical level.  You see, I saw on IMDb that a lot of people find this film to be racist. It didn't strike me as that way, but perhaps I just can't relate (?). I don’t think I will read the book, though. If you’ve seen this, what do you think? Is it a racist?

Of course, the '60s wardrobes, houses, cars, etc. are fabulously fun to see but I couldn't really enjoy them a whole lot because this kind of focused on the ugly part of the '60s, with racial prejudice and everything.

One of my favorite characters was Miss Celia (not pictured). I loved how giddy she was and that she really didn't care about skin color. I do think it was kind of mean of her to try to get back at Miss Hilly, though.

As for objectionable content, it is rated PG-13, mostly for language I assume (though there is also some violence, smoking, and—of course—racial prejudice). This bothers me because the swearing is so utterly unnecessary in the film that I have to wonder if they inserted it just for the ratings bump.

I love this picture—the glasses the typewriter, everything!

Viola Davis was just superb.

I really did like Emma Stone in this. I thought she did a great job; I just hope that this is the first in a series of better career choices (Easy A sounded awful).

Final verdict: Aside from the fact of some language issues and possible racism (still a little confused on that), I did enjoy this film! :)

The Young Victoria (2009)

 
Mar. 27, 2011

46. The Young Victoria (2009)

Starring Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany, Miranda Richardson

Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée

Plot: "A dramatization of the turbulent first years of Queen Victoria's rule, and her enduring romance with Prince Albert." (from IMDb)

This was one of the best films I've seen in a long time. From the outset, the lively pace of the piece enticed me into the story. I found myself quite captivated by the visuals, music, emotions, and storytelling of the film. Often I watch a movie in the background, but this one garnered my full attention and kept me captivated throughout.

First of all, the casting was perfect. Blunt wonderfully conveyed the strong-willed yet vulnerable Victoria, and Friend was ideal as the kind gentleman who wins her heart.

Though some parts of the story seemed rushed, I rather liked the film's jaunty pace. I felt that in this case, as in poetry, superfluous words were unneeded to convey the heart of the story.

As for criticisms, I have few. ***SPOILER ALERT*** I do wonder why they included the false incident of Albert getting wounded, though. One would think such iconic royals had interesting enough lives without the aid of fictional embellishment. I also thought the gliding technique used at Victoria's first dance was a little jarring. But whatever my minor nit-pickings may be, none of these elements did anything to deter my wholehearted enjoyment of this film. It's one that I would love to watch over and over. Needless to say, I am hoping that unconfirmed rumors of a sequel are true!

 
This film won an Oscar for it’s costumes and its easy to see why—they are beautiful! I found this site that gives screen captures for each outfit. You may wish to check it out if you are an admirer of beautiful period clothes. I also found this other review when I was looking for photos. I thought the author did a great job of summarizing the beauty of this film.

 

If you can’t tell, I loved this film and highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys period dramas…or is just in the mood for a touching love story.

Pride and Prejudice (1995) – BBC Miniseries

 

Mar. 7, 8, 9, 2011 (<—this is 300 minutes, after all!)

42. Pride and Prejudice (1995)—REWATCH

Starring Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle, Susannah Harker, Julia Sawalha, Alison Steadman, Benjamin Whitrow, Crispin Bonham-Carter

Directed by Simon Langton

Plot: "Jane Austen's classic novel about the prejudice that occurred between the 19th century classes and the pride which would keep lovers apart." (from IMDb, and a rather poor summary, but I assume most know the gist of the plot)

*****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*****

I always have a hard time pinning down my favorite P&P adaption. I like certain elements of all the ones I've seen—the 1940 one with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, this version, and the 2005 film with Keira Knightley and Matthew McFadyen. I like this adaption because of the time the story has to develop and because it is usually regarded as the adaption most faithful to the original novel. But…

I'm glad I decided to rewatch this because I saw some things in a very different perspective. I guess there were mainly three things that jumped out at me. But before delving into those points, I feel like I should give some sort of warning to die-hard Austen fans. I'm afraid I might scandalize or offend you with what I am about to say…

First: I forgot just how stuck-up and sulky Darcy is. I know that he is always regarded as The Ideal Man, but I don't think I would ever want to be married to that type of person. He is certainly an interesting character and I enjoy the story, but I just think the whole Mr. Darcy thing is overrated. I understand that he is shy, awkward, willing to work on his faults, etc. but just imagine him on a bad day! I am happy to hear any arguments supporting the theory that he is Male Perfection Personified, though—so shoot away! (Personally, I can think of Austen men that I find much more agreeable. Just in this, I rather liked Col. Fitzwilliam. He seemed like a nice, handsome, steady, stable guy…without the glowering stares and mood swings.)

Second: I never really felt like Elizabeth loves Darcy (at least in this adaption) for who he is. Her attraction in this seems to begin when she discovers how rich he is, and she even admits this jokingly. Or is she joking?

Jane Bennet: No, seriously, Lizzy. When did you first know you were in love with Mr. Darcy?
Elizabeth Bennet: It came on so slowly I hardly know... but I believe I must date it from the time I first saw his wonderful grounds at Pemberley.

Third: The ending seemed to lack something. Despite the objections I listed above, none of these really hit me until near the end of the film. In fact, I greatly enjoyed most of this adaption. I found myself caught up in the tension between Elizabeth and Darcy, suppressing laughter at the funny parts, and enjoying watching the plot unfold even though I knew it well. But…the end. It felt like SUCH a let down. His second proposal seemed most ‘blah’. Her reaction was so subdued. And then the wedding. It just felt like it really lacked something. I still wasn't buying their attraction. I guess (don't shoot me for this) I like more how the ending was handle in the 2005 film--we can clearly see that they are in love with each other, they acknowledge their short-comings and false presumptions, and they live happily ever after.

Please don’t think I didn’t enjoy this at all, though. As I said, I still thought it was a great miniseries. I just noticed some things that I hadn’t before. But as to what I liked…

 
I loved how much is conveyed in all the looks.

Such beautiful penmanship! I wish I could write that nicely.

There were some lovely shots of the English countryside. The 2005 adaption also did a beautiful job of this.

 
This is one of my favorite scenes (how original, I know). I like it because of how awkward and nervous the usually up-tight Darcy is. This is evidenced in the fact that he requests after the well-being of her family twice in a very brief conversation. His character really begins to develop. We see that he is shy and tongue-tied and maybe just not as proud as Elizabeth thinks…

The STARE…there’s a lot of that in this movie.

Also quite a lot of this ^^^ (letter reading)

Short Review: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Feb. 11, 2011

36. The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) —REWATCH

Starring Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains

Directed by Michael Curtiz & William Keighley

Plot: “When Prince John and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard’s absence, a Saxon lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.”

I’d seen this film a few years ago, but that was before I really got into old movies. This is clearly one of the most BEAUTIFUL films ever made. The vivid Technicolor jumps off the screen and the costumes and atmosphere are a feast for the eyes. The film boasts a perfectly-cast set of characters plucked from the talented group of Warner Brothers contract players. As for the story itself, it is pure escapist entertainment. Filled with duels, a dashing hero, a fair maiden, humorous sidekicks and calculating villains, it’s a storybook perfect fairytale. This is the second of eight films that Olivia de Havilland and Errol Flynn made together (that was mainly the reason I wanted to rewatch it!). My one regret with this film is that they left out the ending scene of the couple riding off into the sunset. 

Short Review: Mansfield Park (2007)

Feb. 8, 2011

33. Mansfield Park (2007)

Starring Billie Piper, Jemma Redgrave, Maggie O’Neill, Blake Ritson

Directed by Iain B. MacDonald
Based on the novel by Jane Austen

Plot: Sent at a young age to live with her aunt and uncle, Fanny has always been somewhat of an outcast. Now, at age 18, she is finally coming into her own. Yet when out-of-town visitors show up, the one relationship she holds dearest is almost taken away from her. [bad summary, I know, but I couldn’t find one so I had to write my own—which I’m not good at!]

This is the first adaption I’ve seen of this novel, and I can’t say that I was much impressed. Billie Piper never really seems comfortable in the leading role, and the script wasn’t particularly good. I do find it odd that she is in love with her first cousin, but maybe that’s more accepted in Britain than it is in the U.S.? The ending also felt a little insincere. This was a nice effort, but for whatever reason, it just never came together.

Short Review: Wuthering Heights (1939)

Feb. 5, 2011

31. Wuthering Heights (1939)

Starring Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven, Flora Robson, Donald Crisp, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Hugh Williams, Leo G. Carroll

Directed by William Wyler

Plot: “The story of unfortunate lovers Heathcliff and Cathy who, despite a deep affection for one another, are forced by circumstance and prejudice to live their apart…” (from IMDb)

Can I just say that I hated this movie? I know it’s a classic and all that, but I really don’t see what’s so wonderful. It’s supposed to be a great love story but what I see from this adaption is two selfish, shallow, demented people so consumed with lust that it ruins their lives. I’m sorry, but that is not romance. I really did not care at all for either character—Heathcliff or Cathy. So, I apologize for those that love this movie, I was really just waiting for it to end.

Short Review: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Feb. 4, 2011

30. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Starring Bette Davis, Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Alan Hale, Vincent Price

Directed by Michael Curtiz

Plot: “A depiction of the love/hate relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex.” (from IMDb)

This was a fairly good film. While it may not be entirely historically accurate, the characters are well-presented and the dialogue is crisp and eloquent. Despite the influence from the stage play on which it was based, the story transitions well to the movie format and benefits from beautiful Technicolor cinematography and a regal Korngold score. Against the fidgety, feisty queen (Bette Davis), Errol gives a subdued performance that lends balance to the picture. I thought that their relationship was a little exhausting to watch, though. They go from slapping each other to eating grapes to kissing to playing cards to yelling in minutes flat (I’m generalizing, but you get the idea). Also noteworthy is the exceptional supporting cast. This film wasn’t one of my favorites, but it’s interesting and worth seeing at least once.

Short Review: Persuasion (2007)

Jan. 16, 2011

16. Persuasion (2007)
TV movie

Starring Sally Hawkins, Alice Krige, Rubert Penry-Jones

Directed by Adrian Shergold
Based on the novel by Jane Austen

Plot: “Royal Navy captain Wentworth was haughtily turned down eight years ago as suitor of pompous baronet Sir Walter Elliot’s daughter Anne, despite true love. Now he visits their former seaside country estate…” (from IMDb)

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. But there were just so many things that contributed to it being a very poor and uneven adaption. Granted, I have not read the book (someday I really should!), but I can identify what did not work here as a movie. The main problem seemed to be a bad script and/or bad direction. The characters and their motivations often felt muddled, flat or unconvincing. I was not a fan of the casting of the two main leads either, and I didn’t feel like they had sufficient chemistry together. ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** There are also a lot of things I didn’t understand: why is she dating her cousin? How does she know how to relocate collarbones? Why does she do so much running? Why is that first kiss so painfully awkward? Why did they not make more of an effort to give the leading lady attractive hair and clothes? Why does she ‘break the fourth wall’ and stare creepily at the camera? Etc… This just felt like such a half-hearted attempt.

Short Review: Miss Austen Regrets (2008)

Jan. 16, 2011

16. Miss Austen Regrets (2008)
TV movie

Starring Samuel Roukin, Olivia Williams, Greta Scacchi, Imogen Poots, Hugh Bonneville

Directed by Jeremy Lovering

Plot: “In the later years of her life, as she’s approaching the age of forty, the novelist Jane Austen helps her niece find a husband.” (from IMDb)

I don’t know much about Jane Austen’s life, but I didn’t like the character in this film that was supposed to be her. She came across to me as an embittered, shrewish, immature, money-obsessed old maid. I accept that this film is basically a work of fiction, but I just didn’t understand her character. The film did have an interesting ‘feel’ to it and I think we can all relate to some of the uncertainties, regrets, etc. that the characters discuss. Yet it just couldn’t make up for my lack of investment in what meager story there was. This movie is relatively short and a good enough diversion, but it just never really seemed to get anywhere.

Kings Row (1942)

Jan. 13, 2011

13. Kings Row(1942)

Starring Ann Sheridan, Robert Cummings, Ronald Reagan, Betty Field, Charles Coburn, Claude Rains, Judith Anderson, Nancy Coleman, Kaaren Verne, Maria Ouspenskaya, Harry Davenport

Directed by Sam Wood
Based on the novel by Henry Bellamann

Plot: The story of a small turn-of-the-century town and its hidden secrets. [again, bad synopsis]

I was afraid this would be an endlessly depressing two hours, but found it surprisingly good. The film does take tragic turns, but the drama is well balanced and the over all effect is very satisfying. It is sad to see some of the ‘secrets’ that lie hidden in this town and the awful things some people do, though (I will never look at Charles Coburn the same again). I also felt like some aspects of the story were not sufficiently fleshed out. I don't want to give anything away, but I wasn't really satisfied with how the situation with the Cassandra and her father was resolved. I do really like some of the changes that Hollywood made to the film, though, as I think it makes a better movie. (Having not read the book I guess I can't really say for sure, though.)

I thought Ronald Reagan (he has a very likeable screen presence) and Ann Sheridan (she was a better actress than many people gave her credit for, in my opinion) did a great job. I’m not sure what to think of Robert Cummings. I usually like him as a performer but here something seemed flat. I can’t decide whether this was the actor’s fault or if that’s just the way the character was supposed to be.

One of the greatest parts of this film is the cinematography* and set design**. The mood of the town is perfectly recreated. Also notable is the famous Korngold score. It is really beautiful and greatly adds to the film.

* The director of photography was none other than legendary Hollywood cinematographer James Wong Howe. He has a fascinating story in his own right and is definitely worth looking up.

**Production design was by William Cameron Menzies, two time Oscar winner who is notable for doing the set design for Gone With the Wind (1939).

**Art direction was by Carl Jules Weyl, another Oscar winner, whose work includes Casablanca (1942), The Big Sleep (1946), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), and Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942).

Kings Row was nominated for three Academy Awards: Best Cinematography (black and white), Best Director, and Best Picture.

If you haven’t seen this, I think it’s definitely worth checking out. Let me know what you think.

Short Review: Sense & Sensibility (2008)

Jan. 10, 2011

9. Sense & Sensibility (2008)
TV mini-series

Starring Hattie Morahan, Charity Wakefield, David Morrissey, Janet McTeer, Dan Stevens, Dominic Cooper, Lucy Boynton

Directed by John Alexander
Screenplay by Andrew Davies
Based on the novel by Jane Austen

Plot: This is an Austen movie, so I feel like spelling out the plot is kind of beside the point. Those familiar with the genre know the blend of relationships, misconceptions, personal revelations and humor that her work usually includes.

Sidenote:This obviously isn’t an old movie, but I am going to try and review all of the movies I see—not just the oldies.

This isn’t my favorite Austen, but I liked it a little better than the 1995 adaption. It is a mini-series and I admit to finding the pace a bit languorous at times. (But maybe that’s just because I don’t have the best attention span.) I liked the character of Elinor, and Hattie Morahan who played her, but I wasn’t very invested in any of the male characters. As someone who has not read the book, I was also confused by some of the plot points and I didn’t always like how the story was presented on screen. Perhaps if I knew the novel I could fill in the cracks more. All in all, this isn’t a movie that I really loved. It wasn’t awful. Just kind of ‘blah’. It has fairly high IMDb ratings, though, so apparently lots of other people really liked it.