psychoameise Reviews

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

I envy everyone who liked this movie so much!

[3/10 · 25 March 2016]

Just to be clear I did not go into this movie with high expectations and that's the reason I'm disappointed. I went to a prescreening, fully prepared to be disappointed after seeing the trailers, but still in a good mood and hoping for the best. And to be clear, this movie isn't completely awful. But I went home disappointed and canceled my tickets for a second screening. I'm glad for everyone who liked this and wish they would stop dishing hate on people who didn't. The following is my opinion, you don't have to agree with me, but I'm not bought off or just hating on principle. This is how I feel about BvS: If we want to save Justice League, Snyder has to go.

This movie is a jumbled mess. It tries to do too much. There's a Man of Steel sequel in there, they're introducing a new batman, setting up the Justice League and then they've got to cram some villain motivations in there too. Guess what? It doesn't work. If you try to cram three and a half movies into one, you can't properly flesh out what's going on. It's possible to follow the plot, but every time you start to get emotionally invested in a scene, it skips to somewhere else and doesn't pay off. Also, because we don't get to spend enough time with the characters, the motivations are inadequate. There is no real reason why the Batman vs Superman fight needs to happen except miscommunication which two hyperintelligent men like Batman and Superman would not have, and the reason it stops is paper thin as well. The major players only have a handful of scenes together. It's not enough. It is very easy to tell that the movie was cut down and it is glaringly obvious sometimes that pieces are missing. Characters refer to something as if they had talked about it before, even though they haven't, which tells you that scenes were cut. But even so, with all that stuff going on, the movie manages to drag. There's so much that we don't need to see, and it's disappointing that they chose to give us that instead of more time with our heroes. Another thing that angered me: if you're gonna put one stray joke in your movie, why spoil it by explaining the punchline? How stupid do you think your audience is? I found that offensive.

It's not all bad of course. The cast is solid throughout. Batfleck is fine, so are Cavill, Gadot, Adams and Irons. But the dialogue they are given is so inauthentic it really bothered me. It's just exposition or pompous pep talks and not the way real people behave. I didn't like Eisenberg, but if the rest of the movie had been better, I would have been able to live with him. Visuals are great, as you would expect. Some of the action is good too, but not all of it. Those good points are where my three stars come from.

All in all: This movie is setting up so much stuff that it fails at one crucial thing... being a standalone film. It's disjointed and choppy and we don't get to spend enough time with the characters to actually care about them or understand their motivations properly. To everyone out there who liked it: I'm happy for you. I envy you. You have no idea how lucky you are. But I just couldn't.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Worse than Phantom Menace, save yourselves the pain!

[2/10 · 17 December 2015]

Seriously, the only reason I give it two stars is because it's Star Wars, and it has Ewan McGregor and Christopher Lee in it. There are practically no other high points for me. I don't think I need to describe the plot in much detail, but many consider this better than Phantom Menace, so let me briefly expand on why - for me - it was worse.

Phantom Menace was boring as hell, granted. But even with Jar Jar in there, it never once made me cringe in horror. By god, this one did. The movie doesn't contribute much to the story line, other than that Padme and Anakin fall in love (rather unconvincingly at that). Again, Lucas' complete inability to write dialogue comes into play, but with romantic scenes, this is so much more apparent than during trade negotiations. It's so bad, I cannot begin to tell you how bad it is. The "romantic scenes" between the two leads are so unconvincing, so stilted, borderline creepy at times and at best will make you snigger. At worst, it makes you cringe with embarrassment-by-proxy. This is the only one of the Star Wars movies that I could never bring myself to watch a second time. Granted, the romance does not take up all of the screen time. Far from it. And I understand why many people would find the rest of the story, the origin of the stormtroopers etc. more engaging than Phantom Menace. For me, however, the story is just as uninteresting as Phantom Menace, with the added horror of the corny dialogue. The battle scene at the end, rather than looking cool, left me cold. The screen is overcrammed, the stakes are virtually nonexistent since you know the important characters will live and you don't care about the characters anyway. For me, this is the lowest point in the Saga. I understand that proper Star Wars geeks will have to watch it, but everyone else might as well save themselves the pain.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Zzzzzzz... what? Oh, they're still talking... zzzzzzz

[3/10 · 17 December 2015]

To begin with: I don't hate this movie. It did not offend my nerd sensibilities. No, it committed a crime even worse than that. I bored me senseless. And it managed to make its stellar cast look like they couldn't act. Oh... and of course there's Jar Jar. 'Nuff said.

I will start with the pros, because this won't take long. Lucas tried (emphasis on tried) to really give us fleshed out backstory about how the Empire and the Rebellion came into being, about how it all began, where everyone is coming from. Another star is for the excellent choice of actors, the third one for Darth Maul (holy smokes, that is one of the most bad-ass villains ever).

The cons however far outweigh the pros. The film is unmercifully dull. Lucas is sadly completely unable to write realistic dialogue, and apparently insisted on doing it all himself, which results in great actors looking like card-board cut outs and middling actors looking like terrible ones. The film is over CGI-ed to an unpardonable degree (which was often done back in the day, so I can't put that sin as squarely on Lucas' shoulders as I can with the dialogue). Nothing looks real or convincing, you can basically see the actors helplessly trying to appear as if they are interacting with anything. It's lame. The endless trade and taxation discussions are so uninteresting that I ended up actually NOT understanding any more of the backstory or motivations.

Bottom line: I have seen it twice now, once in the theatres, after which I was in denial about how bad it was. And now, years later, expecting it to be bad. I thought this might make the viewing experience less disappointing, but actually, I found it was worse. I will not be watching it again.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Nice movie, J.J. played it safe... a little too safe, perhaps?

[8/10 · 17 December 2015]

Just so you understand where I'm coming from with this review, I am a proper Star Wars geek and have seen all of them, most multiple times. I am, however, not an all-out fangirl.

To begin with: This - by itself - is a really good movie. This, when viewed in context, is perfectly serviceable. It is a story you've seen before (no seriously, you've seen this exact same story before) and yet it is engaging and fun. It's obvious J.J. Abrahms approached this with a lot of respect and love, but maybe a tad too much fear?

The pros: The characters are reasonably well introduced, very likable and engaging, their relationships seem believable. The acting is - for the most part - good or even great (with a few exceptions). There are many nostalgic nods to the OT, which I personally enjoyed, even if it was a little overdone.

The cons: The story is completely predictable from beginning to end. Villain motivation as far as we know it from this movie seems thoroughly inadequate.

What really lifted the movie for me was Harrison Ford. When he appears, the movie goes from OK to good. He gave a great performance, which carried a lot of the story. Daisy Ridley is good as Rey, even though it is slightly unclear where all her language, mechanic and flying skills come from. This, however, might still be explained. The movie commits the occasional sin for plot convenience, but hey, that's nothing we haven't seen before and I was able to overlook it most of the time. Carrie Fisher is clearly phoning it in, but since she doesn't have a huge part in the movie, I could overlook that, too. Boyega is good as Finn, there is the occasional comic relief which worked well most of the time. All in all, I enjoyed myself during the entire run time.

There were, however, a few things I wasn't so sure about. There's been a lot of hate for the villain, Kylo Ren, and I get where people are coming from with that. He starts out as a complete bad-ass and is later revealed to be insecure and emotionally unstable. Also, his face is pretty and babyish. One the one hand, he feels like a watered down Vader. On the other hand, the choice to make the villain young and handsome and conflicted from the start (rather than the end, like Vader) seems like the only bold choice J.J. made. The motivation for the villain seems inadequate now, but I hope we will come to understand it better in future movies. I do hope there's more than we got, otherwise it would be very weak sauce. The in-your-face nazi imagery and the new Emperor reminded me of Voldemort in Harry Potter. And apparently, it has now been put into law that Andy Serkis may only play heavily CGI-ed characters and all heavily CGI-ed characters must be played by Andy Serkis. It's becoming a trope and tropes tend to annoy me.

To summarize: J.J. probably feared the rage of the nerd-herd so much he played it too safe and the movie therefore lacks originality. However, the new characters are engaging, the story works in and of itself and there's promise for more originality in the future. I liked it. It was so over-hyped that it was nigh-on impossible for J.J. to exceed expectations, and I don't feel we should hold that against him. He is a real fan and this is a labour of love, and this is what counts in the end.

One for the Money (2012)

There's nothing wrong with this movie, even if you've read the books

[8/10 · 14 June 2015]

I like this movie. Admittedly, there are no great surprises and if you've read the books you'll pretty much know what happens, but otherwise, people would be outraged that creative license was taken.

I won't got into the details of the plot. Some Reviewer's wrote that's it's impossible to like this movie if you're a fan of the books. And while I accept that this is their view, I can't say that I agree. The plot in the movie generally follows the book, with a few deviations, but None of them dramatic. Some Reviewer's have complained that Big Blue was 70s and not 50s and while this is true, I can't say that it really mattered to me. It was a total boat, that's the main thing.

For the most part, the casting is good. I was skeptical about the main cast, especially when I saw stills of the movie. I thought Heigl was too pretty to be Stephanie and the lead men on the other hand were not handsome enough. But that turned out to be unfounded, once I was watching the movie, they seemed perfect. Some have complained that Ranger smiles too much, but when you read the book and have time to develop the character, that's fine. If you just have a few Scenes in a movie, that would seem creepy. So I think they made a good choice. Anyway. It's not like he's running around with a constant girn on his face. He's suitably subdued and I think Daniel Sunjata did a very good Job of portraying Ranger. Lula and Connie are great, Vinnie is excellent, the only let-down was Grandma Mazur. I had imagined her to be tiny and wiry and she wasn't. She sat wrong with me, but maybe that's just my impression. And even that didn't matter too much to me.

Bottom line, I don't understand why this movie gets so much stick. It's fine. I was going to rate it seven, but am going to rate it eight because the 5-something rating seems ridiculously low to me. Make up your own mind. But take it from a fan of the books: It is NOT impossible to like this movie.

The Musketeers (2014–2016)

The beeb at its best!

[9/10 · 26 February 2014]

It's perhaps a little early to write a review after only five episodes but I'll do it anyway.

I've read Alexandre Dumas's novel and seen some of the other attempts at adapting it to screen, so I think I'm a good judge and so far, I'm enjoying it very much.

When I saw the first episode of this, however, I wasn't convinced. Many other reviewers have already remarked this and it's true, there were some HUGE plausibility issues. It might be true that the justice system back then was bad, but that no one would even raised the point of why a mugger would bother to wear a mask and then tell everybody his name is just plain stupid. What were the writers thinking of? But because the characters are so likable and the production values are fantastic I persevered, and I'm glad I did.

The story is NOT a direct adaptation of Dumas's work. Some reviewers were angry about this but I'm not. It says on the screen "based on the characters of Alexandre Dumas", so its exactly what it says on the tin. Also: a lot of what Dumas wrote wouldn't wash with the audiences of today. In the book Athos spontaneously hangs his wife because he accidentally sees the Fleur de Lys branded into her skin... Back then it might have been different but nowadays that would be considered a bit harsh, I think. Also D'Artagnan is not nearly as likable in the book as he is here, for instance he seduces/lies to some maid to serve his own purposes... so let's all be glad the writers didn't stick with that. The production values are fantastic, the sets are great, the costumes are brilliant and the acting is good, too. Again: The costumes are NOT correct for the period, but I'm willing to argue that this is a good thing. If they were, they'd look ridiculous to us nowadays. The language is not correct for the period either and that's a good thing as well. What does it matter, anyway, it's not like it's supposed to be educational.

The story changes every week, so the viewer gets some closure every time, but there are still some story lines going on in the background that keep the suspension up (Milady for one thing). All in all, Adrian Hodges has cooked up a nice little recipe to keep the viewers happy. There is humour, too, but none of it overdone. And I am SO glad they dispensed with that old "one for all and all for one" malarkey, that really has been done to death. I had a nice old laugh when Aramis said: "Well, D'Artagnan knows the motto of the musketeers: Every man for himself!"

The casting has been very well done. Every Musketeer has his own character to work with and they do it well. Tom Burke portrays the dark, brooding, mysterious and tortured Athos brilliantly and manages to make him likable at the same time. And Luke Pasqualino is very sweet as the hot-headed D'Artagnan. I'm also very pleased with Ryan Gage as Louis, Peter Capaldi as Richelieu and Maimie McCoy as Milady.

So apart from episode one, which I am willing to forgive, the BBC have done what they do best, period drama with a modern twist and breathed some life into an old story . I'll continue to watch it and would advise anybody who watched episode one and stopped there to keep watching. It doesn't get as silly as that again. And the guy who wrote the musical score is a genius, so at least you ears will be pleased.

Merlin (2008–2012)

Cheesy and repetitive, yet incredibly engaging

[6/10 · 9 March 2013]

I have watched every single episode of this show, but was driven to distraction and ready to give up on it sometimes. It's really not well made, badly written, but the characters are engaging and the actors seem to have such fun with it that I had to keep watching.

To say the storyline is repetitive and that there is little to no character development is an understatement. The first couple of seasons the main characters blunder from one episode to the next, making stupid decisions, learn a painful lesson and then forget all about it and make the same mistakes over and over again. And yet they're such nice people that you begin to really like them and care about them. But it's infuriating to watch because you keep thinking "he's done that three times now, why does he expect a different result this time around? Is he mentally challenged?" The only character who undergoes a change is Morgana, and that isn't gradual, it's just one episode she's good, then she disappears for one episode, comes back the one after that and is totally evil and becomes the only problem that Arthur and Merlin ever have from then on. I know the show is for kids, but even a four year old would ask: "Mummy, why does Morgana keep attacking Camelot again and again even though she always fails and no one wants her there? Doesn't she get bored?" Anyways, I'm ranting and I didn't mean to.

The acting isn't exactly top drawer either. Katie McGrath is the worst. Her evil grin is so overdone it's almost comical. The only one who develops any skills over time is Colin Morgan. In the first two seasons he's kinda nondescript like the rest of them but in season five he finally comes good. That kid could go far. Having said that I still like all of them. I don't know why, I just do.

Also the inaccuracies are kinda jarring. To make Guenevere a black servant girl may be very PC but it's just SO wrong, and if you think that kids watch this and perhaps think that this is in any way possible... ugh, makes you shudder. The sets are too clean, the clothing too colourful but I don't mind that. I don't even mind the modern lingo or the bromance, it's supposed to be unchallenging entertainment after all. But portraying Gwen the way they did was a bad call I believe.

Reading my review now, I don't really have anything positive to say about the whole thing but I still liked it and watched all of it. Cheesy as it was, the writers at least managed to create engaging characters and make you care about them. That's the only thing that kept me watching but it was enough.

Camelot (2011)

Nice try, but just doesn't cut the mustard

[2/10 · 9 March 2013]

I'm a total sucker for arthurian mythology and an even worse sucker for historical movies, so I was sure I was going to like this. But I didn't. Struggled through three and a half episodes and then gave up in frustration. So this review is based on those and therefore incomplete, maybe something thoroughly amazing happened later on and I missed it, but I somehow doubt that very much.

I happen to know my way around the many tales of Arthur and his knights very well, so I'm aware that there are almost as many versions as there are authors. I believe I'm able to judge whether the scriptwriters did their job properly and they just haven't. Not only do they appear to have read none of the many stories that exist, but they just haven't bothered with a plot at all. The story is a very weak sauce, a fight over a throne and who's shagging who... booooooring. There is no noticeable relation to any arthurian story, but they've added stuff that definitely wasn't in any of them. Like Guenevere marrying Leontes. Why, it just makes no kind of sense, except to add some cheap drama...

Also the acting isn't up to much. Joseph Fiennes is usually so good but his Merlin (which I loved to start off with, I thought the younger, harder, faster version of the wizard would be great) is crap. For one thing he sounds as if he has bitten his tongue or had a stroke. I don't know if he's trying to put on some kind of accent and failing, but his pronunciation is weird. Also, he's not a wizard. Or he is a wizard but "chooses" not to use magic. When he said this I thought to myself "Too cheap for CGI, were we?" In the end, he just stands around waffling about destiny but other than that doing nothing at all...

And everything, absolutely everything about Arthur is wrong. Jamie Bower looks and acts like he was plucked from your common or garden boy band of the 90s. And even if Arthur's character has been made rather more likable and chivalrous over the years than he was in the early stories, he never was what he is here: An absolute tit. A spoiled, intensely selfish, whiny teenager who only thinks with his penis...

Eva Green's Morgan I liked, but she overdoes it a bit. However, compared to the other characters she does superbly well.

Also, there's the historical inaccuracies. The middle ages were a rough and tumble time but women did not run around with next to nothing on. Also, there is a scene where Morgan wanders through her hall at lunchtime (some people are eating and it's light outside) and there's two people sitting around on each other who are having sex in plain sight. That would NEVER have happened. I also doubt that a well brought up virgin like Guenevere would just boink around the way she does here. There is tons of gratuitous nudity and sex. Not that I'm a prude, but IMO using tits and sex to sell your product is a cheap ruse.

However, sets, cinematography and soundtrack work for me... but that doesn't save this mess. All in all, I have better things to do than watch a load of unlikeable characters do boring things...

Mansfield Park (2007 TV Movie)

Quite simply dreadful!

[1/10 · 9 March 2013]

This movie is bad on so many levels...

Whoever had the idea of casting Billie Piper as Fanny Price should take a long hard look at their choice of career. Don't get me wrong, I loved Billy in Dr Who and generally think she's a lovely gal... but Fanny Price she is not. She's too lively and her acting is just not subtle enough for the meek and almost lacklustre character of Fanny. Neither was I impressed by any of the other actors, except for the lady who plays Mary Crawford. She's superb. Another thing I found really irritating: Julia is always described as the "less handsome" of the Bertram sister and yet they use a semi-decent but rather mousy-looking actress to play Maria and an absolute BEAUTY for Julia. It's simply ridiculous to see the two next to one another and then have the mouse described as a beauty... a ridiculous thing to criticise I suppose but it just annoyed me so much. They could have just swapped them around, neither of the characters requires that much acting prowess after all...

Not only is the main character wrong but also the way her styling is done. Her hair is blatantly obviously bleached, always unkempt and never covered with headgear (which was unthinkable in those days). The visual effect of this is jarring.

The story isn't up to much either. They hurry through it at a ridiculous pace, but hey: It's two hour movie, so I guess that's unavoidable. Mrs Norris's character however is changed to an unpardonable degree. Rather than the stingy, horrible, snobbish and cruel woman of the book (whom I have always pictured as thin and scrawny) you get an aggressive bully. Wrong. Also, Lady Bertram isn't nearly vacant enough. In the end, when Fanny and Edmund run out into the park to "talk" she actually is aware of what's happening. Lady Bertram and aware... anyone who has read the book will know how wrong that is.

Having said that, I have to admit that MP is my least favourite of all the Austen novels. I find Edmund a very unengaging character, and all the people who describe the ending in this movie as rushed... it's pretty rushed in the book as well. Endless pages and pages of Fanny hankering after Edmund just because he was the only one who was ever kind to her, he never giving her a thought, then his disappointment with Mary and then he proposes to Fanny. If you consider that, the ending in this movie isn't that rushed at all. Nevertheless, since they didn't slavishly stick to the story anywhere else, I didn't see why they should suddenly start there, so see no reason to forgive the hurried ending, which is almost comical in its haste...

All in all: inaccurate, carelessly acted and badly styled. Spare yourselves the bother.

Mansfield Park (1983)

Best adaptation of MP out there, still not brilliant

[5/10 · 7 March 2013]

I've seen all adaptations of Mansfield Park and in my opinion this is the best, although it leaves a lot to be desired.

The 1999 version by Patricia Rozema most certainly is a better movie, but it's only loosely based on MP, so it doesn't really count in my book. And then there's the 2007 version which is just crap...

I'll just comment on a few bullet points briefly

Production values: Not great. The colours appear to have been washed at too hot a setting and the sound is bad at times, especially in outdoor scenes. Costumes and wigs are so atrocious they provide the occasional comic relief.

Acting: Varies. Fanny (Sylvestra LeTouzel) is overdone, as is Lady Bertram (Angela Pleasance). Mary Crawford (Jackie Smith-Wood) is very good. So is Edmund (Nick Farrell), but it bothered me that he is so very unattractive. Henry Crawford' s (Robert Burbage) acting is semi-decent, but unfortunately he also is a poor choice to play a romantic hero. He wears the worst wig in the universe and his teeth stick out quite a bit, which makes him too comical for Henry. I'm sorry if this sounds shallow. I'm not saying that all romantic heroes need to be drop-dead gorgeous (because neither Henry nor Edmund are described so in the book) but why didn't they powder Nick's luridly red face occasionally? They just make him look like an alcoholic. Bothered me every time he had a scene.

Story: Well done, sticks to the novel like glue, which is what a literary adaptation should do.

Resumee: I've watched this series twice now and it did grow on me slightly, however the terrible wigs and poor casting decisions for the romantic heroes (both good actors but just wrong for their parts) and the heroine spoil what could have been a good attempt. But as it is, I am still waiting for a really good adaptation of Mansfield Park.

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

Poor literary adaptation... GREAT movie!

[10/10 · 18 July 2012]

A few joke spoilers in here! Not much of the plot given away…

I have read several reviews here that scandalize this movie for the great liberties taken with the source material. It's all true, of course. But I think what some people fail to appreciate is that the approach to "literary adaptations" and movies in general was very different in 1940. It was a very distressing time. There was a war going on, people were poor and frightened and wanted unchallenging entertainment, romance and comedy. Apart from the war, historical accuracy and closeness to the original were generally less important back then than they are now. So I don't think you can judge the movie by todays' standards. If you do, it's your own fault for missing the point. If you don't but still don't like it, that's another matter. Austen purists would probably not enjoy it much.

Having said that, I do not think that the many departures from the original really injure Austens intentions that often (I've read the book many times, loved it and understood it, just to make that plain). Many of my favourite lines from the novel are in the script, produced more or less verbatim but given a more comical twist… like Lizzy aping Darcy's pompous comment "I'm in no mood to give consequence to the lower classes at play"… hilarious! You can tell that Aldous Huxley was involved in writing the screenplay. It is – and I hate to say this, because I love Austen – far funnier than the book. Austens book doesn't lack humour, but it is subtle and intelligent. There is often a serious note to the humour. When Lizzy teases Darcy in the book, he completely fails to respond and she takes this as proof of his arrogance. Not so here, the humour is very blatant.

Where the screenplay DOES change Austens intentions, I think you have to blame the shortness of the movie (no movie could have done the book justice in that time, it's just a blank impossibility) and the time at which it was made. Darcy is too nice. Faaar too nice. But Lawrence Olivier is at his most charming (besides being one of the most gorgeous-looking men ever to walk the earth, if you ignore the two pounds of brilliantine in his hair). Greer Garsons Lizzy is intelligent, cheeky, full of humour and pricelessly amusing. Mrs Bennet is fantastically funny and Lady Catherine made me howl with laughter. "Give the chickens hot food, Mrs Collins. If they still don't lay, it means they are incorrigible. They must be killed and boiled, killed and boiled!"

Of course the costumes are completely wrong, too. I think people just preferred Victorian-derived big fluffy affairs to regency costume back then, or MGM just had some lying around from some other movie and were too cheap to make new ones. I'm not sure. I don't much care for changes like that, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. Also, Lady Catherine's role as involuntary matchmaker is changed. Here she does it deliberately, which is completely wrong. But on the whole, I found it believable enough. The love story between Jane and Bingley is very very cute (perhaps a bit too cute, some reviewer used the expression "sugar coating" and I find it applies very well… however I don't agree with "little bite") In short: This movie falls short as a literary adaptation. If you judge it as one, it's one of the least faithful of all (together with the 2005 version which cannot boast any of the excuses I made for this movie earlier).

As a movie, however, it's a masterpiece.

If you're not a purist or haven't read the book, don't deprive yourself of the pleasure of enjoying this gem of a comedy.

If you are an Austen purist (and there' s nothing wrong with that) it will doubtlessly annoy you… so steer clear.

Jane Eyre (1983)

The best version out there... definitive!

[10/10 · 12 July 2012]

This adaptation is generally thought to be one of the very best and I can only say I agree wholeheartedly. It's the definitive version in my book and no adaptation made before or after can touch it.

The advantage of the miniseries is (obviously) that it can do the book full justice, which shorter versions just can't. In this case, I think they did splendidly.

Timothy Dalton is a great Rochester, even if his acting goes slightly bipolar in one or two scenes (I'm thinking of the post-marriage scene where he alternates between cooing over Jane and cursing her at the top of his voice within seconds…). He starts slightly too gruff but he soon gets it right. Anyway, most Rochesters start out a bit gruffer than they should, so I believe this to be a directing mistake… Timothy Dalton is able to express so much emotion with his face and yet you couldn't really tell which muscles are doing it, which is the hallmark of an excellent actor (I think anyway). One can really feel he is a tortured soul but he still has a sense of humour and conveys great depth of feeling after he falls for Jane. Other reviewers have pointed out that he's too handsome (which is true, but do we really mind, ladies?) and too young (which isn't true, he was 36 when they shot this, which makes him just right).

I also like Zelah Clarke as Jane. Her acting scope is slightly more limited than Tims but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing when playing Jane Eyre. Jane is passionate but also very proper. However when Rochester starts to draw her out she manages to convey both the humour that Jane and Rochester share and the painful confusion Jane feels when he starts toying with her. Also, she is suitably minuscule, if a bit old for 18-year old Jane…

The rest of the cast is also excellent. Adele is suitably vain, silly and yet likable, Mrs Fairfax is just as I imagined her in the book and especially with St John Rivers they chose the actor brilliantly. He is wonderfully haughty, pious, cold and unlikeable… Of course the production values are less than top notch. I do not mind this personally but other reviewers have pointed it out and they're right. The costumes are superbly done however (probably because you can re-use those over and over in any Victorian drama, so they did them properly once so they would keep a while).

The best thing however about this story is the dialog and storytelling. Jane's childhood is depicted in all its excruciating oppressiveness and you get to feel all her pain and her development into a passionate but very religious and strong woman is completely believable. The relationship and growing attraction between Jane and Rochester is depicted very accurately and carefully (which is something that other adaptations often made complete hashes of by not allowing the necessary time for it). The dialog is clean, produced more or less verbatim in many scenes, but they make it work as a movie nonetheless. And also Jane's flight from Thornfield is developed in detail, which shows how much she is willing to suffer to do what she thinks is right and how she manages never to lose her dignity. I think these latter points are what sets this version apart from almost all other adaptations and makes it such a masterpiece.

A must-see for all Jane Eyre fans!

Jane Eyre (1973)

Very fine

[8/10 · 8 May 2012]

This is a very good adaptation of Charlotte Brontes timeless classic. Even though it doesn't really work as a movie, because the dialog in the book is reproduced more or less verbatim, which is great to read but different when you watch. However, it doesn't really have any movie pretensions, so I will not judge it as a movie.

This is a very fine production and I like it very much. The dialog is kept very clean (by which I mean not mutilated or modernized) and all of the humour that Rochester and Jane share is kept in, which is something that most other adaptations tend to lose somehow. The production values aren't great, but I did not mind that too much. However, the difference in picture quality between indoor and outdoor scenes is noticeable. A couple of things however are not so good. Jane narrates the story throughout, which I usually think is very helpful for people who are unfamiliar with the book. However, Janes running commentary during scenes where she speaks is distracting at times and not really helpful at all. It's not necessary to narrate "I smiled" while you can see her smiling on screen. Also, I found it quite weird that – since Jane is supposed to be tiny – Michael Jayston who plays Rochester is just an inch or so taller than Sorcha Cusack who plays Jane… I just could not get used to that, it bothered me every time they had a scene together. Also the makeup department went rather heavy on the eyeliner. With Ms Cusack it doesn't matter so much, but on Michael Jayston it just looks ridiculous.

Michael Jayston is a brilliant Rochester. The age is right and he can work wonders with his face to express emotions. I also like Sorcha Cusack, she is suitably plain, though the acting she does is limited (however, that might be due to the running commentary). Some reviewers have commented that the actors lack chemistry and I can see what they mean. It's very subtle but I thought there was some, just enough to support the story nicely. Another thing that was wrong though was St. John Rivers. He is supposed to be 30 in the book, however the actor looks at least 45… but he is brilliantly pious and unlikeable, just as he should be. Everything else however is just right and very true to the novel which I always approve of. All in all, I enjoyed this version very much and will watch it again but I will give slight deductions for the distracting commentary and the eyeliner

Jane Eyre (1943)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 5 May 2012]

What really surprised me about this adaptation is that - although it is the shortest ever made (running time of 90 minutes which is very very little for a book like Jane Eyre) - it still works. Unsurprisingly it falls short in many respects. A lot of the story is cut and characters are changed or left out completely (for instance St. John Rivers and his sisters, there is a Dr. Rivers included instead but he is the kindly physician who attends the girls at Lowood and has nothing whatever to do with the haughty and intensely unlikeable St. John from the book). However they cleverly condense the story and always give the right background by letting Jane narrate it throughout, just like it is done in the book. Of course, some things are intensely wrong. Joan Fontaine is a beautiful woman, which is wrong for Jane. But I think you have to remember that the 40s were a different time and the approach to literary adaptations was different so you shouldn't judge it by todays standards. All movie stars were attractive (and the couple who weren't were constantly cast as either Dracula or Frankenstein). Orson Welles also looks wrong for Rochester (his face is too babyishly round) but they still pull it off. Welles can work wonders with his eyebrows and forehead and the cunning use of spooky shadows on his face (while Fontaines face is always well lit, I found this contrast quite enjoyable to watch) manages to convey a suitably grim impression of Rochester. I like Welles' Rochester a lot but occasionally his articulation falls a bit short. Some of his lines are hard to make out because he slurs them so badly but it doesn't happen that often so it's OK. Joan Fontaine gives Jane a sightly weaker character than is entirely appropriate (constant curtseying and more weeping than is in the book) and yet she conveys all her passion and some of her rigid strength. I also liked that this movie focuses most of it's screen time on what's important, which is Jane and Rochester. They devote precisely enough time on Janes childhood to give the right impression about its oppressiveness but no so much as to steal time away from the rest of the movie. The part after Jane runs away from Thornfield is just skimmed over which is a shame, but since they only had 90 minutes I'm perfectly willing to cut them some slack there. I'd much rather do without that than having too little screen time given to the development of the relationship between Jane and Rochester. This however is very carefully done. Welles smoulders and stares and I'm absolutely amazed at how sexy all that handshaking is even without all the "standing too close and almost kissing" that all adaptations of the 2000s deemed necessary. The only scene between the two that was ruined was the proposal scene. Jane believes Rochester too quickly and Welles supposedly passionate line "Say it Jane, say it" comes out as just a tad hurried and almost comical. But the rest is superb, so I didn't mind too much. I can sincerely recommend this movie, I know it falls short as a literary adaptation but I can honestly say it works. And I'm always surprised how movie-makers in the 40s seemed to be able to make much better use of limited screen time than the movie-makers of today.

Jane Eyre (2006)

deeply flawed yet brilliant

[8/10 · 5 May 2012]

This adaptation of Jane Eyre is undeniably a controversial one. Many reviewers have pointed out the many shortcomings which I will not got into in much detail here since other reviewers have already done so. They are (in a nutshell):

• Ruth Wilson looks wrong for the part: She does - They changed vital parts of the story and included crappy modern scenes like the Ouija Board and the bedroom scene: They did - They modernised some of the language and therefore ruined parts of the dialog: True

However (and it's a big however) they got one part of the script right, and luckily for them, it's the most important part: The very careful fleshing out of the relationship between Jane and Rochester. Another thing they got perfectly right: The lead actors. Yes, Ruth Wilson is too tall and too fleshy to play Jane (by no means fat but Jane is supposed to be tiny and thin as a rake and Ruth is just a normal girl). But she has enormous acting skills and gets Janes character to a tee. And I cannot tell you how brilliant Toby Stephens is. He looks right for Rochester I think, he even has the oft-mentioned "shaggy black mane". Others have claimed he's too attractive but I think he's just right. He isn't ugly for sure but he has the sort of face which seems unattractive at first sight and then starts to grow on you until you find it looks attractive after all. Which is EXACTLY what Rochesters visage is supposed to do. I also agree that his Rochester is a bit too nice. But on the other hand, I much prefer this to getting a too rude Rochester that leaves you at a loss to understand why Jane would like him. And Wilson and Stephens are one of the few pairs (together with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton) who get the very very subtle humour that the two characters share right. And many of the other adaptations shorten the end to an unpardonable degree (the worst being the latest adaptation which allows 1 minute for the last meeting of Jane and Rochester). Not so this one, the ending is intensely romantic and touching. As it should. Many people have a favourite line from the book and I'm afraid to say mine is: "Am I hideous, Jane?" – "Very, sir. You always were you know." I don't like to do without that and they kept it in… So basically this is a flawed adaptation that is salvaged by two fantastic leads and the large amount of screen time that they are allowed together. Given that I don't mind (well I do mind but not too much) that Rochester didn't play the Gypsy woman himself (a thing I've always found to be a credibility stretch even in the book) or the unnecessary amount of sexing up which culminates in the intensely sexy but completely wrong bedroom scene… I'm willing to forgive all these faults because they got the most important thing right. They could have kept closer to the book and it would have all amounted to nothing if the romance leaves you feeling flat and cold. But luckily, that was the one mistake they avoided making.

Jane Eyre (1997 TV Movie)

Don't bother

[2/10 · 5 May 2012]

This is the first Jane Eyre adaptation I could not bring myself to finish watching (and I've seen most of them). It's a very short adaptation, so I didn't expect much, but on the whole, I thought it was decently scripted if a little mutilated. They cleverly employed Jane as narrator to comment on things so they could condense the story without someone not familiar with the book missing vital information (an idea they nicked from the 1944 adaptation with Orson Welles). What ruined the whole thing for me was Ciaran Hinds godawful Rochester. I have absolutely no clue what went wrong there because I know he would have been capable of doing well (I say him in Persuasion and his Captain Wentworth kept me at constant smoulder alert so it can't have been lack of acting skill). Either he was really really angry to be in this film or the direction was bad. Whatever the reason, his Rochester is rude, belligerent and cannot speak without starting to yell at some point. It irritated me so badly I just couldn't finish watching the movie so I switched it off after three quarters (but getting that far even was torture) I'm not a fan of Samantha Mortons Jane either, she is too rude as well, and in the situations were she isn't rude she just stares blankly into the distance. And her make up is awful, I know Jane is supposed to be pale but her looks are so pasty she looks like she had some dodgy fish for dinner and might throw up any second. And what's with that "pressing-gawping-fish-mouth-to-face" excuse for a passionate kiss??? I laughed out loud and that is not what's supposed to happen to the viewer during the proposal scene. Another reviewer stated Hinds made a terrible Rochester but not as bad as William Hurts. Though I agree that William Hurts Rochester is not great I much prefer his rendition of Rochester to this unendurable tripe.

Jane Eyre (2011)

Sigh...

[4/10 · 3 May 2012]

I had been looking forward to seeing this adaptation for ages. I missed it when it was in the theatres and then had to wait for months and months before it came out on DVD. I love the book and I ADORE Michael Fassbender and was absolutely confident he'd be the ultimate Rochester and the movie a delight. I so desperately wanted to love this that I would have forgiven a lot. I've just finished watching it and I'm gutted.

The movie starts after Jane has run away from Thornfield and the story till then is told in flashbacks, which I don't care for but they kind of pulled it off. It was distracting but not my major complaint. My major complaint is the total lack of development in the relationship between the two leads (which kind of is the do or die of any romance, isn't it?). Jane and Rochester don't get any time to fall in love, they maybe have five scenes together before they get engaged. Fassbenders Rochester is mostly gruff and rude to begin with and there is no earthly reason why Jane should like him. But I was willing to wait and confident they would still develop the chemistry. But then suddenly the fire scene happens and Rochester goes all sexy and tries to kiss Jane. WTF? It was completely illogical because nothing had happened before that scene to indicate there were feelings between the two and then suddenly they pile on the sexual tension? It felt extremely forced. Rochester hadn't so much as smiled at Jane before…

I do not blame either Fassbender or Wasikowska for this. They are not my favourite Jane and Rochester but they do a very decent job. The after-wedding scene where Rochester begs Jane to run away with him proved to me that the two actors were capable of developing brilliant chemistry and show loads of emotion. They were let down by a bad script and bad directing. The script isn't awful but it's second rate. A lot of key scenes are missing and some are ruined. The lovely scene where Jane leaves the party and Rochester runs after her and asks her to stay for instance. At the critical moment when he approaches her with a tender look and says "You are depressed" and the viewer thinks "Yes, finally a bit of chemistry" Mrs Fairfax barges in to tell Rochester that Mason has come and ruins the scene. Unpardonable in my book. Of course, a lot of the story had to be cropped to fit the two hour schedule but the movie suffers for it. But even with this script I believe if the director had had the sense to allow Jane and Rochester a couple more scenes or allow Fassbender to smile once or twice, he might have saved it. But he didn't. The worst thing however is the ending. Jane and Rochester meet after months apart, she takes his hand, says she will stay with him, the viewer sighs and goes "Aaawww" and then the credits start appearing. WHAT?!?!?! I had been waiting for this moment for the entire movie and they give it all of 30 seconds?!?!?! And making Rochester look like a complete ogre was uncalled for I think, slightly dishevelled would have done...

I give this movie four courtesy stars for good actors, decent cinematography and a nice try. But on the whole I would have been just as happy if I'd never seen it. Probably happier. If you absolutely must: Rent or borrow, don't buy!

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

No, no, no!

[1/10 · 25 February 2012]

I didn't really expect that much when I popped this into my DVD player, but I was still disappointed. There is so much wrong with this movie it's difficult to decide where to begin.

Firstly, the script is abysmal. I know they had to cut stuff, but why did they have to mutilate Austens' beautiful language and perfect story? Here, Longbourn House is not the house of a gentleman but more or less a barn and the pig wandering through the kitchen gonads a-dangling is apparently the scriptwriters' idea of compensating the viewer for leaving out all of Austens' humour. Also, the characters are butchered almost beyond recognition. Elizabeth is portrayed as rather silly and quite aggressive at times rather than prejudiced but sensible. If you were looking forward to seeing any of the wonderfully crafted tongue-in-cheek banter Lizzy directs at Darcy in the book, you will look in vain. Darcy himself is portrayed as a man who conveys the impression of arrogance for a very short while but then becomes rather soppy. The Bennet girls are portrayed as fools who run around the house screeching like banshees. I also cannot forgive how the scriptwriter ruined the first proposal scene. For starters, Darcy and Elizabeth are standing in the pouring rain. How very modern and unnecessary! Then Darcy makes a surprisingly obsequious declaration (while the actor wears the facial expression of a frightened dog), Elizabeth turns him down and ensuing quarrel almost leads to yelling which is very unlikely for gentlefolk of that time in general and NOT what's in the book. Then, Darcy leans towards Elizabeth as if to kiss her. And she – who claimed to hate him 10 seconds earlier – doesn't recoil from him but rather gives him a look that seems to say "are you as turned on as I am right now?". What were they thinking?!!! I didn't like the interpretation of Bingley either, he is portrayed as completely spineless and the actor doesn't look much older than 18. At least Bingleys' proposal scene was alright. But Darcy and Elizabeth have no such luck, even the second proposal was written to smithereens. Darcy and Lizzy both wander through a field in the morning because they can't sleep. Luckily, they are both up at exactly the same hour and meet (yeah right) and are both half undressed because – naturally - in the regency era people often went out in their pyjamas. They declare their love while the sun is rising and Darcys' perfectly cringeworthy "I love, I love, I love you"s which are set off by the tacky moodlighting are enough to make anyone puke.

Also, though I'm no expert, some of the historical inaccuracies are just too blatant to pass unnoticed. There are almost no bonnets and gloves for three quarters of the movie, then they seemed to remember "Oh hang on, I think women wore bonnets back then". So they put in a couple of scenes where nearly everyone wears a bonnet but then they seemed to think "Oh what the hell" and the bonnets disappear again. The dance where the Bennets and Bingleys first meet is not the classy amusement the gentility of the period would have indulged in. Instead they staged a sort of peasant folk-dance in another of the many barns used in this movie. And at some point Miss Bingley wears a gown with straps instead of sleeves. Come on! I have already mentioned how Darcy and Elizabeth wander through the fields in their pyjamas - unlikely. When Jane is sick at Netherfield, there is a scene where Bingley just walks into her bedroom. And Darcys' letter of defence after the first proposal is delivered by him personally in the middle of the night to Lizzies' bedroom. As if! It would have been so simple to avoid these mistakes. So why didn't they? It almost seems like they weren't bothered.

To add insult to injury, some of the casting is off. In fairness, some of the actors' abilities were probably hampered by the abominable script, but judging by this movie alone it's quite hard to find anything to like. Matthew Mcfadyen is insipid as Darcy. Apart from the fact he isn't handsome enough and that he wears his hair mullet style, he seems to have only two expressions at his disposal. Arrogance and soppiness. Keira Knightly does slightly better, she's got three. Boredom, anger, and a very toothy girn. Donald Sutherland, brilliant actor that he is, is simply wrong as Mr Bennet. When Lizzy tells him she loves Darcy, he actually cries. It's so wrong it hurts. The girl who plays Lydia needs acting school. She uses very chichi hand gestures and her screeching gives the viewer tinnitus. I was pleased to find, however, that Caroline Bingley is portrayed as good-looking. She is so in the book and earlier film versions tended to use absolute scarecrows to portray her. Kelly Riley does a decent job. I was also pleased with Tom Hollander as Mr Collins and the formidable Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. The brief appearance of Rupert Friend as Wickham is quite funny, but for the wrong reasons. Someone described him as looking like Legolas and that is precisely what I thought when I saw him in this. It's the only time I laughed while watching this film.

To end on a more cheerful note, the camera-work is good and the scenery gorgeous. Especially when Lizzy is on tour with the Gardiners there are a couple of achingly beautiful landscape shots. But that is all that can be said in favour of this movie and it isn't enough.

To cut a long story short, I absolutely hated it. Although I'm not an Austen purist this left me completely cold. I've seen all the filmed versions of P&P and this is the worst. By far.

Screen Two: Northanger Abbey (1987) Season 3, Episode 7

why oh why...

[1/10 · 23 February 2012]

... did they bother making this?

My advice is: steer clear!

The film cuts a lot of scenes from the book - which is understandable for a movie - but instead of keeping some of the better ones from the book they decided to add some needless (and crap) ones of their own devising.

The casting is awful - excepting perhaps the actress who plays Elinor Tilney. All the characters are painfully overdone and you spend your time being irritated with the actors. Catherine is beady eyed and silly, Henry is neither young nor dashing and is a bit on the horny side for my liking, General Tilney is portrayed as a dirty old man, John Thorpe is revolting (I know he's supposed to be, but not THAT much. The actor overdoes it so badly you expect him to start drooling over Catherine any second. At one point he actually makes a "phwoarrr" noise... PLEASE!) and Isabella's attempts at acting flirty are so embarrassingly bad it makes you laugh.

The costumes are off (what's with the bright red lipstick what were they thinking?), the soundtrack is wrong and all of Austens satire is lost.

The camera-work can be described as dodgy at best and the sound recordists absolutely did not know what they were doing...

All in all: the worst Austen adaptation in being (and I have seen the latest Mansfield Park so that's saying some...)