Brave Despereaux prepares to leap into the unknown.

(Universal) Starring the voices of Matthew Broderick, Dustin Hoffman, Robbie Coltrane, Sigourney Weaver, Kevin Kline, Emma Watson, Tracey Ullman, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Ciaran Hinds. Directed by Sam Fell and Rob Stevenhagen

It is far easier to judge someone on the way they look than on the way they act. It is also not uncommon for people of smaller stature to be overlooked. Still, it’s not the size of the mouse in the fight but the size of the fight in the mouse.

The kingdom of Dor is a wonderful, magical place ruled by a king and queen who are kind and generous. The best thing about Dor, however, is its soup. Chef Andre (Kline) is a genius, concocting new and wondrous creations that are famous far and wide. At the annual spring festival, Andre debuts a new creation that is shared by every citizen. Roscuro (Hoffman) is a shipboard rat with a taste for the good life. Curious about this wonderful soup, he hangs out at the ceremony in which the soup is tasted for the first time by the King and Queen. Unfortunately, Roscuro sets into motion events that cause tragedy for the kingdom and will cause an animosity between humans and rats that is so severe that the very sunshine is taken from Dor, leaving it drab and grey.

Into this world is born Despereaux Tilling (Broderick), a mouse half the size of his peers but with gigantic ears that more than make up for his lack of height. His parents and teachers do their best to teach Despereaux to be timid and fearful, survival instincts for every mouse. He reads stories of brave and noble knights and longs to be like them.

His refusal to adhere to mouse behavior and to actually contact a human – and not just any human, the sad and deluded Princess Pea (Watson) herself – leads to his exile. Once away from the mouse city he makes his way to the rat city where he befriends Roscuro. Despereaux’s quest to save the Princess inspires Roscuro, but her rejection of him leads him on a road of destruction and rage that may ultimately cause further catastrophe.

What is most intriguing about this movie is not so much the story which is pedestrian (although based on four Newberry Award-winning books by Kate DiCamillo) but the animation which is very different than what we are getting. It looks like an illustration come to life but with a life-like quality, particularly to the mice and rats. There is a rich detail in the animation that stacks up nicely to some of the better work of Pixar; indeed, this is some of the most complex, detailed animation ever seen.

There is some very good vocal work. Hoffman channels Ratso Rizzo in his performance and you get the impression that he was having a great time. Ullman also has some great moments as a scullery maid who dreams of being a princess and plays an important role in Roscuro’s revenge. There is also solid work from Broderick, Kline, Hinds as a scheming rat, Tucci as a magical being who assists Chef Andre and Weaver as the film’s narrator.

There is definitely a sense that this is meant for smaller children than larger ones, but there is so much heart in the movie that it’s easy to overlook that focus. There are moments of humor that are offbeat and surprising enough adults may wind up appreciating more than their tykes. However, one of the things I found most enchanting was the worlds of the rats and mice that are created – each with a distinctive look that thoughtfully echoes the philosophy of each race.

Once upon a time, magic and charm was enough for a movie to get by. These days we seem to look for a lot more. Granted, something like Up or Wall-E deserve more critical acclaim because they take chances with their stories that The Tale of Despereaux simply doesn’t take, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good movie. This is a movie that does the heart good and leaves you with a warm feeling not unlike a batch of cookies fresh from the oven baked by someone who loves you.

WHY RENT THIS: This is a movie that is breezy and full of heart with an offbeat sense of humor that adults may like as well. Some superb vocal acting, particularly from Hoffman, Ullman and Coltrane.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: The animation is more like a painting than what animated features are doing right now; this might be off-putting to some less adventurous kids. The movie is a bit heavy on the fluff and light on the substance.

FAMILY VALUES: Some scenes of jeopardy but nothing any child can’t handle.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Despereaux was originally to be voiced by Justin Long until the producers settled on Matthew Broderick.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: There is an interactive map of the Kingdom of Dor that allows for descriptions of characters and places, an amusing featurette called Ten Uses for Oversized Ears and a pair of interactive games on the DVD. There is also a card creator on the Blu-Ray edition.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

TOMORROW: The Death of Mr. Lazarescu

I hate movies with misleading titles. But I like movies that can tell an effective story in an hour and a half.

When my wife made me watch “Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day,” I thought I was getting some sort of fantasy movie where the character ages uncommonly a la “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” or a murder mystery where the titular character has only 24 hours before the bad guy strikes.

What I actually got was a screwball romance set in pre-WWII bombed London.

The movie would more accurately be titled “Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Lot of Days, One of Which is Presented Here for Comical Effect.”

How do I know it was a screwball comedy? In an early scene the characters run around an apartment to the soundtrack of a clarinet and high-hat cymbals. Nothing says zany like a high hat cymbal.

Here’s an example where the right instruments set the mood for the movie. Add staccato violins and bass and you’d have a suspense movie. Throw in a banjo and a moonshine jug and we’d have a getaway scene from “Bonnie and Clyde.” I think they were saving the horns and tympani for the sequel: “Miss Pettigrew Conquers the Huns.”

The apartment-scurrying characters are Pettigrew and her new employer Amy Adams. Pettigrew is an out of work nanny who thinks she’s about to babysit Adams’ child but soon realizes she has to untangle three of Adams’ suitors. There’s Nick, a nightclub owner who provides Adams with luxury, Phil a theater producer who can offer her fame, and Lee Pace as a jilted fiance who is Adams’ only chance at finding love.

Adams doesn’t know what she wants; fame will get her a career, riches will get her clothes and love with get neither of the two. Frances McDormand’s Pettigrew urges her to chose Pace’s penniless piano player.

Pettigrew herself is struggling to understand the world Adams so desperately wants to inhabit. One where a silk scarf is a casual castoff to one character but a prized possession of another and where cucumbers are not for eating but to keep the eyes puffy.

As she untangles Adams’ lovers, she herself falls under the affection of a lingerie-designer (played here by Ciaran Hinds, who was also Caesar from HBO’s “Rome”). Whenever I recognize character actors from other movies or TV shows, I wonder how the old characters would fare in their new situations. For example, would Brutus be so quick to stab Caesar if he knew of his penchant for making negligees or men’s socks? Would Adams be so quick to run off with Pace if she knew he had the ability to raise the dead as his character had in “Pushing Daisies?”

I realize this practice easily drifts into the fanboy area of IMDB-philes such as myself. Rather than speculate who would win in a fight between captains Kirk and Picard, I imagine if how McDormand’s Pettigrew would fare if she switched places with McDormand’s character from “Fargo.”

But I digress.

This being a movie set in the pre-war era, we know everything will be settled with fisticuffs in a nightclub against a background of hot jazz.

Pettigrew’s main fear is her new-found friends will discover her frumpy, street urchin past, despite the fact that she has made little effort to hide this. The inevitable conclusion is reached when the secret does come out and everything ends happily for the characters who deserve it, Pettigrew included.

But as she walks off with Caesar, I mean the lingerie designer, I’m left to wonder, did the title just refer to the event’s just shown to us or is there something more sinister ahead.

When I told my wife this, she said I need a new hobby.

Conozco a Noah Baumbach desde 2004 cuando hizo equipo con Wes Anderson en The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou y me pareció formidable la historia. Repiten equipo en Fantastic Mr. Fox este año y estoy muy ansioso de verla. Ahora bien si hubiera elegido esta peli por el director de pronto no la hubiera visto porque primero no lo conozco tanto y segundo no lo conozco tanto.

Esta peli la ví por Jack Black. Pueden actuar Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, John Turturro, Ciarán Hinds y aún así no hubiera entrado. Todos son excelentes actores, es más que reparto tan basto, pero el nombre de la peli y esta combinación de actores sólo podía ser característica de un género en particular que no me agrada tanto y es el melodrama. Pensé que con Black hubiera un chance de que fuera una tragicomedia o algo por el estilo, ya la había embrrado una vez en 2006 cuando vi The Holiday pero pues me podía dar esa oportunidad.

Mis sospechas se hicieron reales, la peli es un melodrama psicológico donde dos hermanas exorcisan sus demonios y se demuestran la una a la otra sus errores. Son las mejores amigas pero igual no son capaces de convivir. De lejos, su relación es melancólica, cálida, entrañadora y nostálgica. De cerca, son agresivas, pasivo-agresivas, bipolares y orgullosas.

No digo que sea mala, no llena mis expectativas, no me conmueve ese tipo de relaciones y situaciones. Baumbach decidió hacer una obra para ser actuada y escogió un reparto ideal. Todo está armado para resaltar las actuaciones y sus diálogos, incluso la cinematografía según ellos mismos explican (Baumbach y Harris Savides cinematógrafo de la peli) fue desarrollada en planos de una sóla toma para que al unirlos en corte de planos sencillos da una sensación incluso de un documental argumentativo. Perfecto. Llega a tal punto ese protagonismo la actuación que siento no hay un desenlace claro de la historia y más que un final abierto se deja la sensación de una obra inconclusa, a medio terminar.

Tomar la decisión de ver la peli por los actores es una acción correcta. Por mi lado, la próxima peli de Baumbach, que no sea en equipo con Anderson, me voy a dar el lujo de dejarla pasar y esperarla en TV o DVD.

Nota Personal. La aproximación y deslumbrante actuación de Nicole Kidman se ven completamente opacadas con el exceso de botox en su cara. Las escenas verdaderamente dramáticas muestran unas facciones y gestos en contra de natura perfectas para otro tipo de géneros fílmicos. Una lástima ya que una gran actriz se está perdiendo en su propia vanidad.

Un film del 2009, regia di Todd Solondz, con Shirley Henderson / Ciarán Hinds / Chane’t Johnson / Allison Janney. Prodotto da (96min)

Commedia / Drammatico

I personaggi di questo film, che in parte è un seguito e in parte una variazione di Happiness, combattono per trovare un posto per se stessi in un mondo imprevedibile e volubile. Il passato infesta il presente e mette a repentaglio il futuro: ci sono fantasmi che si aggirano e incombono, affliggono e confortano. La questione del perdono e dei suoi limiti si fa strada attraverso una serie di storie d’amore, offrendo chiarezza e, forse, alternative alle comodità del dimenticare. C’è Joy, che scopre che suo marito Allen non è proprio guarito dal particolare “male” che lo affligge e se ne va, cercando consolazione e consiglio dala propria madre e dalle sorelle; il suo pretendente di un tempo, Andy, ora defunto, ma che non ha mai abbandonato il suo tentativo di conquistare il cuore di Joy; sua sorella Trish, che incontra Harvey, un divorziato solitario, all’apice del pensionamento, e spera che un nuovo uomo in casa possa portare stabilità alla sua fragile famiglia; sua sorella Helen, che si sente immolata sia alla famiglia sia al suo successo a Hollywood; sua madre, Mona, che non riesce a liberarsi dal rancore che prova nei confronti degli uomini; il figlio di Harvey, Mark, che lotta contro l’isolamento sociale e contro un profondo pessimismo; Bill, l’ex marito di Trish, appena rilasciato dal carcere, che tenta strenuamente di ristabilire il contatto con il figlio Billy; e Jacqueline, la donna bisognosa che rinuncia alla prudenza nella sua disperata ricerca dell’amore. Tutti questi personaggi e tutti questi intrecci – alternativamente divertenti e tristi, scandalosi e mordaci – combaciano, si espandono e si scontrano per creare un ritratto caleidoscopico ed emotivamente evocativo dei prigionieri dell’amore e della vita ai tempi della guerra.

Il debito film thriller diretto da John Madden basato su una sceneggiatura scritta da Matthew Vaughn

Leggi altre notizie su: | Drammatico | Thriller | John Madden | Helen Mirren | Ciarán Hinds

Whoo! This one was hard. I am such a movie lover – how to narrow it down? Well, here goes:

10 Favorite Movie Moments

1. Amadeus: My all time favourite movie – that I have bought at least 4 times and yet don’t possess a copy of…something is very wrong with that…

In Grade 6 we watched this movie and it literally changed my life. Discovering Mozart’s music was a tremendous gift.

The opening scene of Salieri’s suicide attempt where he is being rushed to hospital through the snow while Mozart’s Symphony No.25 in G Minor is playing interspersed with the ballroom dancing and light music (I don’t know what that music is – do any of you?) gives me goosebumps everytime. In fact just thinking of it is giving me goosebumps!

Most haunting are the closing credits with Tom Hulce’s laugh superimposed over Mozart’s Piano Concerto in D Minor. I’m tearing up writing this!
This movie was pure genius.

2. Out of Africa: Second favourite movie. I loved this so much. I remember watching it on video — back when you had to rent the machines! and crying my eyes out. I wasn’t even a tween yet! Everything is so beautifully filmed and Robert Redford is his best “I love you – but you can’t hold on to me” character. (or is it?) What can I even say about Meryl Streep?

My favourite scene is when they are flying over the water/landscape and that gorgeous music is playing and Karen reaches up her hand and Denis takes it. (sadly I felt that the conclusion of BSG would have been better without that ripoff/homage – but I digress)

3. Hamlet – the 1990 version starring the great Melvin Gibson — sorry, I just can’t ever see him the same way again. Not without hearing “sugartits”. What a buffoon.

I loved his scene in the library with Polonius and the “words” discussion. Despite my love of Kenneth Branagh’s work, this is my favourite version of Hamlet.

The best scene/s to me are Helena Bonham Carter’s once Ophelia is mad. So heartbreaking.

4. LA Confidential – Oh I love this film. I saw it 3 times in the theatre if you can imagine! The 1st time I was having one of the worst days of my life and this film lifted me right out of my skin. Exactly what I needed.
 This still is my favourite scene. I knew it was going to happen but I had no clue why – this is one of the very few movies where I didn’t think while watching. A rarity for me.

The 2nd time I saw it the audience was small and an older lady shouted out “Holy Sh*t!!!” big breath in “Oh my God!!” when this scene happened. Soo funny. I wasn’t the only one fully absorbed!

5. Persuasion – my very favourite Austen movie or book. Mmmm Ciaran Hinds…Ahhh Captain Wentworth.
My favourite scene is when Capt. Wentworth sends Anne away with his sister in the buggy because he has noticed the walk has tired her. There is so much unsaid – the scene is fraught with emotion.

I also love Anne’s boldness in asking him to stay for the rest of the concert, towards the end of the movie. But…she does not look as well for a pic on the blog.

6. Pulp Fiction – Loved the dialogue in this film. Don’t get me wrong – it’s so violent and ugh the language. I couldn’t watch it now I don’t think. But at the time I loved it – -though I did threaten to walk out if Bruce Willis did anything with that chainsaw!

The interactions/dialogue between Jules and Vincent Vega were my favourite thing about the movie – and the lines have stayed with me. Best exchange in the film: ——-
Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don’t eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don’t eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy motherf*cker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That’s a filthy animal. I ain’t eat nothin’ that ain’t got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don’t eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we’d have to be talkin’ about one charming motherf*ckin’ pig. I mean he’d have to be ten times more charmin’ than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I’m sayin’?

That and: “when I got finished, the towel didn’t look like no goddamn Maxi-Pad!”

7. Remains of the Day – gorgeous film. Again with the whole ‘left unsaid’ component.

The scene that stands out for me is when Mr.Stephens father is serving tea outdoors and there is a drop dangling from his nose. He’s spent his life in service, he’s clearly too old to continue but what is there for him? That scene crystallized the dilemma facing Miss Kenton and Mr Stephens – and all of the servants, it was the end of an era, an entire way of life (hopefully!) perfectly.
The pic is from one of the best parts of another movie that didn’t make this list! Who knows the reference?

8. Room With a View – another all time favourite film.
I think the best scene is when Lucy and her brother and George are playing tennis while their Mother and Aunt look on from tea. Sigh. What a lifestyle.

To think when I watched it I couldn’t stand Cecil and look at the brilliant career he’s had!

9. The Life Aquatic – I love all of Wes Andersen’s films. They slay me.

This I think might have some of the best lines.
Examples: When they burst in and find Jeff Goldblum playing cards with the kidnappers and he says “Steven, are you rescuing me?” and then says to the kidnappers “Fold.” and is shot.
When they arrive at Steve’s home and his wife greets him by saying ” Your cat’s dead.” and he replies, “What? Which one?”
When pirates board their ship and threaten one of the crew members and Zissou’s response is “Don’t point that gun at him, he’s an unpaid intern.”

But my favourite from this film is when Zissou falls down that winding staircase and looks up and says in a defeated tone “did you get that Vikram?” to the documentary film maker that’s been following them throughout. What a riot! Of course, anyone falling down is pretty damned funny if you ask me!

10. The Usual Suspects – best scene: when Verbal Kint walks out of the police station and slowly straightens up and as he does so the police officer/detective realizes that the story he was just told was made up from the things in his own office. Brilliant.
Hey – Kevin Spacey made it on this list twice….too bad he hasn’t made anything great lately. God he was scary in 7! Wait – so did Helena Bonham Carter. Hmmm…how about that.

What are your favourite movie moments?

Director Todd Solondz makes films which are something of an acquired taste and rarely make for comfortable viewing.  1998’s Happiness was a prime example of his divisive, controversial but brilliant filmmaking which held up a mirror to the fringes of society surviving in respectable suburban America.  Life During Wartime is a sequel of sorts from Solondz but in the director’s inimitable style this is not a conventional sequel.  Set seemingly around 5-10 years after the events of Happiness, Life During Wartime picks up the lives of the characters but uses different actors to portray them.  Confused … you may be but not for long.

After seeing Happiness a few years ago, it was not a film that I necessarily wanted to return any time soon and indeed, the first 15 minutes was spent dredging back memories of who was who and trying to remember which actors had originally portrayed the characters.  However, once I was done with that, I was able to appreciate the film more.  However, it is undoubtedly a clever device as it means that an audience which hasn’t seen the original doesn’t suffer the disadvantages one might expect but the question is, would anyone who hadn’t seen the original want to see this sequel?

Once we pick up the characters, one thing is clear – the characters are as messed up as they were when we left them.  Trish, played with a warmth and likeability by Allison Janney has picked up her life following her ex-husband’s conviction for paedophillia related offences from the first film and is looking for love with potential new beau (Michael Lerner) whilst her middle son (Dylan Riley Snyder, just the right side of annoying kid) is preparing for his bar mitzvah and coming terms to the thought of  becoming a man.  Ex-husband Bill, played by Ciaran Hinds in a brilliantly hangdog, tortured performance, is being released on parole and has to deal with the prospect that his family have made a backstory whereby he is dead.  Trish’s sisters are facing alternative paths with Helen (Ally Sheedy), an incredibly successful poet whilst Joy (Shirley Henderson) is struggling in her relationship with sex pest partner, Allen (Michael K. Williams) whilst being haunted by her ex, played creepily by Paul Reubens nailing the role of a horny ghost, who simultaneously desires and detests her.

This is a film which certainly raises interesting perspectives if you’ve ever wondered what happens to the characters when a story is put to bed but the problem with this film is that not all stories are equal and that is certainly true of the strands of this film.  Whilst the travails of Janney’s Trish as she tries to make her new relationship with Harvey work whilst looking after 2 kids, one of whom is reaching an age where there is a lot of natural curiousity and an ability to get the wrong end of the stick, are mined for comic effect and Janney’s natural warmth makes these scenes particularly accessible, the descent into depression and self pity of Joy simply do not hold the attention the same way.  This is partly because I find Shirley Henderson a difficult presence to warm to and unfortunately, this is a trait which has followed her from Harry Potter to Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day for me and find her difficult to watch.  Throughout her scenes, I found myself wanting more of Janney and Hinds.  To be fair to Henderson, this is not so much an indictment of her as much it is of Solondz who has overwritten those roles at the expense of others and the brilliance of Janney and Hinds.  A stand-out scene of the film sees Hinds seduced by a travelling cougar played with spirit and venom by Charlotte Rampling and it is this which best resembles a scene from Happiness but there is not enough of that level of ascerbic writing.

Overall, an interesting experiment which partly succeeds but is hamstrung by the need to widen its focus to characters whose strands cross over only as a result of the original film lacking the ascerbic uncomfortable nature of Happiness which worked so well.

6/10

A lovely trio of Depression-era fashionistas.

(Focus) Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Lee Pace, Shirley Henderson, Ciaran Hinds, Tom Payne, Mark Strong, Christina Cole, Stephanie Cole. Directed by Bharat Nalluri.

In these economic times we are all of us riding the thin line between success and poverty, with one push in either direction sending us skittering towards one or the other. While in some sense this is almost always generally true, in only one other era was this more the case than the one we live in now – the Great Depression.

Guinevere Pettigrew (McDormand) is a vicar’s daughter who works as a governess. Plain, socially awkward and somewhat plain-spoken, she finds herself dismissed from one position after another. After her latest dismissal, her agency declines to find another placement for her – ever. Desperate, knowing starvation and homelessness are awaiting her she impulsively steals a placement as a social secretary for a flighty and somewhat promiscuous actress by the unlikely name of Delysia Lafosse (Adams).

Adams, an American working in London as World War II looms, came to the UK as a lounge singer but hopes to find success enough in the West End to propel her to Hollywood. She has her sights set on a part in a new play produced by Phil Goldman (Payne) and is willing to do anything – and anyone – to get what she wants. Ditzy and disorganized, she lives in a swanky London flat that turns out to be the address of Nick Calderetti (Strong), the hot-headed nightclub owner she works for and is sleeping with. However, her heart belongs to Michael Pardew (Pace), a talented pianist who has just finished serving a term in jail for a “misunderstanding.”  

Miss Pettigrew is completely out of her element, but all the characteristics that made her unsuitable as a governess are just what the doctor ordered for Delysia. Conversely, Delysia is able to make the dowdy governess blossom with her knowledge of fashion, make-up and hair. The two are perfect for each other.

However, the world around them is spiraling out of control. The part that would make Delysia’s career is in danger of going to another actress, Charlotte Warren (C. Cole) but accepting that role would put an end to her relationship with Michael, who is returning to New York. Add to that the complication of Edythe Dubarry (Henderson), a fashion maven whose engagement to lingerie designer Joe Blomfield (Hinds) she wants Miss Pettigrew to rescue. However, Miss Pettigrew is attracted to the quiet, gallant Joe herself while Edythe begins to suspect the Miss Pettigrew isn’t who she says she is.

Based on the 1938 novel by Winifred Watson, the film rights had belonged to Universal since 1939 languishing there for nearly 70 years before finally getting made by Focus, the studio’s independent and art film arm. Director Nalluri takes the elements of a screwball comedy and adds a 21^st century romantic comedy ethos to it. The results are neither fish nor fowl, but an odd amalgam of both, rendering a not-unpleasant effect.

McDormand, one of Hollywood’s most consistent leading ladies, is quite understated as the somewhat timid Pettigrew. Adams, who is blossoming into not only a fine actress but also a charismatic lead, is sensational. She takes a character that sleeps around and is something of a birdbrain and gives her humanity and charm. You wind up liking this girl even though in real life, you probably wouldn’t…unless she was Amy Adams, that is. She also gets to sing a song, “If I Didn’t Care” which just about brings down the house. Lee Pace, so good in TV’s “Pushing Daisies” is somewhat lost in his role. Better are Henderson and Hinds, character veterans who have richly earned reputations for solid performances, and they don’t disappoint here.

Screwball comedies, so popular in the 1930s, are a skill in and of themselves. When done properly, they are some of the best entertainment value there are. In all honesty, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day doesn’t really hold up with the best of that genre, but is sufficient enough that because they are so rarely made these days, its rating might be skewed up a bit because of it. With the economy rapidly mimicking that of the Great Depression, I wouldn’t be surprised if we begin to see a lot more of them in the coming years. That, in itself wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

WHY RENT THIS: Decent screwball comedies are rare and this one is definitely that. Adams and McDormand are two of the best actresses in Hollywood, at the top of their games here.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: 21^st century audiences may find this a bit dated stylistically speaking.  

FAMILY VALUES: Suitable for all ages; almost no raunchiness to speak of, although the Delysia Lafosse character’s promiscuity is implied.

TRIVIAL PURSUITS: Miss Pettigrew’s father is revealed to be a minister. Actress McDormand’s father is also a minister.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: An interview with the author’s son, who gives some fascinating insight into how the movie came into being.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: Inkheart

Ostensibly, director Conor McPherson’s latest play is an adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s famous novella The Birds. However, the post-apocalyptic drama that he has developed here also has definite echoes, for this reviewer at least, of Sara Maitland’s Far North and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. In other words, it is an exploration of a world where Nature has risen up against Man, his technology has been rendered useless, and his sense of superiority has become shredded. Now, it is a question of what must be done in order to survive… but, for what purpose?

The play is set inside the main room of a remote rural home. As it begins, the persistent flapping of birds’ wings can be heard outside. Diane (Sinéad Cusack) is anxiously waiting for Nat (Ciarán Hinds) to return downstairs from where he is making sure that everything is still secure. Strangers unto each other, they both took refuge here the night before in the face of persistent and fatal attacks from great flocks of birds. It soon becomes apparent, though, that they are effectively prisoners in this place, only able to go outside long enough to scavenge for a little food. Communication with the outside world has all but ceased. Later, though, they are joined by a third character Julia (Denise Gough), who has just escaped from an attempted sexual assault.

After an unconvincing first scene (especially the stop-start nature of Hinds’ delivery), the play wanders down various avenues for plot advancement without any clear direction emerging. One even becomes almost blithely accustomed to the menacing unseen presence of the birds, even when they smash into the building. Hence, by the time that the curtain falls for the interval, the desire to explore each character’s family background seems to have come at the cost of maintaining a sufficient level of dramatic tension in what is about to unfold. Fortunately, though, the second half of the performance does succeed in ratcheting up the pace of events quite significantly, with some strong exchanges, several engaging plot twists, and a suitably vague conclusion.

The preoccupation with family – or, perhaps more accurately, the ties that bind us – remains an interesting one though. In du Maurier’s original work, the focus is on the traditional father-figure of Nat and the reader is presented with a nuclear family forced to take shelter in their own home from outside attack. Moreover, du Maurier leaves what happens next quite open. Here, though, in a manner not dissimilar to “reality television”, three strangers are thrust into an unfamiliar setting together and are left to cope for weeks on end in a world of few horizons and the scope for many unpleasant surprises. Whilst working together makes sense and a degree of kinship can spring up between them, does their sense of human decency prevail despite the breakdown of society or do their more primal instincts to survive take over?

On the whole, this is a frightening enough reminder of just how fragile everything that we take for granted really is. There was just that unfortuante expectation, though, that this play would instil a greater degree of dread and tension in its audience than proved to be the case.

The Gate Lab Directors’ Symposium

The Gate Theatre, in association with Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival, will hold a two-day directors’ Symposium in the Gate Lab, which is part of the theatre’s new wing. This event will allow mid-career directors the valuable opportunity to engage in structured sessions with leading actors, designers, directors, playwrights and producers, which will include Anne Clarke, Ingrid Craigie, Sinead Cusack, Declan Donnellan, Ciaran Hinds, Jeremy Irons, Fiach MacConghail, Patrick Mason, Conor McPherson, Peter O’Brien, David Pugh, Owen Roe, Alan Stanford and Penelope Wilton.
Venue The Gate Theatre Lab
Dates Oct 1 & 2
Times 10am – 5pm
Price €75 (including lunch on both days)
Further information www.gatetheatre.ie
Applications laura.macnaughton@gate-theatre.ie

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson stars as cabbie Jack Bruno who unexpectedly ends up shuttling two kids (AnnaSophia Robb, Alexander Ludwig) to an abandoned house in the Las Vegas desert. Along the way, he discovers they just arent your average kids that in fact they are from outer space and have incredible powers. The government and an intergalactic bounty hunter are stalking the kids as they try to complete their mission.

Race to Witch Mountain is loosely based on the the classic Witch Mountain films from the late 1970s. They have become as classic as the $1,000,000 Duck, The Love Bug and The Cat from Outer Space.

The original movies had two orphans with extraordinary powers trying to escape the clutches of mad millionaire. In the remake, you have a mad millionaire sort of with Ciaran Hinds’s FBI Agent trying to track down the kids. But the UFO angle and the silly bounty hunter just overshadow any sort of heart-felt story.

The director, Andy Fickman, seems to think he is making a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick opposed to a Disney family film. His quick pacing, unnecessary violence, explosions and car crashes over-shadow what this movie should be. Fickman worked with The Rock on The Gameplan so he should have known what the tone needed to be. They will reteam together again for the big-screen live-action version of Jonny Quest where The Rock will play Race Bannon to Zac Efron’s rumored Jonny Quest. Ugh!

I think my favorite part of this movie was Carla Gugino. She is brilliant in everything she does but she really shines in this movie. She acts circles around The Rock.  

I really would like to see The Rock return to full-blown action films. His action career just seemed to be taking off before he was shoved into this “big sweet guy” persona. My wish seems a long ways off as The Rock has even more kiddie fare on the way.

3 out of 5

Escape to Witch Mountain (1975): 4 out of 5

Return from Witch Mountain (1978): 3.5 out of 5

Beyond Witch Mountain (1982): 2.5 out of 5

Escape to Witch Mountain (1995): 1 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer

Munich
d. Steven Spielberg / 2005 / USA / 164 mins
Viewed on: BBC1 (UK) 

Immediate Reaction:
Okay Steven Spielberg, we get it already! You love Judaism (and aren’t too fond of those who don’t)! Jeez!

Measured Reaction:
A few years before Quentin Tarantino unleashed his Inglourious Basterds, Spielberg was meting out cinematic revenge for a later attack on Judaism, the capture of Israeli athletes by Palestinian extremists during the 1972 Munich Olympics. But where Tarantino brought a healthy bout of fantasy to his film, Spielberg seems bound by the decision to tell the story more or less as it happened. Munich may essentially be an action film, but it’s a pretty dour one.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Munich for the most part. For Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski, the film was a return of sorts to the gritty, hyper-real visual style that saw him win an Oscar for Best Cinematography with Saving Private Ryan (1998) – a repeat of his win for his first Spielberg collaboration, Schindler’s List, five years earlier. The scene in which the assassins botch a hotel bombing – killing their target but almost taking Bana’s character as well – was as gripping visually as anything you’re likely to see in modern Hollywood cinema.

Admittedly, there are slight variations on the usual Spielberg tropes. His predisposition toward the heightened emotional manipulation of audiences is dialed down a little, with Eric Bana’s character placed in something that actually resembles a realistic emotional state. Worn down by years of espionage and killing, fearing for his safety and that of his family, he is left drained, paranoid and highly strung.

And yet, there is a pall hanging over the whole Munich experience. It is such a ’serious’ film, that it often seems hard to enjoy the proceedings in a manner to which audiences have become accustomed over many years of Hollywood action cinema. It’s a serious topic, sure – and far be it from me to suggest that it should have been handled in a lighter manner – but throughout the film, there is a definite sense that Spielberg and co. are very much torn between their responsibilities as members of the Jewish faith, and their day-to-day existence as architects of bloated blockbuster movies.

If you want an action film, go rent Rambo. If you want to know about the brutal capture of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, do yourself a favour and seek out Kevin Macdonald’s One Day in September. One of the finest documentaries ever made, and – all in all – a vastly better film than Munich.

2007: Margot at the wedding di Noah Baumbach

Uscito direttamente in dvd questo film che può vantare un cast di gran prestigio e un regista “cult” del cinema indipendente (film presentato con successo in vari Festival tra cui quello di Toronto).

La critica lo ha molto apprezzato: “Imperativo rifiutare la versione italiana e sfruttare l’unico vantaggio dell’uscita diretta in dvd: l’accesso alla banda originale ci permette di apprezzare la migliore Kidman di sempre e una Jennifer Jason Leigh di commovente bravura” (Gli Spietati), “Con il titolo italiano che gli hanno appioppato, questo film rischia d’essere confuso e trascurato tra le tante insulse commedie di argomento matrimoniale che impestano il mercato: ma, una volta di più, sarebbe un vero peccato” (Cinemalia), “Scritta in maniera intelligente, sagace e profonda dal regista, la pellicola è una tragicommedia che analizza con verità estrema, senza infingimenti di sorta, le tormentate dinamiche di una famiglia disfunzionale” (Il Sole 24 ore), “Una pellicola non facile ma che regala sicuramente forti emozioni” (Screenweek). Giudizi che mi trovano perfettamente concorde e che rendono alquanto inquietanti e preoccupanti i misteri della distribuzione italiana.

Il matrimonio di mia sorella (come sottolineato da più parti il titolo italiano è fuorviante) richiama i film “seri” di Woody Allen o molta produzione di Ingmar Bergman per l’analisi, a volte impietosa, della famiglia e delle relazioni umane. Perfetta la mescolanza di riso e pianto. Un po’ commedia un po’ dramma esistenziale, un’opera che delinea come poche la solitudine e la difficoltà del comunicare: una accurata sincera graffiante analisi della fragilità umana.

Dialoghi taglienti, svolgimento non banale grazie a una solida sceneggiatura (scritta ottimamente dallo stesso regista, Noah Baumbach) attenta più ai dettagli che alle azioni.

L’abbondanza di finezze psicologiche, il mirabile affresco di un’umanità dissociata (quanti di noi potranno riconoscervi?), nonché la particolare fotografia non retoricamente estetizzante e la funzionale colonna sonora fanno de Il matrimonio di mia sorella un film da vedere e assaporare. Fiore all’occhiello è soprattutto l’eccezionale performance dell’intero cast: dal sottoutilizzato Ciaràn Hinds (Dick) alla sempre convincente Flora Cross (Ingrid) già ammirata in Parole d’amore, da un sempre perfetto John Turturro alla rivelazione Zane Pais (Claude), da un sorprendente e insolito Jack Black a una Jennifer Jason Leigh che non smette di stupire per il suo notevole talento e a una Nicole Kidman tornata finalmente a recitare in un ruolo degno della sua bravura.

Toccante e ironico, profondo e leggero al contempo, Il matrimonio di mia sorella coinvolge ed emoziona pur con i suoi toni pacati e quasi dimessi.

scheda

sito ufficiale

premi e riconoscimenti

It’s growing! Not at a particularly alarming speed, but still, hurrah! I loved the `Noah’s Ark` (or, preferably, `zoo creatures and household pets enter life of piracy`) fabric too much to leave it out. It is becoming a bit of a crazy quilt, but who says that textiles need themes? I might embroider pirate hats or eyepatches on the giraffes. Who can tell what the future holds (other than Nostrildamus)?

Could even he have known that earlier this afternoon, Henry spent 45 minutes demolishing a Ribena lolly with the aid of tray, spoon, bowl, wet-wipes and floor? Honestly, you’ve not lived until you’ve seen Ribena underneath your child’s knees!

My sewing entertainment was a BBC radio dramatisation of Jane Eyre (part 4). Jane Eyre has been my favourite book for about a decade now, so any well-made version of it gets a checking over by myself. It was a good version (Sophie Thompson, Emma’s sister, was only slightly terrifying-sounding as Jane, Ciarán Hinds, or Jools Holland’s evil twin, was glorious as Mr. Rochester (as pictured to the left: a part he played in the 1997 ITV adaptation with Samantha Morton as Jane) … aaahhhhh, Mr. Rochester.

Bertha Mason (NEVER Rochester!!!) was almost as terrifying as she is in my brain. Almost.

My new audio fabulousness is in the shape of Neil Gaiman, who deserves an exclamation mark for both his fabulous books and hair along with the fact that he is currently dating the incredibly cool Amanda Palmer – a lady I would very much like to high-five and then really stealthily steal the wardrobe contents of ! Shhh!

Stardust wooed me to sleep last night when Michael was out on a well-deserved brother-seeing break. I’ve got a few others waiting for my auditory enjoyment: American Gods (as recommended by Jendlekin, if I remember correctly), Coraline and the short story collection of Smoke and Mirrors. Am muchly looking forward to them.

Ora bem, e porque não entrar um pouco no mundo enfeitiçado? Queres saber se A Montanha Enfeitiçada vale a pena? Vem descobrir!

O filme da Montanha Enfeitiçada a que nos referimos aqui é o mais recente…o de 2009! A verdade é que este filme é uma reprodução da aventura de 1975! A história e as personagens já foram apresentadas na nossa habitual rubrica (Apresentamos…), mas deixamos-te aqui na mesma um breve resumo de toda esta aventura!

Este filme diz respeito, como o próprio nome indica, a uma montanha enfeitiçada! O local conquistou este nome devido a vário feitos que lá aconteceram e permaneceram totalmente inexplicáveis: ninguém sabia dizer como nem porquê! Este local ficava no meio de um deserto no Nevada, e durante bastante tempo ninguém se atreveu a lá ir por causa das histórias macabras que continuavam a ser espalhadas aos quatro ventos. Entretanto, um taxista de Las Vegas, Jack Bruno, encontra dois adolescentes que, aparentemente, têm poderes sobrenaturais. Na realidade esses dois adolescentes e irmãos, Sara e Seth, são extraterrestres que vieram à Terra em missão especial. Acabam por descobrir que aquilo que procuram se encontra na Montanha Enfeitiçada e então, aliados a Jack, partem à aventura! O que eles não esperavam era que houvesse tantos obstáculos. Como se já não bastasse terem de agir à margem da lei e sem o consentimento do governo, são ainda confrontados com criminosos e extraterrestres. Vai ser uma jornada e tanto!

Analisando agora o filme, confesso que superou as minhas expectativas. Apesar de ser uma refilmagem do anterior, acho que está bastante bem feita comparativamente aos últimos filmes de não-animação que têm surgido pela Disney!

No que toca precisamente à história, apesar de não ser propriamente novidade, a abordagem foi bem feita e a adaptação à actualidade também tem o seu ‘quê’ de muito bom. Destaco certos diálogos que revelam algum humor, e esse humor é como que uma pitada especial que tira o filme da banalidade.

Relativamente à produção, nada de negativo a apontar, mas sim de positivo. Os efeitos especiais dão um impacto realmente bom a este filme. Não que o nível técnico seja irrepreensível, mas tendo em conta vários outros filmes, penso que esteja bastante bom!

Em conclusão, aconselho vivamente a que o filme seja visto. Revela bastante trabalho e muito bons resultados, sendo que até a história está muito bem construída relativamente aos últimos filmes que têm surgido. Não querendo tirar o mérito ao filme de 1975, este tem ligeiras diferenças, mas ainda assim merece ser visto!

Ficha Técnica
Título Original: Race to Witch Mountain
Estúdio/Distrib.: Walt Disney Pictures
Direcção: Andy Fickman

História por: Alexander Key, Mark Bombark e Matt Lopez

Elenco
Dwayne Johnson – Jack Bruno
AnnaSophia Robb – Sara
Alexander Ludwig – Seth
Carla Gugino – Dr. Alex Friedman
Ciarán Hinds – Henry Burke
Tom Everett Scott – Matheson
Chris Marquette – Pope
Billy Brown – Carson
Garry Marshall – Dr. Donald Harlan
Kim Richards – Tina
Ike Eisenmann – Sheriff Antony

Nota (de 0 a 5, parâmetros do blog): 4

Cast: Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, Gong Li, Naomie Harris, Ciarán Hinds, Justin Theroux and Barry Shabaka Henley
Director: Michael Mann
The Verdict: I want my MTV cops, not these VH1 Classics doppelgangers director Michael Mann passes off as Sonny Crockett and Ricardo Tubbs. In his long, tedious and predictable big-screen rendering of his flashy 1980s TV series, Mann makes the assumption that we already know and love his designer-suited drug busters. Sure, we know and love the Crockett and Tubbs played with confidence, wit and sophistication by Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas. But Mann never allows us to get close to knowing anything about Colin Farrell’s Crockett and Jamie Foxx’s Tubbs, other than that they both share a dangerous—and almost costly—weakness for smart, sexy women. The only thing distinguishing from one detective from the other is the Larry the Cable Guy-like handlebar mustache Farrell inexplicably sports. Such is Mann’s intrigue with the politics of the international drug trade that he sadly fails to inject Crockett and Tubbs with any personality. Then again, Mann’s so determined to put Miami Vice’s goggle-box past behind him that he strips the Magic City of its color and vibrancy. That’s a far cry from the tropical party town image Mann helped perpetuate with the TV show. Mann has so little use for Miami—from its landmarks to its culture—that he could have relocated Miami Vice to any major city in America. Heck, much of Miami Vice isn’t even set in South Florida; Mann sends his rule-breaking Miami-Dade vice detectives off on some humdrum undercover mission in South America. Yes, Crockett and Tubbs pose as traffickers in order to bust a drug baron (Luis Tosar) responsible for the murder of several FBI agents. Not much happens, other than Crockett tumbling into bed with the drug baron’s wife and business partner (Gong Li). Sparks hardly fly between Farrell and Li, and unfortunately this is all the fault of the usually terrific Chinese actress. Like Penelope Cruz, Li’s too stiff and self-conscious when she’s not speaking in her native tongue. Not that Farrell or Foxx fare any better. They’re stuck firing off inane police jargon while looking all very serious and intense. They’re not having any fun, and nor are we. It’s quite understandable why Mann would want to distance himself from his trend-setting cop opera. What was hip and fashionable in the 1980s is laughably cheesy today. You can’t have Crockett and Tubbs wearing pastel T-shirts and no socks. Or Crockett living on a boat with his pet alligator. But if Mann happily uses the Fort Lauderdale-based Nonpoint’s cover version of Phil Collins’ “In the Air Tonight,” why not dust off Jan Hammer’s “Miami Vice Theme”? Unfortunately, Mann’s not interested in making us feel connected to the source material. Hence his decision to shoot Miami Vice in the same edgy manner as his Collateral rather than recapture the cool atmosphere of the TV series. If Mann’s that embarrassed by the TV show, then he should have started from scratch—in a different locale with new characters—rather than peddle a Miami Vice in name only.
Release Date: July 28, 2006
Rating: R
Running Time: 135 minutes

This decade, Disney has seen a little bit of a renaissance. The purchase of Pixar, the release of Enchanted, the assigning John Lasseter as head of the Disney animation department, and a return to hand-drawn animation pointed to a return to greatness for Disney. It is not quite there yet, but the signs are there. One such sign is that Race to Witch Mountain is a surprisingly good movie.

Witch Mountain is a sequel/remake/re-imagining of two Disney movies that came out during the 70s. This time, the star is Dwayne Johnson as Jack Bruno, a cab driver in Las Vegas. One day, a couple of kids get in his car and ask him to drive them to a place in the middle of nowhere, and they have the cash to pay him. He does, then through a series of events, he gets involved with an aliens, the mob, and the government.

What makes this part of the road towards a Disney reinassance is how the story is not as childish as a regular Disney movie would be. The story is mature, and the performances from the child actors are great (I believe AnnaSophia Rob is one of the best actresses of her age group). Also, in features great visual effects, a pleasing score, and thrilling action sequences. Plus, any movie with Carla Gugino and Ciaran Hinds being a bad ass gets a good score for me. With that said, I did not like Johnson that much. He is a likable guy and tends to give good performances, but here he is reduced to once again playing the retired tough guy whose former boss wants him to get back in, and also he gets to play the clueless parental figure that I hate so much in movies.

Race to Witch Mountain is one of the better sci-fi efforts in a while. It is thrilling, fun, and features a great story. For t his reason, it is one more sign of the Disney’s return to form.

Un film del 2009, regia di Todd Solondz, con Shirley Henderson / Ciarán Hinds / Chane’t Johnson / Allison Janney. Prodotto da (96min)

Commedia / Drammatico

I personaggi di questo film, che in parte è un seguito e in parte una variazione di Happiness, combattono per trovare un posto per se stessi in un mondo imprevedibile e volubile. Il passato infesta il presente e mette a repentaglio il futuro: ci sono fantasmi che si aggirano e incombono, affliggono e confortano. La questione del perdono e dei suoi limiti si fa strada attraverso una serie di storie d’amore, offrendo chiarezza e, forse, alternative alle comodità del dimenticare. C’è Joy, che scopre che suo marito Allen non è proprio guarito dal particolare “male” che lo affligge e se ne va, cercando consolazione e consiglio dala propria madre e dalle sorelle; il suo pretendente di un tempo, Andy, ora defunto, ma che non ha mai abbandonato il suo tentativo di conquistare il cuore di Joy; sua sorella Trish, che incontra Harvey, un divorziato solitario, all’apice del pensionamento, e spera che un nuovo uomo in casa possa portare stabilità alla sua fragile famiglia; sua sorella Helen, che si sente immolata sia alla famiglia sia al suo successo a Hollywood; sua madre, Mona, che non riesce a liberarsi dal rancore che prova nei confronti degli uomini; il figlio di Harvey, Mark, che lotta contro l’isolamento sociale e contro un profondo pessimismo; Bill, l’ex marito di Trish, appena rilasciato dal carcere, che tenta strenuamente di ristabilire il contatto con il figlio Billy; e Jacqueline, la donna bisognosa che rinuncia alla prudenza nella sua disperata ricerca dell’amore. Tutti questi personaggi e tutti questi intrecci – alternativamente divertenti e tristi, scandalosi e mordaci – combaciano, si espandono e si scontrano per creare un ritratto caleidoscopico ed emotivamente evocativo dei prigionieri dell’amore e della vita ai tempi della guerra.

I was Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street the other day and that made me think. I noticed that quite a bit of the movie musicals from nowadays are usually se in the past. Take Sweeney Todd for example. It was set during the 1800s. Hairspray is the same way. It was set during the early 1960s. There’s also Chicago, Moulin Rouge!, The Phantom of the Opera, etc. I think that’s part of the reason as to why they’re appealing. I don’t know why, but that’s just what I think.

NOTA : 6

Download subtitrare Race to Witch Mountain

Trailer Race to Witch Mountain :

I find it very difficult to pick favourite books, movies, etc – but if I was forced to pick one novel which has meant the most to me in my life, then it would probably be Jane Eyre. So it’s surprising that, so far, I haven’t got round to writing about any of the many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s great novel on this blog. Eventually I’d like to write about as many of them as I can – but, for starters, here are a few thoughts about the 1997  TV movie starring Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds, which has just been repeated on ITV3 in the UK. I saw it when it was first shown, but hadn’t remembered it all that well.

As with many single ITV dramatisations of long novels, the main problem with this version, directed by Robert Young and scripted by Richard Hawley, Kay Mellor and Peter Wright,  is that it is so short – 108 minutes according to the imdb.  Inevitably, large chunks have had to be left out, and there is very little of the young Jane’s time with the Reeds or at Lowood – just brief glimpses of key moments, like the Red Room and the death of Helen Burns. To be honest, I didn’t really mind skating over this part of the book quite quickly, as these sequences tend to be very demanding for child actresses, but a lot was lost.  Anyway, when seeing any dramatisation of Jane Eyre, I always find myself waiting eagerly for her first sight of Thornfield and her first meeting with Rochester, which of course is the centre of the book.

The locations chosen for the filming are beautiful -  with Naworth Castle, Brampton, Cumbria, used for the exterior shots of Thornfield, looking gloriously wild and remote.  For me, Morton is perfect as Jane, just exactly how I’d always imagined the character, quiet but so expressive in her eyes and her body language. I love the way that sometimes, when Hinds as Rochester seems fierce and blustering on the surface, you see her half-smiling to herself, trying not to laugh – showing that she recognises how much of it is acting, and knows what he is feeling underneath.

I also love the fact that this production features especially heavy use of voiceover, letting Jane speak to the viewer direct, just as she speaks to the reader in the novel. The language is often more modern than in Brontë’s novel, but I didn’t find myself missing the original words as much as I sometimes expected to – and I loved Morton’s voice.

This version has a particularly big age gap between the actors – Morton was only 20, Hinds 44. Even bigger than the age gap in the book, where, at the time of their first meeting, Jane is 18 and Rochester “might be 35″. The disparity between these actors as a couple is quite striking, but I think there is a chemistry there all the same.

From the few reviews I’ve found on the net, most people seem to agree that Morton – also so good in Woody Allen’s Sweet and Lowdown – is excellent as Jane Eyre. However, Hinds seems to come in for more criticism, for instance in this review by Paul Mavis at DVD Talk. (You have to scroll down to get to the Jane Eyre part). He  says “Hinds’ interpretation of Rochester… felt altogether too rushed and… out of control for lack of a better descriptive phrase. His Rochester seems far too “on the edge” in all his dealings, far too high-strung for the Rochester I always have in mind, coming off many times as hysterical (and making Jane seem far more practical and centered).”

I can see that, as Mavis says, this is a more highly-strung Rochester than some other interpretations of the character, but I’d say the character’s darkness, violence and despair are there in the novel – and it is interesting to see an actor bring these elements out so strongly.  I’ve very recently reviewed  the BBC Ivanhoe mini-series, made the same year, starring Hinds as tortured hero de Bois-Guilbert, and he brings something of the same quality to Rochester. This is a sardonic, bitter version of the hero, worlds away from the more recent gentler Sandy Welch version with Toby Stephens, which I loved, but still a compelling take on the character. The romance does feel rather abrupt because of lack of time, and there aren’t enough conversations between Jane and Rochester, but those they do have still work well, I think.

An odd video sleeve which shows Jane and Mrs Fairfax - with Rochester in the background!

Although I wasn’t over-worried by this production rushing over Jane’s childhood, at other times the truncation of the plot does cause problems and make it all feel rather clumsy. With the various clues and hints about the madwoman in the attic all being shown so close together, it becomes rather too obvious exactly what is going on. I even started to wonder why Jane doesn’t realise that Grace Poole must be the nurse of a hidden patient. In the book there is so much else happening in between, and so many seductive conversations, that it’s more understandable she doesn’t pick up on the hints.

The production focuses heavily on the central couple, inevitably so because of its limited time. However, costume drama veteran Gemma Jones does make a strong impression as Mrs Fairfax, and you can feel how she is worried by what she sees happening around her but unsure what to do about it. Abigail Cruttenden of Sharpe fame has very little screen time as Blanche and gives a rather colourless version of the character – while it’s a case of blink and you’ll miss Timia Berthome as Adele.

The wedding scene is done well in this  production, as is the key scene afterwards where Rochester introduces the shocked company to his wife, Bertha  (Sophie Reissner) – and, once she has finished her violent attempts to attack him, cradles her in his arms for a moment, as if she were his child, or as if  it is the two of them against the world.  I noticed he says “May I introduce my wife?”, which I think I’ve also heard in other productions of Jane Eyre, though that exact line isn’t in the book. That wording reminds me a bit of Mr Dorrit saying “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Marshalsea”, in Dickens’ Little Dorrit. In both cases the secret they have been struggling so hard to keep is suddenly revealed for all to see, in a terrible parody of polite society.

There is then a powerful scene where  Jane leaves Rochester  -  a more bitter parting than I’ve seen in other adaptations, going with Hinds’ more embittered take on Rochester’s character. I noticed that in this version Jane insists less on her religious reasons for leaving, and more on the fact that he has deceived her – at one point saying: “I could never trust you again.” However, the main emotions of the scene are still the same however the words are changed – that she still loves him but is forcing herself to leave, because she believes it is right.

Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds

The whole section where Jane runs away and meets up with the Rivers family is very heavily cut back, just as with the opening childhood sections, with only a brief glimpse of St John Rivers, played by a very young and beautiful Rupert Penry-Jones, a rare example of a St John who really is more conventionally good looking than the Rochester in the same production! This production doesn’t have time to mention St John’s sweetheart, Rosamond, or even to give him two sisters – he has to make do with one, Diana (played by Elizabeth Garvie, who starred in a great adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in 1980).

I was disappointed that the whole important Rivers section is dealt with in just a few minutes – since this part of the book brings out so much of Jane’s character. Taking away both Lowood and Jane’s time as a teacher really means there has been little sight of her apart from Rochester – as an independent person who can get on with everyday life as well as a romantic heroine.

However, the ending, where she returns to a ruined Thornfield and is reunited with the blind, wounded Rochester, is just as emotionally powerful as I’d hoped it would be. Hinds again plays an angrier, more damaged version of Rochester than in other productions – you really feel he can’t believe that Jane wants to be with him, and that he might even drive her away. “How can you love me like this?” he asks, in tears. But  she persuades him that she can – and there’s a tender closing glimpse of the two of them after years of marriage, walking with their children in the Yorkshire countryside.

I feel I may have made this version sound better than it is as a whole, because I’ve tended to focus on the bits I liked. It isn’t the best adaptation of Jane Eyre – but I do think it’s worth seeing for Morton and Hinds, and that their best scenes together are  truly powerful stuff.