Reviews

Being an American rather new to Shakespeare, I have come to discover that Hamlet is my favorite play, and as of today the David Tennant and Patrick Stewart version provides the breakthrough to understanding this complicated play. I have watched all versions of Hamlet available and was quick to check out the newest one; however, Patrick Stewart was the only familiar actor to me. I have not a clue who Dr. Who might be. Just as well, as that might have tainted my view of Mr. Tennant's acting. Most contemporary productions of Shakespeare border on silly (Leonardo D's version of Romeo and Juliet) to ridiculous (Ethan Hawke's Hamlet), but this version rocks, to use an overused phrase.

I thought the juxtaposition of Shakespeare Old English in a Modern Setting worked amazingly well. The talents of the cast came together superbly (wished for a different Ophelia though). Polonius reminded me of a more dignified version of Bill Murray's treatment, but still caught the pompous drift of the character. Horatio played the devoted and loyal friend to great satisfaction. His Roman to the death speech had me crying all three times I watched the dramatization. I thought Tennant's version of Hamlet contained a measured lunacy, the intelligent fool who had mostly everyone fooled. The To Be soliloquy had the right intensity and then in a moment Tennant switches to Guarded Lover with Ophelia and Knave of Fools to Polonius.

I'm up for another view after writing this. Three hours spin by as I absorb new nuances and understanding. What a marvelous way to spend the afternoon.

If it's got Andrew Davies on the screenplay it's certainly worth watching. I picked this one up at our local library, and though I had my reservations at first, each episode grew on me. Not being familiar with the book and other adaptations, I took this version at face value and was charmed. Understated humor and a marvelous peek into Victorian life filled my evening. Many of Charles Pooter's concerns, friendships, his job security, tiffs with the wife, and his son's inability to focus, are relevant to today. The mock seriousness, the light parody of taking oneself much too seriously certainly added to the performance. Hugh Bonneville, gave a nicely rounded performance, and reminded me of John Cleese at times. Another quality BBC presentation.

Watching this at face value as a Masterpiece production, it was quite enjoyable. Rich production, lovely looking actors, and enough suspense and drama, with a bit of humor to pass a pleasant evening. Not having watched the previous versions, I didn't know what to expect and didn't have any expectations. I was looking for ninety minutes of entertainment and intrigue, and found it. If it had been called anything else besides the classic 39 Steps maybe there wouldn't be such a fuss. Sit back and enjoy, and stop comparing to what's been done. It's rare that a Masterpiece production is not worth watching. I'll check out the other versions eventually, but this one decidedly was more than watchable.

Priming up to teach Renaissance history I've looked into just about every Elizabeth I movie around--from Bette Davis to Helen Mirren. I endured the dry Glenda Jackson series for its historical perspective, enjoyed the brief comedic overacting of Dame Dench in Shakespeare in Love, totally skipped Cate Blanchett's version due to the reviews openly praising this Hollywood take on known history.

As to this newer version, I couldn't bear to finish it, and I usually don't quit movies. The editing seemed to delight in snatches, rendering this as apatched together series of Elizabeth commercials. The lighting was dark, which didn't help. Robert Dudley was portrayed as being way too young. He should have been reserved for the Earl of Essex part. There were other aspects I didn't care for, but the Robert Dudley part needed to be more nailed down seeing how important he was to Elizabeth's reign.

Helen Mirren's version to me presents the most personable, the one that really brings out the personage of the queen. The politics in that version were more defined as well. I don't understand why the BBC thought to try and trot out another version of Elizabeth I when so many exist already. Aren't there any other monarchs worth looking into?

I won't bother comparing Miss Austen Regrets to Becoming Jane. I will simply say: skip the latter and turn to the former if truly interested in the life of Jane Austen and not the fictional speculation. One is BBC and the other Hollywood. Enough said.

The only possible criticism of Miss Austen Regrets is how it starts off at such a startlingly quick pace, so much so that if the credits hadn't run I would have thought I'd come in on a good third of the production already gone. Allthe speculation of Jane Austen never having been in love, or having a chance at marriage (especially an advantageous one) is dashed in the first few minutes. From there the audience is left to wonder at the title--is it a what or who she regrets?

The biopic focuses on Jane Austen's latter years, and uses her relationship with her niece Fanny as a means of exploring her past relationships. We come to see financial security was of paramount concern to her, yet that concern was not so much for her sake as it was for her family's. We also see that her freedom to write being more important to her than love. Yet, it is all speculation. It isn't really clear that she had regrets at all. She exuded a satisfaction, so the title is a bit misleading.

What this new biopic brings out is the independence Jane enjoyed, and how much she enjoyed writing. The acting is commendable, the factual details admirable, and the rendering of the time satisfactory (although Jane's outfits swung from either being rather matronly to almost brazen). An enjoyable addition to Austen offerings. Yet, maybe it's time to leave off on the conjectures and meddling in her love life and focus on the brilliance of her writing--no speculation there.

I was leery of the title, as it sounded somewhat sentimental, yet our local librarian recommended my selection. Good call. This movie, unlike some Civil War movies, offers a real look at the humanity behind the soldier. What is mesmerizing is how the birth of a colt to an army mare changed the persona of the unit. The colt has all sorts of symbolism: new life among death; hope; redemption; promise. I hope to find a copy of the short story the film is based on and compare it to this film. One of the best scenes is when Jim, the main character, is sharing a meal with a farm family and as he describes his home state, he breaks down in tears from homesickness and despair. A touching and revealing film. A different look at the Civil War. While the ending is a horrible surprise, it is fitting for the irony portrayed throughout the film.

This is a typical Gary Cooper vehicle where he gets placed in a sudden leadership role and has to rally the men who serve him. It's worked well in his other films and does so here. What I really enjoyed is all the actors who would later go on to enjoy their own careers like Eddie Arnold, Charles Bronson, Jack Webb, and even Lee Marvin. A great look at some of the less glorious aspects of navy service during WWII. So many films showcase the expertise or the hardened battle-weary sailors, but this movie showed how many sailors found themselves to be "90 day wonders", meaning they were pulled out from being civilians and trained quickly to serve. This movie showed that the average Joe (and Jill) truly did his or her part in winning the war.

You know if it says PBS it will have quality, as far as documentaries go--but who would have thought an hour's worth of chicken fact, trivia, and homespun truth could be so entertaining! Having grown up around friends and neighbors who raised chickens in their backyards I know how amusing these feathered comedians can be. Yet, there is also something dignified about them as well. This documentary covers the whole scenario of where chickens are in the hearts of Americans. They are livestock, they are pets, they are sideshow wonderment,and they are noisy nuisances. They are also big business. Clever editing, reenactments, and filming techniques make this a keeper. We tend to watch it in winter, right around when the snow is lingering too long on the ground. Watching Cotton the Chicken taking a swim, or the drama of Valerie's rescue is enough to bring anyone out of the winter glums.

This western has much going for it: great stars (Jimmy Stewart, Maureen O'Hara, and Brian Keith), interesting plot twists (is Stewart's character a thief, after all), and some comedic moments (Brian Keith is a hoot as Scottish cattle baron). Take the movie as it is, an old western that is mediocre in script with star power holding it afloat, and you'll enjoy the movie. Start picking it apart for studio shots, etc and of course you'll not enjoy it. The storyline of how Herefords came to replace Texas Longhorns sounds plausible enough. It was cute how Juliet Mills (sister of Hayley) got that Hereford bull to follow her by whistling "God Save the Queen". Juliet added quite a bit to the movie, and she was a good balance to the humorous triangle of Keith, O'Hara, and Stewart. Some reviews are harsh, yet the questions remains--How could anyone not enjoy a movie with Jimmy Stewart in it?

Have you ever had a drink of pop after it's been sitting out too long? That's right, it's flat--all the fizz is gone. Same thing happened to National Treasure's Book of Secrets, the pop, the fizz, the sparkle is not there anymore. It's still a great movie to watch, one the whole family can enjoy, but as with most hits, the sequels don't usually nail it quite the same. The "gee whiz, I didn't know that" about history is still there (3 Liberty Ladies?), along with the likable characters (Riley is the best sidekick, and the main reason I went), and the intelligent plot, as well the stellar performances. Yet, it came off a little flat overall. I still didn't understand Ed Harris's role as a villain. Sean Bean was a great villain, one with ingenuity and cunning. Harris seemed only functionary. The best part of the movie was the Goofy short that came with it.

Martian Child will be one of those quiet movies that many people won't see. Those who don't see it will miss it. I can understand why it's sitting quiet: not much promotion, and who would it appeal to? There is no CGI, no car chases, no undue violence, only a brief kiss, and the movie isn't partof a trilogy. People who want plot that is not clichéd, and meaningful dialogue will search the movie out. It's aimed at the heart, and touches the emotions. It makes a person realize how important it is to have people in your life who will never, ever, ever, ever give up on you. Even when it looks like you are from Mars. John Cusack is not an actor I am drawn to, yet this movie changed my mind. He has depth, wit, and range I hadn't noticed before. Even if the movie doesn't get wild acclaim, it has a quiet understatement that I hope gets noticed. We all need to belong, and have at least one person believe in us.

Brr, the reviews for this Hallmark Hall of Famer have been considerably chilly. Too bad people can't warm up to the idea of an original movie (though based on a book) that moves slowly in its presentation and theme. Brush with Fate is fascinating. The storyline of tracing backwards to the actual setting of a painting done by a master is quite riveting. It doesn't matter that Glenn Close has a relatively small role. It was all that was needed.

The stories take place mainly in Holland, and the time periods used are colorful, and refreshing. The whole idea of "What if this really happened?" seems plausible by the end of the movie.

Even if the painting is not real, the one created in the movie is captivating in execution. If you love art, enjoy speculative storytelling, and favor Glenn Close, then do check this movie out to form your own opinion.

American history has some dark moments. The internment camps involving 10,000 or so Japanese-Americans is one of these dark moments. As a teacher, most of what I have encountered on the subject is bleak documentary, and I had to really press myself to check out this DVD from the library. I am so glad I did. This movie honors those who suffered the indignities of wrongful paranoid prejudice. Harsh words, but in retrospect that's what it came down to. The director put together a movie that follows two families and their experiences during their internment time at Topaz, located in Utah. One family is Japanese-American, and the other is the point of view of the white "all American" family, the father, one of the soldiers based at the camp. The movie is all about dignity, doing what is right, and letting go of the wrongs. The centerpiece of using baseball, the American Pastime, adds the lighter moments to the movie. Overall, the movie is well-done, well-acted, and delivers illuminating historical information. I truly had no idea that so many Japanese-Americans willingly joined the service during WWII. The special features mini-doc is a must see. A family movie, although there is some language, it is recommended viewing.

The Last Sin Eater has an intriguing title--it almost sounds like a cheap horror flick. It's quite the opposite. It's all about redemption, forgiveness, and life. Based on the novel by bestseller author, Francine Rivers, the movie takes place in the Appalachia area in the late 1880s. For those familiar with the Christy series based on the bestselling book by Catherine Marshall, there will be an understanding of the secrets kept in the mountains by the people who came from Welsh, Scottish, and Irish heritage. If not familiar with the series, then be prepared to be fascinated how superstitions and inherited cultural practices can bring oppression to a whole way of life.

Other reviews have summed up the plot well, while others have extolled the tremendously talented cast (ranging from E.T.'s Henry Thomas to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Louise Fletcher). I want to promote this film by Michael Landon, Jr, who brought the Love Comes Softly movie. I want to encourage viewers to support this, and other small budget,limited release movies that the entire family can benefit from. There is no foul language, gratuitous violence, morally confusing issues, or sex. Then what holds it together? A message. A message of truth,forgiveness, and redemption.

Check it out on DVD, and be sure to watch the behind-the-scenes featurette for additional information.

More films need to be brought out like this one. And we are slowly seeing more come out. Though reluctant to watch this movie at first, I was so glad I did.

The previews drew me in, and when a rainy weekend coincided with Surf's Up coming to the local theater I went. Here I am old enough to be a grandmother and I love animated films. And the animation makes the film. The water is surreal in how lifelike it is with all the variegation of color. The plot of little guy, big dreams, dream crash, dream re-found, and priorities set straight is definitely cliché. It's how it all gets there, is what we spend our $5.00 matinée for. The voice talent is perfect: Jeff Bridges as the laid back Z, Shia LaBeouf the young hero in the making, Jon Heder as a stoned chicken from Michigan, and Zooey Deschanel as the good-hearted lifeguard who keeps secrets well. They made the movie flow.

As for the penchant of "children" movies using poop and pee for laugh lines--I ask why? It didn't add to the movie, and it certainly lowers it. It's as if they are afraid the movie won't hold up on its own without a bit of naughty and disgusting jokes. Hey, leave it alone and let the movie go. Urinating and flatulent penguins just aren't that funny. Lots of other funny stuff. Like I said to the floor sweeper when he asked me, "Was it any good?" It had it's moments.

I was a TV kid in the sixties, and that's when all the really fun shows came out, with Wild Wild West high on the favorite list. Westerns were fading in the sunset of viewer interest and spies and sci fi was coming on the scene. Why not combine all of them into one amazingly creative and entertaining program? Of course the show will only go so far if there is no chemistry with the cast. All is present in those regards. Robert Conrad and Ross Martin had such engaging rapport that they remained friends off the set as well. Even with the fifteen year difference between them they were a team, and the regard they had for one another truly showed.

WWW blended parody with western style 007 tricks and action packed conflict. On top of well-written, engaging scripts big name guest stars like Boris Karloff, Richard Pryor, and Sammy Davis Jr added to the fun. It seems ironic that the show ended because the network felt it was too violent. Compared to what is available today, WWW was Romper Room. Even when the bad guys were shot there wasn't any blood! I'm now introducing WWW to my own kids and with the series out on DVD it makes for a great family hour (and hours) of viewing. Just like the good old day, and no commercials!

Not having television means I miss out on many of the gorgeous adaptations that the BBC features. Thank goodness I have a public library that is well-stocked in DVD classics. Lorna Doone is one such classic I have yet to read, but fully intend to do so after watching this stunning romantic adventure film. I had not realized the film was over two hours long, and I remained rooted to my laptop screen the entire time. I did not expect such a magnificent film. What could have been a predictable Romeo and Juliet tale had enough twists to make it plausible and more than satisfactory.

While the other reviews speak to the plot and applaud the fine acting, I would like to address the authenticity and rapport. There was trueness to the actors, as if they had become the characters. The Ridd family truly seemed to care for another, and displayed genuine family dynamics. The only actors I recognized were Martin Clune who did such an unforgettable portrayal as Mr. Chips, and then there was the soldier who was Mr. Tumnus from Narnia. The principal actors were unknowns to me. Lorna did carry a regal air about her, even when she was thought to be a Doone and not a Lady. John Ridd had the earthy, honest nature of a farmer who had the soul of a poet. The mother was excellent in her ability to see past opinion and look into her children's hearts. I properly loathed the villainous Carver. Slimy and psychopathic, and terribly pathetic, right up to the end.

I can't wait to read the book, because it's rare to find that a movie is better than its written counterpart. This might be the exception...

Two of my favorites are combined in this movie--Jimmy Stewart and the Glen Miller big band sound. The movie flows smoothly, showing with the right touches of humor and drama, the story of Glen Miller's humble beginnings of having to pawn his trombone in between jobs to his well-deserved fame and fortune.

Jimmy Stewart as Glen Miller and June Allyson as his wife were perfect chemistry. The additional real life talents of Louis Armstrong, and the other musicians lent the authenticity to make this a biopic authentic and one to watch with younger generations. Even my thirteen year old recognized the many songs played. Glen Miller's determination to get the right sound, and his dedication to his family was tremendous. The patriotism of Miller's time in the service is inspirational as well.

Chummy said it so well in the movie about if it was truly "the sound" then the Glen Miller band and its music would go on for years. It has and still does. And this movie is a reminder of what a Hollywood classic is all about.

Having had to suffer learning the Russian Revolution and subsequently Lenin, Stalin, and Marx back in junior high, I was rather dismayed when I discovered that as an English teacher I had to teach Animal Farm. You can't really teach Orwell's Animal Farm without teaching something about the Russian Revolution, and Lenin, Stalin, and Marx. This time around it clicked and became fascinating. If my seventh grade teacher had focused more on the Tsar and his family (let alone that crazy Rasputin) I might have done better on my Russian history final.

I found this presentation fascinating, enlightening, and worth the evening it took to watch it from start to finish. The film portrayed the last Tsar as a vulnerable man, one who made mistakes, like so many of the world's monarchies who could not and would not listen to the people's voice for change. If the movie weren't three hours long I might have it as an accompanient when I teach Animal Farm.

Watch the movie, then read Animal Farm or vice versus. But do watch the movie.

James returns to his small part of the world now that the war is over. The world has gone on while he's been gone. Yet while James is glad to return he can't quite get back into the life he left. There have been changes, yet not. A big change is returning to the son he left as a baby. There is also is insecurity working with the animals once again after a several year hiatus. The residents of Darrowby haven't changed though. What would the series be without the cantankerous Mr. Biggins? James is short-tempered and Helen basically tells him to get his act together. It takes a fishing trip with Sigfried to set things to rights once again.

ACGS is a series that will live forever. It's real, endearing, funny, and tragic. It is a model for what should be on television. I've read the books, read Herriot's biography, watched all the shows, and I never grow tired of it all. Heatwarming seems such an overused word, yet fits. This is a special that is will definitely leave fans satisfied.

As a high school teacher I make it a point to watch teaching movies, especially those based on true stories. Stand and Deliver is by far my favorite teaching movie and I show it every year to my basic students. Freedom Writers will also be shown in my classroom once it comes out on DVD. The lessons in this movie are beyond powerful. How do you reach and teach students who are only trying to survive? How do you create trust when these students hate you just because of your color? How do you work with bureaucracy? Erin had to face all this, in her first year of teaching no less. I applaud MTV for not making the movie grittier than it had to. There was sensitivity, honesty, and reality to this inspirational cinematic portrayal of a woman who didn't give up on her students. As a side note, a large group of rowdy teenagers came in for the movie. They became quiet once it started. It affected them as well.

I somehow have avoided most if not all the summer's worth of animated films, simply because animated films have developed a penchant for potty humor. Literally, in some of these movies. So why would I want to see a movie that not all has potty in the title it's setting is in the sewer. Because I went with a kid who really wanted to see. Plus, I have been a Wallaceand Grommit fan since they first came out. I can't remember when Ilaughed so hard. Fortunately, we went on an off night and I didn't have to contain myself. There are hundreds of inside references to other movies from Stuart Little (driving a toy car) to James Bond (Roddy wearing a tux and watching a movie of similar title) and from there it's Finding Nemo (have you seen my father?) and beyond. The blend of crass American humor to English dry wit is fairly perfect. The singing slugs (remember the singing mice from Babe)could have been annoying, but they almost stole the show. Read the other reviews for the plot. I'm praising the wit, whimsy, and laugh out loud qualities of Flushed Away.