TV Show: Downton Abbey Season 3

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Period drama, life, family

Series or set: Downton Abbey

Number in series: 3^rd

Primary actors: Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Laura Carmichael, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith, Dan Stevens

Length: Nine episodes, with the last one being the two hour Christmas special

Based on: Possibly a real family?

Time period: 1920s

Rating: TV-14, I think

Year it came out: 2012

My overall opinion: I enjoyed this! I ended up watching it all really quick – checked it out on an impulse from the library on Friday afternoon, and watched it all before returning it on Sunday morning. So yeah…I flew. But yes, it was good and I greatly enjoyed getting to know everyone even better. Their highs were lovely, their lows were sad, and I can say no more without spoilers, so I’ll stop. All in all? Good series and I’m excited for Season 4!

TV Show: Downton Abbey Season 2

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Period drama, life, family

Series or set: Downton Abbey

Number in series: 2^nd

Primary actors: Michelle Dockery, Dan Stevens, Elizabeth McGovern, Hugh Bonneville, Maggie Smith

Length: I think it’s seven episodes (the first one being extra long) plus the Christmas special (also about two hours)

Based on: I hear it’s based on a real family?

Time period: World War I, early 1900s

Rating: TV-PG, I’m guessing?

Year it came out: 2011

My overall opinion: I enjoyed this season, and finally – a happy ending! Since I have watched many things (including Season 3) since this season, I’m not going to try to ramble on about it more than to say that it was good, I liked the ending, enjoyed getting to know everyone better, and all-in-all, liked it probably even a bit better than Season 1. It helps that I know everyone now. Nothing stood out to me as objectionable! A little about characters…Matthew is mostly annoying, but occasionally quite nice. Lavinia is a sweet girl in a hard position. I still love Cora, and Isobel is more annoying than ever. Cousin Violet is a delight through and through, makes me laugh often. Thomas is horrid, Sybil is a sweetheart…I really like her. Carlisle is despicable, and also recognizable as a bad guy in Wives and Daughers as well. Mary is interesting, tolerable, and not my favorite character. There!

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.

TV Show: Downton Abbey Season 1

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8.5

Genre: Period drama, life, family

Series or set: Downton Abbey

Number in series: 1^st

Primary actors: Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Jim Carter, Maggie Smith, Dan Stevens

Length: 7 episodes, each 45 minutes (except two that are about 65 apiece)

Based on: A real life story, at least in part, I believe…y’all probably know better than I do?

Time period: Early 1900s (just before World War I)

Rating: Unknown…prolly PG-13 in movie ratings

Year it came out: 2010

My overall opinion: I enjoyed it! I always knew I would, but sure enough…I was right. All in all, it was a good show and I enjoyed getting to know all the characters. And I’m definitely excited to watch Season 2! There was a little homosexual content, specifically in the first episode, that kinda ruined that whole episode for me – it was disgusting. Nothing explicit, but still enough to be stomach-turning in a horrid way. Other than that, for the most part, it’s fairly clean. Mary is an interesting leading lady, and getting to know her, and indeed, all of the family was a lot of fun. I’m definitely excited to see where it all goes in the next season! And it ended on such a cliff-hanger with the beginning of World War I – ooo yeah. Anyway, so yeah – good show! Not perfect, didn’t love it, but worth my time.

Movie: Becoming Jane

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8

Genre: Period drama, biography, life

Primary actors: Anne Hathaway, James McAvoy, Julie Walters, Anna Maxwell Martin, Maggie Smith

Length: About two hours

Based on: Jane Austen’s life

Time period: 1800s

Rating: PG

Year it came out: 2011

My overall opinion: I enjoyed this movie rather more than I expected to! Anne Hathaway wasn’t bad as Jane, though younger and prettier than the real Jane, I think. And James McAvoy as the main guy! Never did decide exactly what I thought of that. It was certainly a very interesting casting choice. I just know him as Mr. Tumnus in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe so. The movie seemed well-filmed and moved along at a good pace – kept me watching. Not riveting, but. Unfortunately, due to a problem with my ear-buds and my DVD player, I had trouble hearing – the music way overpowered the dialogue. I didn’t realize this problem was fixable until quite a bit later. This hampered my enjoyment. Thus the very average rating. There was, as is warned about, brief nudity – not sensual, just a bit awkward. All in all? I’ll watch it again so I can hear the dialogue. Didn’t love, didn’t hate.

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.

Movie: Cranford

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 9

Genre: Period drama

Series or set: Cranford is a TV series. :) This was the first season, I think. 

Primary actors: Oh wow…this series has a TON of primary actors, and just as many Doubles! IMDB lists Judi Dench, Julie McKenzie, and Imelda Staunton as the stars. 

Length: Five episodes

Based on: Cranford, My Lady Ludlow, Mr. Harrison’s Confessions all by Elizabeth Gaskell (FYI, Cranford at least is a fun and interesting read! I haven’t done the others yet)

Time period: 1800s (when else would a period drama be?)

Year it came out: 2007

My overall opinion: Love it! There’s no definite story-line (like in Little Dorrit) but rather it meanders along, following life in a small village. That’s like the book Cranford though. I love the characters, and Miss Pole (Imelda Staunton) is especially perfect for the part. And like I said, there are SO many Doubles! I’ll be posting more about them sometime. :) I loved the cat eating lace in the first episode. The soundtrack for all of the episodes was so sweet and quaint! Loved that too. I also greatly enjoyed Lady Ludlow’s garden party in Episode 2. Michael Gambon, though only on scene shortly in Episode 2, was exceptional – as usual. #2 was also a much more emotional episode than #1. In Episode 3, Mrs. Pole’s fright of gypsies and robbers was quite hilarious! As was the Christmas Eve party in parts. I’d better stop…for now, I’ll just say that I recommend this! It’s sweet. 

 

 

Movie: Under the Greenwood Tree

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 8

Genre: Period drama, life, romance

Primary actors: Keeley Hawes, James Murray

Length: About two hours

Based on: Under the Greenwood Tree by Thomas Hardy

Time period: 1800's

Year it came out: 2005

My overall opinion: Having just typed in the year it came out, that reminded me of what surprised me. As I watched it, I tried to guess what year it came out in, and ended up thinking it was in the 80s or 90s. Was I ever surprised to learn it was 2005! There were just some filming things that made it seem older -- some of the sets, and just some of the general quality didn't make it seem like it was made at the same time as the 2005 Pride and Prejudice! 

However, I did enjoy it despite that. It was rather dis-orienting to see Keeley Hawes in this role! I'm used to her as Cynthia in Wives and Daughters. See my Doubles post that included her here. But she did well, and I think I liked her better here, though she did both parts well.

The story was fun, and sometimes funny! I laughed out loud a couple of times -- a good number for me in a movie of this length. And what made it really interesting was that the movie was full of awkward moments! Not embarassing ones, just awkward things that tend to happen when a girl has several guys in love with her. I didn't love Under the Greenwood Tree, but it was good.

 

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! 

Movie: The Young Victoria

My rating on a 1-10 scale: 9

Genre: Life, biography (rather a biographical film, obviously), some romance, period drama

Primary actors: Rupert Friend, Emily Blunt

Length: A little under two hours

Based on: Queen Victoria’s early life -- some childhood, but mostly her early life as queen

Time period: 1800’s

Quote(s): "Master the rules of the game until you play it better than they can."

Year it came out: 2009

My overall opinion: I’ve been really wanting to watch this period drama for a while. I thought it looked super fun, very interesting, and altogether great! And now, finally, I got to see The Young Victoria. Overall? I liked it a lot. It was very interesting, the costumes were awesome, and it was good! A few more particulars...

I spotted two people I recognized from earlier movies. One was Rupert Friend himself, who played Mr. Wickham in Pride and Prejudice 2005. He was better here.

Another was Harriet Walter, Mrs. John Dashwood from the 1995 Sense and Sensibility. I knew Wickham was in here, but hadn’t expected Mrs. John Dashwood! I preferred her here...but then, she’s a detestable character in S&S, so.



Finally, I also noticed Mark Strong – he was Mr. Knightley in the 1996 version of Emma -- that's the brown haired Kate Beckinsale one. He played a fairly main character in Young Victoria, but I didn’t recognize him until I watched some of the special features and noticed his name at the same time as his face!

One thing that bugged me...was it just me or did Albert have just a bit of an Inigo Montoya accent? Several of the accents sounded similar to his. Just something I noted. :)

The costumes and jewelry were stunning. I had a few favorite outfits on Victoria, including: the gold dress with roses that she wears to the coronation ball...

 

 

...the mauve (?) dress with lace that she wears when she officially announces her pregnancy to friends and family...and the emerald dress with some blue -- she wore it twice. I love the dark green that's so shimmery!

I was also surprised to discover that the blue dress that is seen often in association with this movie didn’t come into evidence until the very last scene!

I liked the way Victoria did her jewelry. Fairly simple, often gold.

 

I though the effect of the single gold necklace in several scenes was amazing. If you have no other reason you want to watch this movie, the costumes may make it worth-while. :)

I noticed a couple photography things too. One that I really liked was their interesting focus on two particular scenes. The very first opening shot, where the focus “runs” down a line of guards, and also in a scene of wine glasses in the first half of the movie. Again, the focus “ran” down the line -- super cool. :) I also found it interesting how much they used mirrors for seeing people. There were quite a few shots that had a person in a mirror!

As you’ve probably heard if you’ve heard much about this movie, there are a few scenes to skip. As soon as Victoria and Albert’s wedding is done, you’ll want to fast forward (or entirely skip) several short scenes -- probably a little over five minutes worth. One thing that makes this more difficult is that it cuts between and A&V scene and a different unrelated scene...and then back. Just skip the middle scenes too, they aren’t too important. Other than that, the movie was mostly clear -- a few insinuations etc, but not bad at all.

The most exciting scene (I refuse to ruin it if you don’t already know what it is) was well done, and I was impressed! Very well filmed. And I LOVED what Albert told Victoria at the end of the scene... *happy sigh*. Super sweet. :)

So, there you go! Good movie and I enjoyed it. Skip a few scenes, and you’ll be good to go! I think it was pretty accurate historically, but I need to go get a Victoria biography to read now. It deserves a 9!