Movie Review: In the Heart of the Sea

In the Heart of the Sea

Village Roadshow Pictures

122 mins.

Released: December 11, 2015

Rated: PG-13

In the Heart of the Sea is a movie production of the book by the same name by Nathaniel Philbrick. I was super excited to see this film as I very much enjoyed the book and there is never anything wrong with looking at Chris Hemsworth for two hours! However, I was a little concerned with how well he would be able to pull of some sort of acting that didn’t rely on just his good looks to get by. I was also excited to see it on the big screen which would make the experience more powerful and the gigantic nature of the whale.

For those of you that don’t know, In the Heart of the Sea follows the story of the Whaleship Essex and the fate of the men after their ship was struck by a whale. There were moments that worked for me and some of those that didn’t. I really enjoyed how the story was framed, which wasn’t something that was in the book; a young Herman Melville has sought out Thomas Nickerson, one of the survivors of the wreck, and wants him to tell his story. The actual story of the wreck plays out as Nickerson retells it, and there are a few times throughout when it cuts back to the “present” day which keeps you connected to both stories. I thought the film well captured the crucial parts of the tale and did a good job of keeping the story forward moving. Additionally, the setting of Nantucket looked amazingly real. We had just been there a couple months before and honestly the skyline, while aged, looked a lot like the actual houses and buildings that remain there today, to include what is now the Nantucket Whaling Museum. Really, I thought everything looked beautiful, the colors, the atmosphere, etc.

However, there were some parts that I felt were unnecessarily overdramatized. So, in the film, the whale appears to be following the sailors throughout their plight after the initial incident. Having read the book, I knew this wasn’t what happened, but beyond that it seemed ridiculous that an animal would follow these men slowly across the space of the whole ocean just to continue to harass them after the initial incident was over. I got that it was for the drama and maybe was more psychological than reality, but it killed that for me. The performances were good, nothing spectacular or that expressly stands out either way.

Ultimately, I think this film suffered some because of the timing of the theatrical release, but I would watch it again for sure.

As I have shared the trailer for the movie before, I’m going to share a series of clips from the film to give you a better feel for it.

As a side note, if you are interested in reading a firsthand account of the sinking, there is Beneath the Heart of the Sea by Owen Chase (who was portrayed by Chris Hemsworth).

 

 


Copyright © 2016 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Farewell, My Queen

Farewell, My Queen

GMT Productions

100 mins.

USA Release: July 13, 2012

Rated: R

Much like a book, I learned from this film that you should not judge a film by its poster, because this one threw me far off. The cover shows Queen Marie Antoinette and her dear friend, the Duchesse de Polignac parting ways before the French royal family fled the palace. Paired with the title, Farewell, My Queen, you would assume this film is about the relationship between the two; but that is not the case. Polignac only comes and goes in a couple small scenes and thus the film poster overstates her importance to the film.

This film is told from the perspective of Agathe-Sidonie who is employed as a reader to the Queen. It follows her as she moves in and out of the realms of servant and royalty giving the viewer glimpses of both worlds at this time of upheaval – which was a useful storytelling device. We are lea to believe that Agathe-Sidonie possibly thinks herself in love with – or at least infatuated with – the Queen, but I never really believed it. I didn’t feel that we got to know her as well as we should have given that she was the point of view character. Diane Kruger plays Marie Antoinette beautifully, sometimes sedate and sometimes a little bit stirred, but a portrayal that felt based in reality rather than caricature, as many portrayals of her are.

The film covers a very short time period, merely days, the height of the turmoil roiling outside the palace just prior to the storming of the Bastille through the end of the royal family. Being insulated mostly within the court, you don’t feel the rising panic until it is too late. What the film does do well is to illustrate just how different the perspective of the court was from what was actually occurring in the city.

This was a beautiful and atmospheric film, which felt even more so for being in the French language. It required a lot of concentration to follow the language and storyline combined, but it was a pleasant film.

Normally I would post a trailer, but I think that it doesn’t represent the film well, so instead I am posting this scene, that was much more true to the tone of the story:

 

 


Copyright © 2016 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Marie Antoinette (2006)

Marie Antoinette
Columbia Pictures Corporation
123 mins.
October 20, 2006
Rated: PG-13
★★★☆☆

This was my second time watching this film and the experience was much different this time than the first. The first time I watched it I was viewing it for a women’s art class focusing on the direction choices of Sofia Coppola. I remember being very unhappy with the film and if I wasn’t picking it up again to watch as a part of my Caught on Tape series for Marie Antoinette it would have been a one-time only viewing. However, I am kind of glad that I watched it a second time, I have a new appreciation for it, even if I still don’t love it.

There were some elements that I liked. I was happy to see that they actually included the crossing of the border scene from Austria to France. It was an important scene, but I thought that it was a little underwhelming. I did love the scenes (especially the first one) where Marie is being dressed by her ladies – it showed just how ridiculous some of the French customs were. There were also some great artistic elements that were included in this film such as the presentation of the baby being painted out to allude to its loss, the Madame Deficit series of paintings, and the last shot of the damaged palace. I thought these were well utilized to represent some greater elements that were more or less left out of the film.

And that brings me into what I mostly dislike about the film. I felt that this film left out a lot of references to the greater goings on in France at that time. There is very little indication of the revolts and unrest for the populace of France. This was possibly to show the insulated nature of the court of Versailles, but it lost something for the audience – the impact of the ending, it just felt out of place. I also was not a huge fan of the modern music selections chosen for this film.

With regard to the representations of the characters, I thought that this was an okay representation of Marie Antoinette. She was a little bored, a little frivolous, and a little bit of a woman who stood her ground; however, I didn’t feel that Kristin Dunst was up to the challenge of this complex woman. I was satisfied with Jason Schwartzman’s portrayal of King Louis XVI – this was my favorite representation across the 3 films I have seen. He was equal mix of a little bit awkward, but still a somewhat commanding presence.

Overall, the film was a little boring, but it wasn’t nearly as painful as the first time I watched it.

Check out this trailer:

 
 

Copyright © 2016 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: The Affair of the Necklace

The Affair of the NecklaceAlcon Entertainment
118 mins.
December 7, 2001
Rated: R
★★★☆☆

The Affair of the Necklace was a critical event toward the downfall of Marie Antoinette and it was a pretty deceitful and full-bodied scandal, so I was very excited to see how it played out on the screen. I’m not the biggest fan of Hilary Swank, which put this not quite on the top of my watch list, but I pushed past that and enjoyed this film for what it was.

The film gives a basis for why Jeanne de Valois sought out Marie Antoinette and how she happened to become involved in the great scheme. It was nice to have a backstory as I had not heard of one before and it fleshed out the character of Jeanne, although I’m not sure if it is historically accurate or not. I have always found myself on the side of the Queen in this scandal, but this at least made me feel for the character and why she was doing what she was (again, I don’t think her reasons here are historically accurate). I think the way that the film put together the whole Affair was very well done. All of the intrigues felt compelling and interesting; I really enjoyed it. This film is focused primarily on this one event and does not much go into the events transpiring outside the castle walls – so the inclusion of the scene beheading Marie Antoinette felt out of place here as there was no historical context provided.

Hilary Swank was successful in the role of Jeanne mostly because not too much was expected of her here. She basically walked around in a pretty dress and schemed – nothing too difficult. Oh there is one tasteful sex scene – but that was actually pretty comical!  I wasn't a huge fan of the portrayal of Marie Antoinette here - she felt very stoic and distant.

Overall, the film was a fun presentation of a very intriguing event – without being too heavy and not expecting too much.  Not really sure why this is rated R though... 

Check out this trailer:

 
 


Copyright © 2016 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Marie Antoinette (1938)

Marie Antoinette
Metro-Goldwyn-Myers
157 mins.
August 26, 1938
★★★★ ½☆

 

I first encountered this film in the form of the below trailer when I was working on researching films for Caught on Tape: Marie Antoinette. I love old classic films and of the options I found this was the film I was most excited about.

Let me start with the good things here. I LOVED Norma Scherer as Marie Antoinette. I found her performance a believable representation. She was bubbly and happy without coming off as frivolous. She was able to pull of exquisite sadness without over the top drama. There were two very powerful scenes that gave me chills: when she is presented with the gift of an empty cradle by Madame du Barry for her anniversary and following the execution of her husband. True, she was a little old to play the first scenes where Marie finds out she will be married to Louis of France, but I could ultimately get past that. I also really liked how they told the story. It covered all of the big moments – finding out she will marry France, awkwardness of her early relationship with Louis, the Diamond Necklace Affair, and the Revolution. And…above all, I certainly appreciated that they did not use the “let them eat cake” line!

There were a couple elements that I didn’t like however. The most glaring was Tyrone Power as Count Axel Fersen. I never felt any emotion from him. I could understand Marie being interested as he provided what she was looking for: companionship and someone who loved her for her. Honestly, his performance was lackluster. Their love story wasn’t the center of this film, which you would think it was based on the film posters. The other element that felt out of place was the ball scene – it felt more like a scene from one of Jay Gatsby’s parties from The Great Gatsby – felt nothing like what I would envision from a French ball.

Overall, this was one of those films that I thoroughly enjoyed! Even with an intermission.

Check out this trailer:

 


Copyright © 2016 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Braveheart

Braveheart
Icon Productions
177 mins.
May 24, 1995
Rated: R

This movie was one of those that I remember my grandmother frequently watching when I was young, however I had never found any reason to watch it myself. A month or so ago it was on T.V. and I decided that since I had nothing better to do I would watch this film…finally.

The story told had all the makings of an epic drama – man falls in love, man loses love, man goes to war in an effort to get retribution for his lost love and in doing so becomes the leader of a revolution. I’m not a Mel Gibson fan, but I loved his portrayal of William Wallace here. He was equal parts angry, passionate, and committed to his cause. There are so many scenes that vividly stand out to me from this film – the great clash of armies on the battlefield, Mel Gibson with his blue painted face, and the death scene just to name a few. Everything looked beautiful – being primarily filmed in Scotland and Ireland the setting sure felt absolutely evocative of the world these events transpired in.

Oh and just to mention, this movie is quite violent - in the medieval style, but violent none the less.

This film is said to be loosely based on the poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie. That being said, those epic poems told by the minstrels and poets were always elaborated on with creative license for the sake of entertainment, and I think it is in that light that this film should be viewed. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge about the uprising of William Wallace and the Scots against the English King Edward I, so I can’t speak to that end myself. According to various websites, they played loose and fast with the history. This was actually the first time I had ever heard of the man, but have since seen him popping up in various places. If nothing else, it led me to go and look up more about his man and his time.

However, all of this still turned out to be a fabulously entertaining medieval historical drama that I would watch again for sure.

The clip below is one of the iconic scenes of William Wallace leading the men into battle:

 

Copyright © 2014 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: La Banda Picasso

La Banda Picasso (aka. Picasso’s Gang)
Fernando Colomo Producciones Cinematográficas S.L.
101 mins.
January 25, 2013
Rated: PG-13 (my personal rating)

I decided to watch this film because I had seen the trailer for it while looking up films about or featuring Picasso. The film is described as a comedic crime film – focusing primarily on theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. The trailer made the film look to be a lighthearted caper and drew me in based on that. Despite how foreign films can require a lot of concentration and feel heavier because of the need to focus (if you are unfamiliar with the language) I expected this film to have a lighter feel to it.

As I have learned, sometimes the segments shown in the trailers are really the only “good” parts of the whole movie. I didn’t find the film to be comedic at all, not even in the vaguest sense. The plot felt very heavy and plodding. If I had to classify it, I would have called the film more of a drama – and not a crime drama like that label would lead you to believe.

The acting was good – I thought they all had a pretty decent chemistry considering they are supposed to be a tight band of friends. I didn’t feel that I really got to know the characters, but that could have been due more to the fact it wasn’t in my primary language and I spent most of the time reading the subtitles rather that getting the feeling behind the words.

If you like foreign films, and particularly if you are fluent in French, I would say this film might be worth the watch. If you don’t have any knowledge of French, you might have a hard time getting the feel of the film through the subtitles.

Check out this trailer:

 

 

Copyright © 2014 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Sarah’s Key

Sarah’s Key
Hugo Productions
111 mins.
July 22, 2011
Rated: PG-13

Sarah’s Key by Tatiana de Rosnay was a book that I devoured and the subject matter would not let me go. It was so passionate, emotional, intense, and heart-rending. When I saw that the movie was coming out in theatre I had a mixed reaction to seeing it – would it be one of those that is faithful to the book or something that spins its own yarn? And more importantly, would I like it? I didn’t see this in the theatre – because the only way I wanted to see it was at a little local indie theatre, but I didn’t make it there before they switched films – however I finally got around to requesting it from Netflix.

This movie, like the book, jumps back and forth between the historical events of the 1940’s and the present day. In my opinion the historical sections were the much more interesting and well done; this is where the action of the story takes place, the Vel’ d’Hiv round up. You could sincerely feel the fear and emotion of what was going on then. These scenes were beautiful to look at – in a sort of macabre way. The modern day scenes featuring Kristin Scott Thomas as Julia Jarmond were more reflective and about solving the mystery.

I thought that the “historical” characters were well acted while I found the modern characters to be more one-dimensional with less than believable emotions. I found that I did not really care about what happened to Julia because they did not fully develop her story as much as in the book. Here she was primarily a vehicle to find out the story of Sarah Starzynski, and her own personal ordeals were only touched upon in the briefest of ways. For someone who has read the book, the narrative of the film didn’t quite pull at the heart strings – it hit all of the main elements, however it lost some of the pathos. In order to love this story you need to really be invested in both the modern and historical characters – this film half-heartedly does this with the historical, but didn’t put much effort on the modern. I would have liked a little bit more from the historical tale – to visually see a little more of the harsh reality Sarah faced. While a terrible ordeal, I think it would have created a deeper sense of the characters future decisions and created more of a connection to the character – as done in the book.

As is common for me, I preferred the book to the movie – however if you had not read the book, and did not have any intention to, it was a decent rendition. I do think that you get more out of the film by having read the book as you can fill in some of the gaps.

You can read my review of the book here.

Check out this trailer:

 

 

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: The Conspirator

The Conspirator
The American Film Company
122 mins.
April 15, 2011
Rated: PG-13

The Conspirator tells the story of the trials of those believed to be involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln, focusing particularly on the trial of Mary Surratt. I found her story to be very interesting as the case presented against her was almost entirely circumstantial while the cases of the others involved were sounder. Her trial actually made me quite angry from the perspective of a student of criminal justice because so many rules were violated in her case. We also follow Frederick Aiken, who turned out to be a member of Surratt’s defense team. One of the things that I found interesting after reviewing The American Film Company’s website is that there is not a lot of information known about Aiken. One thing I would have wished for more of would be the actual plot and carrying out of the assassination and capture of John Wilkes Booth. It only occupied about the first 10 minutes of the film and left me wanting for more. Otherwise, the plot and pacing of the story were fairly well done.

For the most part, I thought that this film was very well cast. There were several marquee names and others B list names that I recognized, among them: James McAvoy (as Frederick Aiken), Robin Wright (as Mary Surratt), Evan Rachel Wood (as Anna Surratt), Justin Long (as Nicholas Baker), Alexis Bledel (as Sarah Weston), Norman Reedus (as Lewis Payne) and Jonathan Groff (as Louis Weichmann). I thought that Robin Wright was very impressive as Mary Surratt – the right amount of strength and fear. On the other hand, I thought that Justin Long looked very out of place in the time period. He has a very distinctive look and he looked like a modern day man dressed in the costume of the 1860’s. It immediately didn’t work for me.

The setting and costumes were beautifully rendered. You got a very sound feel for the period and the upheaval caused by Lincoln’s assassination.

I am quite impressed with this early outing by The American Film Company and look forward to the other films they have in the pipeline. You can read more about this film at the AFC website.

Check out this trailer:

 

 

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Wallis & Edward

Wallis & Edward

Acorn Media

94 mins.

December 18, 2005

Not Rated

I have recently become interested in the story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII. The story is quite a compelling one if only because Edward abdicated the throne in order that he can marry the woman he loves, Wallis – the American divorcée.

This film gave us a view of this story more from Wallis’ point of view – hence her name first in the title. We get a more sympathetic view of the couple and everything that they went through. While this story can tend to get a sensationalized treatment, I think that they tried hard to stick to the historical facts and it was quite a compelling movie. I watched an interview with the writer and how she went about writing this movie and you could really feel her conviction to try and actually tell their story.

The technical choices for this film were well made. Joely Richardson and Stephen Campbell Moore were perfect as Wallis and Edward respectively. They certainly looked the part and I think that they embodied the historical figures well. Latvia was where this was filmed and it was a convincing England on screen.

This film gives off the feeling that Wallis and Edward get a bad rap from history – and I would agree with much of that. They call Wallis a woman just looking for the fame of queen-ship, however there must have certainly been love between the two because they were together for many years after the abdication – up until Edward’s death. While I don’t know if Edward would have made a good king – it appears that he had many things he wanted to do but the marriage issue became the central issue – I don’t think that he quite deserves the reputation that he has gained just from being in love with the wrong kind of woman.

The plot was enjoyable and quick paced – it was never dull.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Amistad

Amistad
DreamWorks SKG
155 mins.
December 10, 1997
Rated: R

Amistad is the telling of the slave revolt on the ship Amistad and the subsequent United States court cases regarding whose property they were and what was to be done with them. I think that overall this film does a decent job at providing the viewer with the essential plot points although there was some confusion in my house regarding just what the court cases were about.

Let’s first consider the actors in this film. First, there is an obvious lack of any female actresses; the most notable being the small role of Queen Isabella of Spain (played by a young Anna Paquin). This is a male dominated film for sure. Matthew McConaughey performs in one of his most serious roles of his acting career and carries it quite well. He is the lead attorney, Roger Sherman Baldwin, for the Africans from the Amistad in the Connecticut court case. Anthony Hopkins, who I have found wonderful in any role, plays former President John Quincy Adams to perfection. He is one of the attorneys for the Africans when the case is taken before the Supreme Court. He has a great mix of a serious, dour demeanor, with a little humor thrown in. Morgan Freeman plays Theodore Joadson, a free black man who is somehow involved; his character was one that I never quite pinned down the importance of except to act as a foil to the enslaved men. But the most probable scene stealer is Djimon Hounsou, who plays Cinque, one of the African men. Although he speaks mostly in an African language and only says a few English words, the performance he puts on is spectacular. I have loved him in every movie – he is quite a great actor who is often overlooked.

One of the things that I found most interesting and poignant was when they showed the flashback scenes of the Africans at home, being captured, and on the Amistad. It was great to see some of their back story and really helped make them characters who you cared about rather than cut and paste characters. The scenes of Cinque at home with his wife and child were beautiful.

Overall this was an interesting film that pretty much stuck with the facts of the trial; however it did seem to emphasize slavery as one of the main issues, when that wasn’t really the case. The issue of the trial was over property rights and the international slave trade.

Be advised that there are some scenes of nudity and brutality. These scenes were necessary to portray just what the Africans were subject to while on board the Amistad and were well done.

Check out this trailer:

 

 

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

TV Show Review: The Royal Diaries Cleopatra VII

The Royal Diaries: Cleopatra VII – Daughter of the Nile

Scholastic Productions

30 Mins

September 9, 2000

HBO and Scholastic (an odd partnership if there ever was one) partnered up to create three ½ hour episodes based on the popular Royal Diaries series. This was the first episode in the series. This episode is based on the book Cleopatra VII: Daughter of the Nile.

The life of young Cleopatra is not often a tale told; we usually see her with some combination of Marc Antony and/or Julius Caesar, but her young life was dramatic too. Here we see a bit of her life as a 14 year old girl. Cleopatra’s father flees to Rome after attempts are made on his life and Cleopatra tags along – most of the episode is therefore set on a boat or in Rome, only a few opening minutes are actually set in Egypt. The rest of the episode is of Cleopatra and her father trying to convince Julius Caesar that he should help them restore her father to the throne of Egypt.

As in the other episodes of this short series, the structure of the episode is of Cleopatra writing in her diary – in this case on a papyrus scroll – which at least fit with the feel of the episode. This diary aspect connects the episode with this corresponding book.

This episode had a very limited cast. The primary characters are Cleopatra, her father, and Julius Caesar with some minor supporting characters. I think that the characters, even the supporting characters, looked similar to how their historical counterparts might have looked. The actors seemed to fit the bill. Typically with films set in Rome and Egypt they just don’t quite look the part or have the right type of accent.

As opposed to the episode on Elizabeth I, I think this episode would appeal more to girls, maybe in the tween/early teenage years. There is a lot of political talk and not as much action/fun as the Elizabeth episode and the characters are older and primarily female. I think of the two episodes I have seen so far, the Elizabeth episode was more interesting and enjoyable (this coming from someone who is not the biggest Elizabeth fan!).

You can watch the entire episode on Youtube, which I have linked below for your viewing pleasure.

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: The Princess of Montpensier

The Princess of Montpensier

Paradis Films

139 mins.

May 16, 2010

Rated: PG-13

This is a beautiful French foreign film that was originally screened at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010. It is based on a short story by Madame de La Fayette published in 1662. It is believed that the events in the story are based on real events of people the author knew, but was changed to a different time period from that when it was written.

This is a romantic drama. The general plotline is that Marie, the Princess of Montpensier, is in love with the Duke de Guise, not her husband the Prince of Montpensier. There is also the Prince’s close friend, the Count of Chabannes who is in love with Marie as well. What will she do? Choose to learn to love her husband as everyone says she must or abandon him for the arms of the man she has loved since childhood? All of this is set within the reign of Catherine de’ Medici as the Queen Mother and encapsulates the Huguenot/Catholic drama and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

The scenery is absolutely gorgeous. None of it is computer generated and it was all filmed on location. One of the things that I loved was getting to see how difficult riding long distances was – whether on horseback or in a carriage – it didn’t look fun. The costumes were GORGEOUS! I loved the colors and the styles and especially her hats! Her green riding outfit toward the very end of the film was my favorite.

The war/fight scenes were very well done. You could feel the emotions of the characters – although I really think that the Prince could have been a lot more than whiny. I thought that Melanie Thierry (Marie), Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet (Montpensier) and Gaspard Ulliel (Guise) were wonderful. I didn’t really love Raphael Personnaz as the Duke de Anjou – the character seemed a little creepy to me. I loved listening to the French dialogue – although I had no idea what it meant unless I read the subtitles.

A beautiful film and full of drama and intrigue.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

TV Show Review: The Royal Diaries Elizabeth I

The Royal Diaries: Elizabeth I – Red Rose of the House of Tudor

Scholastic Productions

30 Mins

November 4, 2000

HBO and Scholastic (an odd partnership if there ever was one) partnered up to create three ½ hour episodes based on the popular Royal Diaries series. This was the second episode in the series. This episode is based on the book Elizabeth I: Red Rose of the House of Tudor.

If you have read the books, you know they are written as diaries – the episodes are set up the same way. Elizabeth is narrating the story and there are segments where she is shown writing in her diary. I thought this was one good way of tying the book to the episode. I did read the original book the episode is based on but it was so long ago I don’t know how closely they stayed to it. I do intend to reread the series at some point.

We get to see how Elizabeth deals with trying to live outside of the shadow of Anne Boleyn. We also get to see her opinion on the many wives of Henry VIII. She goes through the age old, “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived” song, but it was so funny. The relationship between her and Princess Mary is super antagonistic. The episode certainly makes it out that Mary = bad and Elizabeth = good. And of course there is a young Robin Dudley following Elizabeth around like a lost puppy.

This would be a fun show for kids to watch. This episode features the youngest cast, the characters are right around 10 years old. The history is not at too high of a level for young adults to grasp and there are funny, kid focused events too – like searching for the ghost of Katherine Howard.

As this is only a half hour episode, a very limited story is shown – primarily the events right before the death of Henry and the attempt to have Katherine Parr done in. There is a voiceover at the end that tells what happened to Mary, Elizabeth, Edward and Katherine Parr. I thought the acting was good, the scenery was well done and would certainly pass for a child – hard core history enthusiasts might find many faults but as an introductory tool I think it was well done.

You can watch the entire episode on Youtube, which I have linked below for your viewing pleasure.

Copyright © 2012 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: King Arthur

King Arthur

Touchstone Pictures

126 mins.

July 7, 2004

Rated: PG-13/R

The untold true story that inspired the legend…

I enjoyed this retelling of the mythology of King Arthur and his knights. This movie really made efforts to set the film firmly within the end of the Roman occupation of Briton. Unlike many King Arthur tales, Arthur is not a medieval knight – he is instead a Roman officer – but it was a change that I could still find believable. Guinevere I had a mixed reaction to. I liked that she was a strong woman and was warrior like – however I didn’t believe some of the details of her family (without giving anything away). Merlin, I didn’t really love. He was the leader of the “pagan” people but he really didn’t have too much of a role in this movie. I thought that Clive Owen was a great choice for King Arthur – brooding, strong and in conflict with his internal emotions. Keira Knightly plays a warrior woman as well as she plays debutantes.

The battle scenes were awesome. There are two big battles, one on the ice and one near the Wall, and both were well shot and well acted. They were not that brutal or gruesome appearing but alluded to. There is also one sex scene but again it is not explicit.

This was another film from the great Jerry Bruckheimer and it very much feels like his films. The cinematography and setting is beautiful. Although they moved the setting of the film to Roman occupied England from the traditional medieval England, they created a world that totally worked for it. Not being all that familiar with the time period, I can’t speak to historical accuracy – I’m going to assume some creative license was taken – but it was good enough to convince me!

Although this isn’t my favorite retelling of King Arthur, it was good entertainment in my opinion and my boyfriend enjoyed it too.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

Gaumont

148 mins.

November 12, 1999

Rated: R

This movie takes us from the time Joan is a little girl until shortly after her death. We are privy to her visions and really get the feel of her passion and devotion to the cause. We are really seeing the world as Joan would see it – you get caught up in her revelations. All of the pieces of Joan’s story are here – the visions, the battles, the heresy trial, the burning at the stake. Not being familiar with the intimate details of her story there were some new events brought to my attention here.

Overall I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would – based on the reviews that I had read. People felt that it was poorly acted – I thought that Mila Jovovich did a good job of portraying a truly passionate woman following what she believed to be the word of God. The movie doesn’t make a determination one way or the other (as to if she was crazy or actually being spoken to by God) but it does go into some self questioning at the end (by a comically funny Dustin Hoffman as her Conscience type person). The movie presents both possibilities. I think this was done to make her more human and less saintly – someone that a wider audience would connect with and someone who still wrestles with her conscience. Others complained that people during this time period would never speak the way they did (or use foul language) – I say, I’m glad they are speaking modern language or I would probably lose interest. And it terms of foul language there is a handful of colorful words and I’m sure that they used similar language back then too!

In terms of cinematography – there are some great wide shots of the people and landscape and I thought the scenery was well done. It was nominated for awards in Best Cinematography and won a Cesar (French equivalent to Academy Awards) for Best Costume Design.

The only thing that I wish had been improved in this film would be the ending – it felt a little rushed. This is a long film and maybe a few minutes could have been sacrificed from the battle scenes to leave time for a longer ending – since it really is the climax – without making the film longer.

I know that the concept of Joan of Arc can still spark controversy among people today – however if you look at the movie on its own, it’s relatively decent – I very much enjoyed it. If you are someone who is interested in the life of Joan of Arc I would recommend this movie – despite its detractors. If you are someone who is passionate about her story one way or the other – I might caution you against watching it.

I want to point out that although this movie is rated R I didn’t find it to be as bad as many other movies with that rating. Most of it is due to the war scenes – which can be brutal but are certainly not the worst I have seen. There is also one scene involving a rape – however you don’t directly see it happening – it is more alluded to and you are on the other side of the wall with a peephole view. For more on the rating check out this page.

Also, while this is a Foreign film – it is presented in English – I was thrilled that I did not need to turn on subtitles!

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: The Duchess

The Duchess

Paramount Vantage

110 mins.

September 10, 2008

Rated: PG-13

I had looked forward to watching this movie for some time and ultimately very much enjoyed it. Keira Knightly plays another period role (which seems to be her thing) and beautifully exudes the time period and feel of the character. She played the Duchess of Devonshire as I would have imagined her – beautiful, smart, impassioned. Another actor that I LOVE is Ralph Finnes – and he plays the older husband of Knightly’s character, the Duke of Devonshire. He really is an actor that I love to hate, since I usually despise his characters (and it is no different here) but I love his acting. He is very restrained and so insensitive and infuriating all at the same time. The other name that I recognized is Dominic Cooper, who plays Charles Grey – you may remember him from the feature film version of Mamma Mia!. All the roles were very well acted.

The costumes were gorgeous and I am going to assume rather authentic. The film won the Academy Award, BAFTA Award, and Satellite Award for Best Costume Design. Knightly certainly had so many hairdos that I am hoping many were wigs, otherwise I cannot imagine the amount of time that needed to be spent in hair and makeup!

While there are small pockets of slowness in the storytelling, overall I enjoyed this film. There was so much passion and deception and betrayal in this film that kept it interesting.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood

Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood

Douglas Fairbanks Pictures

127 mins.

October 18, 1922

Rated: PG

This was my first experience with a silent film and was very much what I expected.

This film stars Douglas Fairbanks as the titular character in a story that is quite familiar to movie fans. This treatment of Robin Hood takes us on Crusade with King Richard and back to Nottingham to rescue to poor from the evil machinations of Prince John as he plays “king”. The only unique plot line I saw was that Lord Huntingdon (the future Robin) was afraid of the attention of women – I always pictured him as a lady’s man and that is how he is typically portrayed.

One prominent feature of a silent movie is the descriptive text and dialogue that appears on the screen to help the viewer to know what is going on. This was one area that I was apprehensive about because when text is displayed on the screen in modern movies it is frequently in small print and not left up long enough to read all of it. Here, the text was of appropriate reading size and left up for just the right length of time. The acting was overly dramatic, but appropriate because without dialogue you need to be engaged to the character and entertained. The image of this Robin and Marian is what I have always thought of when I envisioned them in my head.

One aspect I wasn’t thrilled with was the musical score – it felt too synthesized to belong to the era of time being depicted or to the time the film was made. I’m not sure if this was the original score or if it was redone (as the film had been lost for years and the music is not integrated into the film). It really reminded me of a video game – how it repeats the same thread of music over and over as well as the synthesized nature of it (honesty I was reminded of the original Zelda game for the Nintendo).

Overall, if you are an old film fan, Robin Hood fan, or want to check out a silent film, this would be a great choice. A well produced film.

Check out this video clip from one of the fight scenes:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: Anne of the Thousand Days

Anne of the Thousand Days

Hal Wallis Productions

145 mins.

December 18, 1969

Rating: PG

He was King. She was barely 18. And in their thousand days they played out the most passionate and shocking love story in history!

I find this portrayal of Anne and Henry more believable than those same roles in Showtime's The Tudors. At least in this portrayal they are more of the appropriate age. I liked Richard Burton in this film better than I did his role in Cleopatra - he seemed to exude Henry from every pore and he seemed fully committed to this role. I LOVED Genevieve Bujold’s Anne - she was beautiful and fiery – I would say she is my favorite Anne yet (and I really liked Natalie Dormer’s portrayal). She is the image of Anne for me. You would never know that this was Bujold’s first English speaking role!

There were some things that bothered me, like historical inaccuracies - there were two blaring ones for me.  Near the beginning - when Anne was interested in Henry Percy - they alluded to the fact that both the Boleyn's and the Percy's approved of the marriage. Also, when Katherine of Aragon lay dying, her daughter Mary was right by her side. Both of these things are nowhere near true. But liberties are taken in all things movie, as well as historical fiction, so I can forgive that.

The costuming is beautiful – and it makes perfect sense that they won the Academy Award for costume design.

The execution scene was more of an emotional scene than one designed to shock. There is no great drawn out speech and you don’t see any blood or guts. Very well done.

Overall a decent movie that I would recommend to Tudor fans.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court

Movie Review: San Francisco

San Francisco

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

115 mins.

June 26, 1936

San Francisco is one of the classic movies from the Golden Age of MGM that you have to see if you are a movie fan. It stars big name actors in its cast – Clark Gable as the bad boy Barbary Coast club owner Blackie, Spencer Tracy as Father Tim and long time friend of Blackie, and beautiful singer Jeanette MacDonald. It is also a beautiful early black and white disaster film.

Following in the tracks of other great films of the 30’s there is a heavy musical element to this film. While I love these types of films, the opera in this film became a little much at times. I know that opera is important to the history of San Francisco and appreciate it in the film, but I could have done with less of it. Apparently, when the film was originally release people loved the music and the opera aspect of the film – so maybe it is just a generational thing.

The plot of the film was well done. The film begins on New Year’s Day of 1906 and wraps up shortly after the earthquake disaster is over. The first 2/3rds of the film focuses on the lawless, corrupt, party atmosphere of the Barbary Coast in the very early 1900’s. You get the expected romance storyline and the girl new to the city storyline. It really sets you into the life so that you feel the impact of the earthquake disaster. The last third of the film is in relation to the earthquake and its damage. The disaster sequence is one of the best for its time. We see buildings shaking and crumbling, water in glasses shaking, people being crushed (in a blood and gore-less manner) and dying, resulting aftershocks, problem of putting out the fires, and people being shot for looting among other things. My one complaint is that they made it feel as if the time from the earthquake to the fires being put out is about 20 minutes as opposed to several days.

Overall this was a great film from the 1930’s that any fan of the period or of the great actors in it should see.

Check out this trailer:

Copyright © 2011 by The Maiden’s Court