Movie: Sound of Music: the Musical

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Life, classic

Series or set: Musical

Primary actors: Carrie Underwood, Stephen Moyer

Length: Approximately three hours

Based on: The classic movie with Julie Andrews – but I think this is the Broadway version?

Time period: 1930s

Rating: TV-PG

Year it came out: 2013

My overall opinion: I did quite enjoy this movie! I went in not being quite sure what I should be expecting, but it was a good way to spend my three hours! I watched the TV musical, but it’s coming to DVD at some point. Carrie Underwood was a lovely (though young) Maria, and her singing voice! Oh I loved it. She did a good job with the songs, though I think that no one can ever beat Julie Andrews. The head nun was a black woman, which is entirely inaccurate for the time in history, and for the movie in general – it threw me off. However, she could sing and very well! The kids were all cute and lovable and could sing. All in all? I did enjoy seeing this, and I am not opposed to watching it again someday, even though I didn’t love it.

Movie: Jane Eyre

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8

Genre: Period drama, classic, romance

Primary actors: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Sally Hawkins, Judi Dench

Length: Two hours

Based on: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Time period: 1800s

Rating: PG-13

Year it came out: 2011

My overall opinion: Now THAT is a question. What did I think of this movie? Well, being me, I made
notes as I watched. So here they are. I’m assuming all my readers already know this classic story.

Possible confusion: Starting in the middle of the book (with St. John), then skipping a bit between that and the beginning was vaguely confusing even for me, and I know the book very well. I think that doing the story in order, or possibly just one skip, would’ve been better. For someone who doesn’t know the story at all, this could possibly be very confusing.

The girls: All the girls in this are frightfully plain. I know, it’s simply dreadful of me to judge them all on appearance alone, and their personalities were quite nice, but St. John’s sisters and Jane herself were all very plain girls, not pretty in the least.

The speed: I mention this several times in my notes, things that are flown over. Jane Eyre is a large book of several hundred pages, and needs a movie of some length, a minimum of three hours, I think. A two-hour movie was a bad decision and entirely fails to include a few pivotal scenes, and to really show how deep the friendship between Helen and Jane was.

Mr. Rochester: In a word, “overgrown.” And yes, I’m going purely physical appearance again. That was my impression from the first time I saw him. Having him shave, and regularly, would’ve greatly improved his appearance. At the end, too, he was far too overgrown to be appreciated, so to speak. In general, he wasn’t a very bad Mr. Rochester though, but like I said, the whole movie was rushed and we never got to know him that well.

Jane: Was plain. Not that Jane is supposed to be pretty, though. Considering that she’s the title character, she did a good job with the part. I neither loved nor hated her.

Gore: At one point, a surprising amount of blood was shown, and while that really didn’t bother me all that much, it did seem like a rather surprising amount considering this is a period drama. That may be just me though.

Scene skipped: I wasn’t very happy that they skipped one of the most memorable scenes from prior movies and from the book. Remember when Bertha visits Jane’s room shortly before her near-wedding and tries on her veil? Here, we hardly saw Bertha, except for one scene. But I think that the scene I’ve just described is quite an important and mysterious one in the book, and definitely shouldn’t have been cut. Then too, there’s the fire scene. While it is true that in the book, Jane is told about it after the fact and wasn’t present there, there are often flashbacks in other movies to the scene so that you, the viewer, can fully picture it. Here, Mrs. Fairfax simply told Jane about it. I think this was perhaps a part where they attempted to save money, when spending a little and doing the scene would’ve resulted in a better movie.

The ending: I wrote down that it was slightly abrupt, unexpected, inconclusive, and all-around unsatisfying. I wasn’t very happy with it, I’m afraid. It left a good deal more up to chance than I should have preferred, and came around altogether too fast.

Soundtrack: It was lovely and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to such a beautiful soundtrack for a couple of hours!

So. My overall opinion? It wasn’t really a bad movie. I didn’t love it though, and was a little disappointed. And it was definitely way too rushed to really be one I loved. If you’re a Jane Eyre or a period drama fan, yes, watch it. I’m glad I did. However, I am far from desperate to go out and buy it.

Movie: Les Miserables: 10th Anniversary Concert

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 9

Genre: Classic, musical

Length: About 2 ½ hours

Based on: Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

Year it came out: 1995

My overall opinion: Well, first of all, note that this really wasn’t a movie. It was a concert, and had very little acting – a few face expressions, occasional bits of moving around. But ultimately, a concert. Music was the entire point. And yet somehow…I managed to sit and enjoy it for a full 2 ½ hours! Most remarkable. So, here’s my evaluation. :)

I preferred Hugh Jackman’s What Have I Done?. His voice was stronger and I preferred it. However, the bad guy (you know, the one who throws out Fantine) was pretty good in this. His face expressions were great, and his voice was good too! At The End of the Day was also well done.

I wasn’t much of a fan of the Fantine (Ruthie Henshall) in this version…well, specifically of her hair. She had long blond hair. However, her voice was stunning – a little deeper than Anne’s, which I liked. When she sang I Dreamed a Dream I was especially impressed. She did a great job, and I preferred her version over Anne Hathaway’s.

 

The song Lovely Ladies was also very expressive. Always good. I really liked Fantine and Valjean’s conversation when he saved her after the lovely ladies scene. It was pretty neat!

Okay, I admit – this Javert (Philip Quast) has almost as good a voice as my favorite Javert, Russell Crowe. And Valjean (Colm Wilkinson) did an excellent job on Who Am I?. Most impressive! Cosette as a child was okay, though in Castle on a Cloud, I preferred the new Cosette’s whispered line of “I love you” to this girl’s sung one.

Madame Thenardier (Jenny Galloway) was one of my favorite parts of this particular production. She was downright fearsome, with the perfect voice and face expressions. She would strike fear into anyone’s heart! And Messieur Thenardier (Alun Armstrong) was also amazing. He was very wiggly (delightful since many stood so still and with such boring faces) and quite perfect for the part. In fact, they were both perfect for their parts – absolutely awful! Also, sidenote, Armstrong was the one actor I was familiar with – he’s been in a ton of Dickens’ movies.

Young Gavroche (Adam Searles) has an amazing accent – how does one so young get one like that?! His solo when Javert is captured especially brought that accent out. The Barricade Boys’ Song was also pretty amazing – all I wrote down about it was “Wow.”

Javert’s Stars was very good, though I still slightly prefer Russell Crowe’s.

Enjolras! LOVE that voice. Oh my word. I basically spent every bit of his singing in a dead faint. Red & Black was SO good. I was super impressed. Unfortunately, I ended up with no strong feeling on Marius – or perhaps that’s good. He had a good voice, but I preferred Enjolras’. Then again, his was so stunning that it really isn’t fair to compare them.

As to Cosette (Judy Kuhn) and her voice…she was great! I loved her voice as well. Now, if we could put her into the 2012 movie with the looks of the 1998 girl…perfection! She did a stunning job on Heart Full of Love. And Eponine (Lea Salonga)! I was ready for anything after the cruel disappointment of her being entirely gone from the 1998 version. But here? Hooray! She was an adorable girl. I like the Asian look! I do prefer Samantha Barks, but it would take so much to beat her…this girl was great.

One Day More earned itself a heart on my paper! It was very good and a favorite from this show. Unfortunately, On My Own was not as memorable, though I loved how much Eponine was singing out with her whole heart. And then of course, there was A Little Fall of Rain. Let’s just say that this scene brought me to tears. For real. I can’t imagine what a total wreck I would’ve been if I’d actually gone to this concert. The fact that I cried over it? Means it was WELL-DONE.

Enjolras comforting Marius over Eponine’s death was so sweet. I loved that Marius actually showed how deeply he was affected by the death – I don’t think he does quite so much in other versions.

I liked Drink With Me and Bring Him Home was lovely! And then there was a lovely flute solo (or some such instrument) after the massacre at the barricades.

As to Javert’s Suicide…I wrote two things. “Impressive. WOW.” It was good. Really good. I mean, people killing themselves is always bad – but this song? And how well it was done? Very good.

There was some song about turning through the years…I rather enjoyed that as well! And then Empty Chairs and Empty Tables sung by Marius was also stunning. It was nice to have an opinion about him for once! The A Heart Full of Love reprisal by Cosette and Marius and Valjean was most delightful!

And then the whole ending…again, just wow. Do You Hear the People Sing was awesome again. A great finale. And then! Don’t stop watching just because they all begin applauding! No, I forbid you to stop there! Keep watching it’s worth it.

You see, after lots of applause, 17 Valjeans from around the world come up. 17 different Valjeans, 17 countries. And then! They sing Do You Hear the People Sing with each of them singing a line. And it all blends together seamlessly. I was so impressed!

So. Watch to the end. I also found it rather nice to have the English subtitles. There’s also a version with Spanish subtitles, which is what I watched for the first ½ until discovering the English version. Since I neither read nor speak Spanish…those were of no help. Yay for English!

In conclusion…a good concert with some good actors and some great voices. Watch it if you have an empty afternoon ahead of you!

 

Want to watch it and form your own opinions? It's easy, since it's on YouTube! Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAVrm3wjzq8

Movie: Les Miserables

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8 high

Genre: Classic, life

Primary actors: Liam Neeson, Claire Danes, Uma Thurman, Geoffery Rush, Hans Matheson

Length: Almost 2 ½ hours

Based on: Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

Time period: 1800s

Year it came out: 1998

My overall opinion: So much fun to see another version of “Les Miserables”! There were a few aspects about this one that I really enjoyed, at least as much as or more than in the newer 2012 film. Here we go, in no particular order – and don’t worry, this shouldn’t be too long. :)

Of course, Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean was a highlight. And he was great! His voice was the best part, for sure. However, he did a good job as Valjean. In my opinion, not quite as impressive as Hugh Jackman, but still good.

Then Uma Thuramn was Fantine, and here I’ve gotta admit that I probably preferred Anne Hathaway. One good thing about this film was that for the most part it wasn’t quite as explicit as the 2012 version. However, there was one version in which she was virtually naked – something good to know before watching. Yeah, pretty sure I did prefer Anne in the part – Anne was very convincing.

Let’s see, then there was Cosette. I preferred her by quite a bit in this film! Claire Danes acted her here. Random fact time: I had seen her a few days before in “Temple Grandin,” where she did an amazingly believable job acting an autistic girl. Btw, that’s a good film. :) Anyway. I thought she did a lot better in the role than Amanda Seyfried, and liked her just as a person much better. Her voice was nice.

Eponine! Or lack thereof. Apparently she appears in one brief scene as a child, but I really wish she’d been in here as an adult. Because as you know, I really liked her in the 2012 film, where she was acted by Samantha Barks. I missed her a lot here! She has an important part in the Marius and Cosette story, and I missed that.

Before we move on, let me mention one more actor – Geoffrey Rush as Javert. I know my sweet friend Rissi prefers him over Russell Crowe (and she prefers this whole film over the other), but me? I liked Russell Crowe a lot better. One reason? RC’s voice is so deep and absolutely awesome. This guy had an anger and ken for revenge that was very understandable (did I use that “k” word right?). That being said, I think RC did too.

OOOO. Another actor. Cause we can’t leave him out. Hans Matheson as Marius. What a disappointment! My friend who I watched this with and I thought he looked vampireish for the first part of the movie. And you don’t want the romantic lead to look like a vampire in LesMis, trust me. White face, black hair, and a little rain. Nope, didn’t like him there. I liked him a little better further in, but he was especially awful at the beginning.

So, the sum of my thoughts in the acting… Stick Liam Neeson’s voice on Hugh Jackman (who doesn’t have a bad voice, but LN’s is so awesome…). Keep Anne as Fantine. Move Claire Danes to be Cosette. Ditch Hans Matheson and Geoffery Rush. And get Eponine back.

Rissi mentioned that the 2012 musical is a “pretty” film in terms of quality, sets, etc. Understandable, since it was made almost 15 years later. They’re a little hard to compare since they were made so far apart! I’d say that just for visuals, I much prefer the 2012 film. But that makes sense, so…

Then too there’s the music, or rather, the lack thereof. Because, that’s right, this 1998 movie didn’t have any songs in it. And I missed that! I know, I thought there was a bit much in the 2012 musical, but…I really did miss it here. There are some REALLY good songs. And I’m actually considering taking the 2012 movie up to a rating of 9 instead of 8.5 because of the music which I’ve been listening to constantly ever since. And still loving! So yeah, that was disappointing.

Javert’s suicide…it was a little strange in this one. Valjean just standing there watching? Weird. I “preferred” the one in the other movie.

I think that about sums up my thoughts…good, but not as good. I liked it, and it was worth the $5 I paid for it (yay for $5 bins at Wal-Mart!). I don’t mind watching it again.

Have you read my review of the 2012 Les Miserables yet? If not, now would be a good time! :)

Movie: Les Miserables

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5…I think…

Genre: Classic, musical, life, adventure

Primary actors: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Russell Crowe

Length: Just over two and a half hours

Based on: Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

Time period: 1800s (early, possibly with a touch of 1700s)

Year it came out: 2012

My overall opinion: I didn’t know what I would think of it going in. I was 75% sure it wouldn’t be my new favorite movie – I like happy movies, and I knew (even without knowing the story line) that LesMis wasn’t. But it was a chance to hang out with two of my best friends for an evening, while seeing a movie that a lot of people were saying was really good…so I went.

What did I think? I’m still not sure, as you can see by my rating. Some of it was amazing…some I didn’t like nearly so much. But overall, I am not opposed to seeing it again someday.

Warning: if you haven’t seen it yet, please don’t read this review. I’m awful about spoilers. Watch it first, then read this. Please skip to the bottom and look for the blue font to see my warnings and overall impression -- should you see it?

Now that we have that done with…and you’d better not be reading anymore now if you haven’t seen it!

On to my opinions. They are an utterly random assortment of the thoughts I remembered after the movie. So if you have something in mind I didn’t mention…ask me. Oh, also? I haven’t (this is embarrassing) read the book. Really. And right now? I do not have time for a book that size. But someday, when my life slows down a bit (does it ever do that again?) I will read it. Promise.

Other warning: this is turning out to be super long, probably the longest review I’ve ever written…skim as needed. And comment. As you read. :) I will reply! 

NOW. As stated, no order. Opening scene! Fascinating. Amazing. Unbelievable. That big boat being towed with pure man-power into a gigantic dock? I didn’t think they built docks that size in the 1800s. Or boats. Ummm, ships. Either way. That scene…I really liked it. A lot. Incidentally, the song there was also amazing…Look Down.

Before I continue, let me take a quick side-track about the music. Point 1: I know it’s supposed to be a musical. Point 2: I loved some of the songs, and they’re still running through my head – impressive. Point 3 (aka the Clincher): I thought there was too much singing. Every time I turned around…there was another song. Not that I was literally turning around…but, well, you know what I mean. For me, the songs got old after a bit. That being said, as stated, I really liked some of them! I’ll come to more on that presently.

There were six (count ‘em, six) dramatic deaths. Like I mentioned, I’m a happy movie person. Bright, cheerful, everybody happy, and not too much stupid romantic drama. So deaths really aren’t my thing! And these! I’ll say more about the rating presently, but I’d say the film definitely earned its PG-13 rating. It did end up feeling like person after person was keeling over dead…or falling to their death…or being shot…but I understand that that’s the way the book goes and the movie must, of course, follow the book – I wouldn’t wish it otherwise.

My favorite female? Nope, not Anne Hathaway. In fact, Fantine  really wasn’t a favorite character for me. Stop! Side-track. We’re going to talk about her and her character right here, right now, before we get to my favorite girl. I’m afraid I wasn’t exceptionally fond of Anne as Fantine. Admittedly, I don’t know what Fantine is supposed to be like, having no prior experience of the story…hmmm. Anne has a lovely voice, to be sure, but…I think her personality, her character, they’re meant for light flitty films. Her as a heavy tragic character? For me, it didn’t really work. As to her singing I Dreamed a Dream…well, we’ll come to that. (I made a list and am mostly going by that. ;)

Anyway, favorite female. Was Eponine. Yup. For some reason, I really liked her…which sounds weird. I guess I connected a lot better with her than with Fontaine. Her song, On My Own, was amazing. Possibly my favorite in the whole movie. And she was my favorite character! I don’t know what it was about her… But anyway. She was awesome, I thought. Her smile is so sweet! Even though she really is a tragic character, I suppose.

Randomly, I wasn’t very fond of Cosette either. As a child, yes, I liked her. Sweet voice, sweet girl. But once she grew up…I think she mostly just bugged me, somehow. Equally randomly, the whole scene under the city was amazing. And disgusting. Because sewage is. But equally amazing. That huge complex…wow. This scene, like the opening one, fascinated me. And also randomly, because this paragraph is the random one…those guns? Wow. Scary. My first thought when I saw them shot was “Ummm…dangerous! Those guns are dangerous!” Now, I’m not one of those most unfortunate people who has a fear of guns – on the contrary, I own one and enjoy shooting. No, that thought was because they fire and fire quite literally goes everywhere! Very dangerous. And I’m glad I wasn’t shooting one. And that thought…it made me smile. Because the second part was that “someone’s going to get hurt!” Which was kinda the whole purpose of those guns in the first place…

This…is really long. I wasn’t expecting to be quite this wordy. But I have days when I can rattle off an entire book without thinking twice – today, for example. ;)

My other favorite characters? I take that back. They weren’t favorites, not really. But I, again, was fascinated! They were most interesting, intriguing too. Know who I mean yet? That’s right, Cosette’s evil and scheming guardians, Messieur and Madame Thenardier. They were unbelievable. And dreadful. And very interesting. I loved…that’s not the right word. I thought it was really cool how they stole from everyone. I mean, it was awful, to be sure…but also really cool.

I did really like the two young patriots, Marius and Enjorlas...pretty awesome guys! :) And I did include these few lines just so I could include a picture.

And now! A few paragraphs about the songs. Firstly, the one song I knew going into this film…I Dreamed a Dream. As y’all ought to know, Susan Boyle had great success with this one a few years back. Remember? If you don’t, go look it up and listen. To be quite frank, I definitely prefer Susan’s version over Anne’s. In all fairness, I’ve loved Susan’s for years. But at the same time, I think her voice was perfect it. Rich, strong, vibrant. Anne has a “sweet” voice, much higher and lighter. I didn’t like it much, though Anne did a good job, I admit. I enjoyed the way that the song theme was worked into the movie a few other times…as stated, it was the only song I knew ahead, so my ears recognized it each time. :) I also “enjoyed” the extra verse added…extra only because Susan doesn’t sing that part.

The whole Lovely Ladies song and scene…most memorable. Quite horrible, really, when you think about it…not in film terms, but just the conditions that they’re in. And what’s going on. But I don’t think you’ll find yourself forgetting it anytime soon! Rather disturbing. I can’t imagine how much work the film-makers put into that sequence. Incidentally? Some of that was way too disgusting for me. Just saying. (I’m referencing the teeth-pulling…more about everything else presently.)

Two more songs I want yet to mention. The first is One Day More. Wow. That scene was just plain cool. Was it just me, or did pretty much the entire cast get to sing parts of that? It was so neat to see everyone that way! At the same time, I did find it a little disconcerting…all these people, all different places, all singing this song? I know, I know, that’s what musicals do…still bugged me.

The second song to mention is Do You Hear the People Sing? And THAT is the song that has been stuck in my head ever since. It’s catchy. And sad. And amazing. [[Addition: 24 hours after writing this, as I quickly read over to proof it…just reading the title starts the song in my head! THAT is the sign of a good song.]] [[Other addition: At the End of the Day...it's more enjoyable every time I listen to it.]]

Now, the touchy topics…the PG-13 content. Like I said earlier, there was quite enough to earn it a PG-13 rating, I thought. Many of the dresses had extremely low necklines (no doubt accurate for the period and country and people) and there was some other stuff of that sort as well…I’d really rather not talk about it, so just go HERE to read about it on IMDB. And then there was also the gore aspect…the producers didn’t skimp on the blood and gore and violence content. So be warned – this time period was very violent, and this movie portrays it clearly. Be careful.


I have completed my list! All this, by the way, was written in just under 45 minutes. :) Not counting the editing, videos, or pictures. Which I’ll add later. Oh, random note...I just barely made it without any crying -- BARELY. My eyes were wet for the last scene...but my makeup (which I had forgotten that I wasn't going to wear) was intact.

Finally, Les Mis fans, you'll want to check out the fancy photos taken for Vogue! There are only eight, but they're awesome. Go here.

My overall opinion for those of you who haven't seen it yet? Worth watching, but use caution. Not for young viewers, or the faint of heart. Overall, I liked it in most parts and if you've enjoyed the book, this movie/musical is worth a try. :)
 

Back to you. If you've seen it, what did you think? Love it, hate it, not sure? What else do you want my opinion on? What did you disagree with my thoughts on? Have you posted your review yet? (I’d love to see it…leave me a link and I’ll come read it) Comment, sil vous plait!

Movie: Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 9.5

Genre: Fantasy, classic, adventure

Series or set: The official prequel to Lord of the Rings

Primary actors: There are a lot! They include Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett, and Martin Freeman along with others.

Length: About three hours -- just under.

Based on: The classic and amazing work of literature, The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien.

Time period: Fantasy

Quote(s): Go here for quotes!

Year it came out: 2012 (December 14)

My overall opinion: It lived up to all my hopes and dreams. Before you read any further: this review will have spoilers. Please do not read until you've seen the movie. It'll be so much better then!

Now that we're all clear on what you are or are not doing (and you'd better not be reading this if you haven't seen it -- I'm serious!)...let's go. This is in no order...just as it comes to mind. :) I saw it just a few hours ago, so it's not all in order yet.

Azog -- disgusting. And inaccurate. I knew he wasn't in Hobbit, but wasn't sure about the whole thing with Thorin. On coming home and looking it all up in my Complete Guide to Middle-Earth by Robert Foster, I discovered that sure enough, Thorin had nothing to do with Azog. Yes, Azog killed Thror, Thorin's ancestor. But though Thorin fought in that battle, he didn't apparently have personal contact with Azog. Azog was killed in that battle as well and most certainly did not come back. However, including him certainly added some excitement!

Soundtrack -- amazing. Beautiful. Unebelievable. Never going to stop listening. I love it SO much. Combines Lord of the Rings' music with the theme of the Lonely Mountain song in a beautiful way, blending familiar and new seamlessly. I found a copy on youtube and can't stop listening. I had included it below, but it appears to have stopped working, so I removed it again. It's awesome and I can't wait to get the CD soundtrack!

Panoramic scenes -- Again, beautiful. Simply stunning. Especially in a theater. The landscape is so beautiful! And there's a wide variety too! More on sets and stuff in a bit.

Goblin king -- Wow. That guy was super interesting, my dad's favorite character...for looks, you understand. A huge flap of flesh almost like a beard...so unbelievably disgusting and, well, fascinating! Warts everywhere. Puppy dog eyes. He's scary, he's disgustingly fat, he's...wow. Definitely a memorable part of the movie!

Sets -- There were so many amazing sets that I had no idea were coming! Or at least, I really had pictured them all wrong when I read the book, and hadn't pictured at all for the movie! For example, the whole goblin kingdom under the Misty Mountains (more on the kidnapping later). Astounding! And Rivendell -- beautiful. Even more so than in LOTR, I think. The waterfalls and all were amazing! I was pretty impressed. Also, the scenes including peeks into Moria (so familiar to me!) and Erebor (pretty cool) were exceptional.

Rivendell -- I loved it. Like I said above, the waterfalls were so pretty. The whole place was beautiful, and apparently also caught in perpetual sunrise. Though the movie spent relatively little time there, it was clear how peaceful and calm it was...I liked it.

Elrond -- My only reason to include him in this particular part was his age. I felt like he looked significantly younger here than in LOTR. Having looked at pictures online, I may have been mistaken. I thought his hair was a bit gray in LOTR...guess not. But he has a lot of lines on his face there, and (if my memory serves me right) not so much in HAUJ. That may be just me. Now, I know it  was 60 years or so between HAUJ and LOTR, but since Elrond's thousands of years old...he shouldn't age.

Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel -- The whole council meeting at Elrond's was all wrong. Saruman and Galadriel never appear in the book. Gandalf does go to visit Saruman, but it's not mentioned except that he's gone...and you only learn where in LOTR (I think...maybe appendices or something?). Galadriel was beautiful, but shouldn't have been there. And Saruman...well, yeah, I talked about him.

Gollum -- Somewhere on the web I saw someone call him cute and say they kind of liked him. At the time, I admit that I laughed at them...how could anyone like Gollum? But now that I've seen him here, I see what they meant. He is pitiable! And almost cute during the riddle game! Which I loved, btw, except that they left out some riddles...very sad. Interesting to see him here.

Bilbo -- One can hardly review HAUJ without mentioning Bilbo. I've seen some reviewers that bashed him, but personally? I though Martin Freeman made a great Bilbo. His face expressions were so neat! I liked those. I think they did a good job with picking Martin for Bilbo...I never did like Elijah Wood as Frodo, so I'm glad that this one's straight on.

Fili and Kili -- Liked them a lot! Especially Kili. They're awesome little guys. :) And I am suddenly not anticipating the third movie if it follows the book. Which I generally strongly advocate, but might make an exception for here. And if you don't know what I'm talking about...go read the book. You should've read it already anyway. :) But yeah, I liked them! Oh also. By my third time through, one thing had become clear...one of my all-time favorite scenes is when Kili jumps out from by the rock and shoots an arrow and kills the warg and orc. SO MUCH AWESOMENESS there.

Thorin -- Ah, the other must-review character. Gotta admit, Richard Armitage was great! I had seen him as Mr. Thornton in North and South and knew of his roles in Sherlock Holmes and ...was it Robin Hood? Anyway, I didn't quite know what to expect. But? I loved it. Okay, fine, I loved him. Overall. But it was rather hilarious to see him looking so short by Gandalf! A guy with a personality like he has definitely shouldn't be short. But he was pretty much awesome as a short dwarf with a big sword.

Radagast -- Okay, the whole Radagast thing was weird. I knew that he'd be in here (even though he technically shouldn't be according to the book) but like that? He was just a little ditzy! I didn't like the way he was portrayed. Now, it's true that we have practically no information about Radagast the Brown. But I don't think he was quite this crazy. And that white stuff on his head...what was it, bird doo? No. All wrong. Nests in the hair are one thing, bird doo quite another.  

History -- It wasn't in the book. And I thought it was a great idea and a great addition. All that history at the beginning of the film, and sprinkled throughout? So neat! I loved it! Seeing those things on screen was amazing. Definitely worth adding, and I'm glad they did. So yup, really liked that.

In Relation to the Book -- Overall, HAUJ did a tolerably good job of following the beginning of Tolkien's original book. One difference (not including all that I've already mentioned in passing) would be the orcs and ... wargs? you know, those things who chase the dwarves and Bilbo. Very reminiscent of LOTR TT, but not a great fit here...though they definitely added intensity. Also, the part where they all fall into the goblin realm...again, that's not how it happened in the book. I always though a crack opening at the back of the cave was plenty frightening enough, and I don't know why they had to change it to the floor cracking open. The same goes for Bilbo's fight with a goblin and fall to Gollum's lair. Though there I admit that I can see why they wanted to add a little excitement. Technically, you know, Bilbo was there through the whole goblin battle! But all in all? I'm pretty satisfied.

Stone giants -- Considering that they only have a sentence or two in the book, they were much more played up here! I'd been anticipating seeing how Peter Jackson would interpret them...no disappointment. Very interesting! Again, that section was greatly drawn out (compared to the book -- by no means boring!) but good.

Humor -- The humor was not something I was expecting...and I loved it! Gandalf had a funny comment or two, and there were a few characters who made you laugh too! It was great. :)

Battles -- Like in LOTR, they were amazing. Big scale, lots of people, and a fast camera. Great battles, for being battles!

All around -- A great movie! I can't wait to see it again.

Movie: Jane Eyre

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8

Genre: Classic, life, romance, period drama

Primary actors: Samantha Morton, Ciaran Hinds, Gemma Jones

Length: Two hours (so it felt fast…Jane Eyre is a big book)

Based on: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Time period: 1800s

Year it came out: 1997 (this is the A&E version)

My overall opinion: Well, Jane Eyre has some strange parts, but this movie didn’t play them down at all, that’s for sure! I’m not saying it made them bigger than they were either, but they certainly weren’t hidden at all. As you period-drama-knowledgeable readers may have noticed, this film included several Doubles. These included Samantha Morton (Harriet in a version of Emma), Ciaran Hinds (Captain Wentworth in the 1995 Persuasion), and Gemma Jones (Mrs. Dashwood in the 1995 S&S). There was one other as well, an older lady who appears in Wives and Daughters and Cranford as well. 

The costumes were quite unremarkable. I understand that Jane had little money for clothes, but I did feel that she had one dress (a purple one) to wear most of the time and another (a green one) to wear on occasion…and that was all. I like variety in my clothes and in the clothes of people in period-dramas, so that was a bit disappointing. The soundtrack too was unremarkable. 

However, this version stayed quite close to the book, though as I mentioned, it felt rushed. Two hours…it’s hard to get a book that size into so little time. Interestingly, it didn’t show the most climatic scene (well, actually, maybe it’s not…the scene…how to describe without giving it away…the scene in which Mr. Rochester changes). It was merely described later. That’s also how it is in the book, but it seems like something that a movie would have been tempted to overplay. So all in all…it was a good movie, though not amazing.

Little Dorrit

Author: Charles Dickens

Genre: Classic, life, romance

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 9

Type: Fiction

Number of pages: 844

Time period: 1800s

Passage from book: Quotes coming below.

My overall opinion: An excellent read. It’s really not a hard read…just loooooonnnnnng. Very long. But very good too. A good book, especially if you watch the TV series first….great movie, btw. :) There were a few quotes I especially loved…

“In the country, the rain would have developed a thousand fresh scents, and every drop would have had its bright association with some beautiful form of growth or life. In the city it developed only foul stale smells, and was a sickly, lukewarm, dirt-stained, wretched addition to the gutters.”

“Mr. Pancks took hold of his tough hair again and gave it such a wrench that he pulled out several prongs of it. After looking at these with an eye of wild hatred, he put them in his pocket.”

John Chivery says, “I mistaken on a point that, even at the present moment, makes me take out my pocket-handkerchief like a great girl, as people say: though I am sure I don’t know why a great girl should be a term of reproach, for every rightly constituted male mind loves ‘em great and small.”

Sparkler’s names for Fanny were interesting and profuse: my dear girl, my life, my dear, my love, my adorable girl.

Altogether a wonderful Dickens! I think I liked it as much as Great Expectations. :)

Movie: Little Women

 

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Classic, family

Series or set: Of course, the book has several sequels and the story continues, but there aren’t sequels to this particular movie version. 

Primary actors: June Allyson, Margaret O’Brien, Peter Lawford, Elizabeth Taylor

Length: About two hours

Based on: Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

Time period: 1800’s, Civil War

Year it came out: 1949

My overall opinion: This version of Little Women is a fun one. The dresses are delightfully swingy and poufy, and the actors are good. Jo is perfect. Having Elizabeth Taylor as Amy is interesting…she’s not quite right, but she does a pretty job over all. One annoying thing, well, actually, two…the girls don’t grow at all through the whole movie. Not really. And Beth looks and sometimes seems younger than Amy – Amy does a lot of speaking for her, and Beth seems like a youngest child. Which she wasn’t. So that was a mite annoying too. However, we love this version for one scene that always sends us all into gales of laughter – Laurie getting pushed off a rock after trying to romance Jo. It’s hilarious, and the biggest thing we always remember. I really like the version and recommend it! 

Left to Right: Beth, Meg, Jo, Amy. 

Movie: Persuasion

 

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Classic, period drama

Primary actors: Sally Hawkins, Rupert Penry-Jones

Length: About two hours – therefore, slightly rushed

Based on: Persuasion by Jane Austen

Time period: 1800’s

Year it came out: 2007

My overall opinion: Unfortunately, I neglected to take notes as I watched! However, I do know that we all enjoyed it, and that I can recommend it! There were no objectionable scenes (as there are in several of the newer Austen adaptions) – something I really appreciate. There’ll be a little more information coming in my Doubles post…it’ll come someday. :) Also, check out the comparisons done by a few of my blogging friends here on Austenitis!