Death Comes to Pemberly

The only thing I felt like doing after watching this three-hour long adaptation of Jane Austen fan fiction was come here and write a scathing review. But, I also don't want to devote any amount of time to it. So I'll keep it short.

Basically, it's like this: Lizzy (Anna Maxwell Martin) and Darcy (Matthew Rhys) have been happily married for about six years now, and are in the midst of planning their annual ball when a murder on their estate throws a minor kink in the plans. But even worse is that the only suspect is the the bane (or one of many bane's) of Lizzy and Darcy's existence: George Wickham (Matthew Goode). Is the scoundrel Mr. Wickham at least innocent of murder, or will this fanfic by P. D. James take Austen's beloved tale and pull it to pieces for the sake of a dramatic plot? You'll have to see for yourself on the first count, but the second? Absolutely.

Turns out mixing Austen with a courtroom drama only sounds better than mixing Austen with, say, zombies. And at least with zombies there's no chance of taking it seriously...

I admit my curiosity is what pulled me into this. I've seen the fiction of Austen fans played out on screen before, and anything in them that has anything to do with Austen or her stories never, ever fails to make me at least annoyed. But for some reason, with the next one, I feel the curiosity again. Fortunately, I've never felt curiosity over Austen fan novels -- there are so many more of those to choose from!

My curiosity was piqued by two things. First I wondered at how the story would portray Mr. and Mrs. Darcy's married life. In this my disappointment was the most severe. Remember two paragraphs ago when I said "Lizzy and Darcy have been happily married"? Well, I may have used slightly the wrong word there. In fact I should have maybe used the exact opposite word. Even before the murder the two are on edge with each other, but after... good grief. Darcy is mad at Lizzy for trying to use sense around him (apparently) and Lizzy gets it in her head that Darcy regrets marrying her at all, and it seemed true. They yell at each other, and don't listen, then storm off to do rash things in their anger, and Darcy gets the worst of it -- at one point he childishly won't let her hold his hand -- he becomes like he was at the beginning of P&P, except worse because this characterization of him is way off base.

Am I wrong in assuming that these two were supposed to have a happily-ever-after? Or at least they they wouldn't digress back into the flaws of which they had cured each other?

Everything was so off, in fact, that there was no need to worry about the possibility of these characters and this story seep into my imagination of what happens after the last words written in Pride and Prejudice. While the fact that P. D. James wrote fan fiction seems to be great evidence for her being an Austen fan, I still have a hard time believing it with how botched all the characters were. The only two worth a mention of commendation are Lydia (Doctor Who's Jenna Coleman) and Wickham, and those I think must be mostly due to lucky casting.

The second point of my curiosity was the mystery; I wanted to find out if Wickham was a murderer or not (in the mind of P. D. James anyway). And rest assured that this point got its due disappointment as well. The mystery was... not engaging. Unspectacular. I've recently been watching and reading a lot of Agatha Christie, and it's hard to hold a candle to The Queen of Murder, but really, there are many mysteries better than this one -- and readily available in places other than Botched Up Austen Ave.

The talented cast share a hearty laugh -- in spite, or because of being involved in this unfortunate production?

I thought at first I disliked it because of my loyalty to Austen's work, but then I immediately realized that even if it was totally original, it would still be full of contrived drama and unfulfilled mystery. It did have the rare enjoyable moment though, usually in places where I could forget about its connection with Austen. I suppose now I should balance the trashing: The costuming was very nice; everyone looked great, (except in some cases if you were to look at their face) and I particularly liked Lizzy's gowns. The location and scenery were both fine and pretty; the cinematography also. Nothing was special, but was all quality.

But, unless you want to see this whole thing just for a glance at some dresses and a beautiful house, or unless cheap Austen-esque murder mysteries is exactly what you have a hankering for, do yourself a favor and save yourself a wasted three hours -- find some spoilers on the internet! I will even provide them upon request. You don't have to fall for it like I did.

I tried to keep it short; I really did.

Jack the Giant Slayer

Not to be confused with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, or Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Those are nothing like this movie; they have colons in their titles!

Okay, there is one pretty big difference I suppose... Jack the Giant Slayer, with a cheesy PG-13 rating, is more of a kid's movie. But does that really set it apart?

Fee fi fo fum. Ask not whence the thunder comes. For... giants-- giants make the thunder... yeah.

Jack starts out just farm boy, not a giant killer -- he doesn't even know that giants exist! When he was little, his father used to read him stories at night about the giants, but now his father is dead, and Jack lives with his uncle. One day Jack's uncle sends him to the market to sell a horse and cart, but Jack is distracted by the local beautiful princess making an appearance, and the cart is stolen. Then he sells the horse for a tiny bag of beans. Okay, so the horse was basically stolen too.

Later that night the free-spirited princess Isabelle -- whose now dead mother also used to tell her bedtime stories of giants -- runs away from the castle and her father, who wants her to marry his right-hand man Roderick. In the storm, she finds her way to Jack's house, where a few minutes later one of those beans gets wet, grows very large very fast and very high, taking the house and Isabelle with it. Jack, well... falls out. After he explains what happened to the king (and they have to believe him because there's a huge beanstalk towering right behind him) he volunteers to go with the search party assembled to find her, led by Elmont, who is the head knight, or personal guard to Isabelle, or, something important. Roderick and his henchman also come for devious reasons of their own, and the adventure begins!

Hero shot of heroes heroically climbing bean stalk!

So take an old fairy tale, take away anything "uninteresting", add epic elements, a dash of comedy, a smattering of romance, then smother in digital effects and blend thoroughly, and you have yourself a nice modern take on a classic tale that everyone will love. Guaranteed. Or so it seems every filmmaker is thinking now. Fairy tales have never been out of style of course, but the modern fixation on making them... epic -- at the expense of other things -- only seems to degrade them. Some worse than others; the two I mentioned at the top I wouldn't waste time on, but Mirror Mirror was cute, and I laughed my way through Snow White and the Huntsman. I'm even looking forward to Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella. But how does Jack do? Well there are good things, and there are bad things.

("The good thing don't always soften the bad things, but vice-versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things, and make them unimportant.")

Good things: The acting, and characters, definitely. Nicholas Hoult as Jack was a good hero, very sweet and brave, but his real acting skills were mostly underused I think. My "oh yeah, I have seen him before" moment: He kissed Jenifer Lawrence in X-Men: First Class, was killed by Medusa in Clash of the Titans, and (my personal favorite) was totally creepy in a Kenneth Branagh Wallander episode. I'm looking forward to getting around to watching him in Warm Bodies sometime, and hopefully in many movies to come.

Everything I think of to say here gives away the fact that I think this is a very cute photo... so I'll just admit it.

Ewan McGregor was the picture of charisma as Elmont, with his spiky hair, his charming smile, and his twirl-able mustache. His true talent was also not really used, but I really enjoyed his character, being heroic at every turn, and keeping the energy high. Without him, Jack (the person and the film) might have easily ended in dismal failure. He's the true hero of this tale.

You know that's right!

Then there's Isabelle, played by Eleanor Tomlinson, and I can't say if she was used to her full potential or not; I've only seen her before as a young version of Jessica Biel in The Illusionist. But she did impress me by not being a completely generic princess. She was, however, a completely generic damsel in distress, not the fighting princess who can take care of herself. I thought that was strange, but I'm definitely not complaining.

Jack and Isabelle take a breather for a "moment."

Stanley Tucci as the traitor baddie Roderick wasn't as good as I was hoping he'd be, but I guess my expectations were just too high. He was very good, just, again, underused. Lastly I'd like to mention Bill Nighy in the role of the two-headed leader of the giants. He was pretty much the only enjoyable thing about the giants. As my brothers said, "he sounds like... like, Davey Jones." Yep, and it's a good sound for him. He made the bad guy actually memorable.

Roderick and his... minion.

And that leads me perfectly into... the bad things. Deep breath. It seemed like the digital effects were the whole point of the movie, but they were no good. The opening sequence looked seriously like a video game. Lazy, I suppose? Everything looked cheap, and the giants were barely animated better than they appeared to be in the trailer (which was horribly). There was also too many gross-out moments with them -- too childish -- but, on the violent side, there was too much as well. Was this supposed to be a kid movie, or a teen movie? I don't think anyone decided; some ridiculous stunts and stupid "humor" didn't match the more mature PG-13 violence level.

Story/script wise, it was pretty mixed. There were some unique plot devices and details, but overall it was pretty lifeless, despite some valiant efforts from the cast. Interestingly, I thought it got better as it went along, unlike most movies that just give up about halfway through. And the ending actually surprised me very pleasantly. Even though it was immature and cheap at times, I enjoyed it thoroughly in its good moments, and there were plenty of them. Not to be taken seriously by any means, but it was a fun ride.

Number nine!

The Illusionist

It's the classic story. Poor boy meets rich girl. Girl's parents forbid them from seeing each other. Boy promises to run away with girl. Boy leaves alone instead. Fifteen years later, boy returns, a skilled illusionist, and meets girl again, ready to make good on his promise, just as she's about to marry the Crown Prince of Austria.

Alright, so maybe that's not that classic, but every good story needs a good twist, right?

He remembers her, but does she?

Edward Norton plays Edward, or Eisenheim - what he is known as when he becomes an illusionist. Eisenheim's show becomes very popular when he returns to Vienna. So popular, in fact, that he attracts the attention of the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). Leopold is one of those not-so-nice princes, for instance, he plans on overthrowing his father, the Emperor, and his plan hinges on his marriage to the Duchess Sophie Von Teschen (Jessica Biel). When Eisenheim discovers his childhood sweetheart's impending marriage, he not so inadvertently humiliates the Crown Prince, prompting him to retaliate. He uses the Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) -- who is more his personal assistant than anything else -- to that purpose. When he is instructed to shut down Eisenheim's show, Uhl is conflicted, as he is fascinated by Eisenheim and his tricks, but loyal to the Prince; suddenly he finds himself caught in the middle of their two-man war.

The Crown Prince doesn't know what he's getting into.

Eisenheim is certainly meant to be the main character here, but he's a pretty classic magician; mysterious, unreadable. We only get glimpses into his mind as often as other characters do - not often at all. Thank goodness then that Uhl is there to carry the movie. You think the main character is the one who carries the movie? It is an illusion. Paul Giamatti is us; trying to keep up, trying to piece together the mystery - enjoying it immensely. He is our connection to the strange world of The Illusionist. He is also convincingly British.

Inspector Uhl brings the story to life.

Not quite so much for fellow Americans Norton and Biel. Thankfully though, they both under-did the accents; much smarter than overdoing it, and it works out fine. Otherwise, they are very fine. I'm not a fan of Jessica Biel, but I don't mind her in this movie at all, and her costumes are so gorgeous. Norton is a great brooding magician. Subtle and... I want to say "deadpan" but that gives a bad impression... is there a way deadpan can be good? At any rate, it gives me the impression that the character is putting on an act, and that's a good thing. Rufus Sewell is definitely a good thing. He always makes a wonderful villain, but here he's especially good. Best of the bunch though, is certainly Giamatti, the only truly involving character, with his perfect subtleties, and the second best eye-roll ever.

Edward Norton looks the part, and performs some impressive illusions.

Much further than this, I cannot go, for fear of exposing too much of the plot that you should just watch for yourself. This pic is rated PG-13 for some sexuality and violence, and besides one scene which I always easily skip through, it's a pretty clean, if dark and mellow movie. Visually, it's very unique, using sepia tints and vignetting to create a pleasing old-fashioned feel, and early 1900's costumes, buildings, and scenery are all very pretty to look at. And the story... mysterious, magical, and... well...

I will leave off with this: highly recommended.

-- 3.5/5 stars

Review number five for this!