Confessions of a Film Lover! -- Tag

This tag converts movie quotes into movie questions, and yes, did require some confessing on my part.


1. "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Big Lebowski 
Your most unpopular film opinion:
That Captain America: Civil War was halfway a terrible movie. I've seen it three times now, and can enjoy it well enough to continue watching it whenever the situation calls for a huge superhero blockbuster, but that's only in spite of the issues I have with it. Seeing it in the theaters it felt like being pelted with backhanded insults for two and a half hours, (read: IT WAS NOT FUN) and as the credits rolled I sat with my head in my hands confused as to whether I wanted to start yelling expletives at the screen or just cry. Yet I wasn't at all surprised when everyone else in the group I saw the movie with (save for my youngest brother who's even more of a film cynic than me, and generally doesn't like MCU movies) absolutely loved it.

STOP! FIGHTING!!!

The problems I had with it were enhanced by the other half of the movie being exceptionally well-done what with all those spectacular fight scenes and a bunch of lovable characters, and basically boils down to this: The plot was painfully contrived, and it forces characters to do things out of their established character; and to cover it up, the film attempts to emotionally manipulate the audience. Feeling like my emotions are being purposefully manipulated while watching a film is probably my biggest movie pet peeve, which is probably why I dislike this movie so much more than most. Check out my review of Civil War here for a more in-depth explanation of my opinions!


2. "The limit does not exist!" - Mean Girls 
A Guilty Pleasure film you can watch over and over again:
I thought about this, expecting it'd end up being some girly flick similar to Mean Girls, like maybe Clueless, which I love; but I realized that all the girly rom-coms I love I don't feel guilty over. The movie I rewatch the most and feel movie-guilt for enjoying is actually Peter Jackson's King Kong. You may say it's a great film and I shouldn't feel guilty over it (or the opposite!) but that's not the point. The 2005 King Kong is my biggest guilty pleasure film -- possibly just because the rest of my family hates it, but there you go. In many ways I think the movie is genuinely an excellent film. The technology used for Kong, the cast, the scenes before the island... it's main problem is the dinosaur chase sequence which did not hold up animation-wise, and it does have that sappy, overly-dramatic tone going on at the end too. That's what King Kong is though, and I really enjoy it. I don't even mind the runtime!

3. "Are you not entertained?!" - Gladiator
A film that is universally loved that you found boring:
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I'm not sure if this movie counts fully as universally loved, but when I first saw it and found it boring it certainly did seem that way. My brothers and I were all quite bored watching this, and even had a hard time making fun of it's overly serious and depressing tone. Since then I re-watched it alone and was able to appreciate the motion-capture performances of the apes -- mainly Koba, Toby Kebbell, who I was just starting to pay attention to at the time. Recognizing the actors behind the apes was interesting in it's own way, but I still maintain that the movie and its plot is overall very boring, building glacially up to a war that we'd have to wait 3 years to see. (Read my review for more ranting on the subject!)

And even then Koba's dead so who cares?

4. "Sorry! My Prada's at the cleaners! Along with my hoodie and my 'f*** you' flip-flops, you pretentious douchebag!" - The Social Network
The most pretentious film you've ever seen:
Oh that's easy: Gravity. As a lover of scifi, I am, of course, perfectly capable of suspending disbelief for the sake of enjoying movies that don't completely respect the laws of this world. Like physics. How. Ever: Gravity gets no such pass, because it was marketed and presented and acclaimed as the most realistic space-set scifi film ever made. And yes, it looks pretty darned realistic -- until their blatantly ignoring the laws of physics and general reality gets in the way! All done, I might add, to propel a plot that otherwise couldn't have made it an inch off the ground. It's pretty, yes, but if you're gonna be that smug over the greatness of your film, maybe make it actually as great as you claim.

For your viewing pleasure: CinemaSins! My biggest issue with this one is mentioned at 2:48, but honestly I agree with them all.



My second biggest issue isn't mentioned in the CinemaSins though. It's actually the scene where Stone is in the ship crying, and the tears drip off her face and float slowly towards the camera. Back to emotional manipulation again, because in reality tears in zero-g will just accumulate on your eye in a bubble, as demonstrated in this neat video:


This fact that the movie did what it did instead of adhering to the laws of reality is evidence that its true motivation was not to be realistic, but simply to market a trite and contrived story under the guise of being groundbreaking in film realism. Read my review of Gravity here for more unrelenting bashing.


5. "Draw me like one of your French girls." - Titanic
A film that describes your aesthetic:
Disclaimer: I have no idea what "aesthetic" is. I know the proper definition, and I've certainly seen it used as a kind of exaggerated meme, but I don't know what "my aesthetic" is, or how a movie could describe it. So I'm just going with a movie that has a tone and visual makeup that appeals to me. (Which is probably exactly what I was supposed to do!) And that movie is Mud. I won't even attempt to describe the aesthetic except to say the director Jeff Nichols said that he wanted the film to flow like the Mississippi River (an important backdrop in the film) -- and it did. You can read my review of the film here (which I wrote before I fully understood the complete reasons why I loved it) and I'll leave you with a compilation of its cinematography:

6. "That's a bingo!" - Inglourious Basterds
A director who has never let you down:
Jeff Nichols. It's a high standard to live up to, and the more film's you've made the more likely it is that you disappointed in some way. I immediately thought of him, but then thought there had to be some other director who's done more than five movies who never let me down, but no. I still haven't seen his fifth film, Loving, but even with four he still wins. Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, Mud, and Midnight Special are not only films that have merely not let me down, they in fact all blew me away in one way or another, and are all among my favorite films. Click the links to read my reviews of each of them!

The posters look so good together too.

7. "Don't believe his lies." - Memento
A film you were told was bad but you loved:
This one I'm giving a tie because both the movies have the same set of circumstances. The Brothers Bloom, and The Darjeeling Limited; both considered by the general movie-going audience to be the worst movies of their respective directors, Rian Johnson, and Wes Anderson, but are actually my favorites from them. (Though I haven't seen all of Andersons films.) The Brother's Bloom (review) has a few plot holes, but is of a fun and underused genre, is very funny and incredibly charming, has a great cast playing great characters, and (to me at least) is decidedly heartfelt.

(I know neither of these movies are commonly considered bad. This is the best I could do.)

(I just realized both these films star Adrien Brody. I wonder if that has anything to do with anything... .... ...eh.)

For The Darjeeling Limited the biggest criticism I hear is that it has no plot or makes no sense, but that is the appeal of Wes Anderson in the first place for me, and for some reason this one's particular brand of ambiguity resonates rather deeply with me. It does have seemingly pointless moments but also some meaningful ones too, and I like it all. I love watching the relationship of the brothers (oh hey -- both these movies focus on brothers too!) and their journey to find something that maybe they do find, but can't quite put their finger on what it is. For me, it works. Plus I love the music, and it's often hilarious. 


8. "It's only forever, not long at all." - Labyrinth
If you could only watch one film for the rest of your life, what would it be?
I'm gonna go with The Lord of the Rings trilogy on this one because I can get away with it counting as one film. Extended editions too, of course. Obviously if I could only watch one movie the rest of my life I'd want it to be a long one so it'll grow old more slowly, but really, if I could only watch one movie for the rest of my life I would spend a whole lot more time reading. In which case, I might pick The Way Way Back (review) because there's no book version of that.

But no -- let's not get complicated -- Middle Earth wins.

9. "Were you rushing or were you dragging?” - Whiplash
A long film you thought was perfectly paced:
To be honest I like long movies, and as long as I find the plot or the characters interesting I'm hard to bore. So how about this: It's technically a mini-series, not a film, but the 1995 Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth. It's five hours long, and so well structured that I cannot leave the room for even two seconds without pausing it to prevent my missing anything good. Read my enamored review here!

"You can never get a film long enough, or a bowl of popcorn large enough to suit me." -- Me, plagiarizing C.S. Lewis a bit.

10. "As you wish." - The Princess Bride
Your film dream team. (Directors, writers, genre, actors, music, whatever.)
Right now, after a bit of daydreaming, I would like to see Damien Chazelle write and direct a scifi noir film. I love the genre mashup of noir and scifi, and I think he absolutely had the ability to capture the right tone. His movies have a palpable energy to them and I'd love to see how that marries with subtle and dark tones like that of Blade Runner, Dark City, or Gattaca. The music could be jazzy since he likes that.

And because I've been noticing and enjoying these two a bunch lately, it should star Toby Kebbell and Vanessa Kirby. Neither of them get many leading roles -- that is to say, almost none -- but I absolutely think they have the talent for it, especially if the characters are not your typical leading types but more character-types. I bet Kirby could pull off the mysterious woman/possibly femme fatale excellently, and I know for a fact that Kebbell can do that hard-boiled-but-surprisingly-soft-on-the-inside type.

Since it's a Chazelle film it should have J.K. Simmons in an important supporting role too. Something for him to have fun with, or surprise with. It could be set in space, or the distant future, or just an alternate reality altogether; and I'd probably prefer if it focused mostly on character and intrigue, but had some good action in it too. With all those elements in place there would be no way the movie could disappoint me.

Now I'm depressed because it won't never exist!

_________________

I got this tag from Kyle Gaunt -- check out his YouTube channel here, and follow him on Twitter @kg_moviereviews! And if the tag seems fun to you, don't hesitate to participate! I suppose you can actually tag people if you want, but it's more of a loosely-structured thread. I hope you enjoyed reading my answers and weren't offended by my opinions which are definitely the only right opinions to have! Just kidding -- leave me a comment and tell me where I'm wrong! Or if you agree. Or just your thoughts in general. Thanks for reading!

Love & Friendship

Spoiler-free!

Love & Friendship is a Jane Austen adaptation, and a first of its kind, though we'd all thought that every Jane Austen had already been adapted at least twice. This adapts a book of hers that is written in the form of letters, something that Austen did with Sense and Sensibility too, before rewriting it into what it is today. If I were her, it would have been done for the purpose of figuring out the story in a simple format before I put all the effort into writing them complexly, but I really don't know what her motivations were. Sadly, this story never became a novel, and as such was never touched by filmmakers. Until now.

Kate Beckinsale, (right) as Lady Susan, and Chloë Sevigny as Mrs. Johnson, her friend and confidant-in-crime.

Unfortunately I can see why this was the first attempt at an adaptation. I haven't read the book, but from this film it is evident that the source is very limiting; it is obviously an adaptation of information rather than an adaptation of character and feeling. Austen is hard to get right in film, especially to the approval of fans like me, but most of them do understand that it's not about what happens, but about how the characters respond, and how their relationships with others work and develop. The inner working of human character comes first, and what happens is only a result of that. But I think because this film was adapted from information being shared, the inner thoughts of the characters, and their personal experience of the plot's circumstances was almost entirely absent, even though you would expect it from a film. It's not as if the film tries to limit itself; I just don't think it was creatively done enough to change the format of the story from secondhand information to firsthand experience.

Emma Greenwell as Catherine Vernon, and her (handsome and unattached) brother Reginald DeCourcy -- Xavier Samuel.

Instead of seeing things happen, we are told about things that have happened. The majority of scenes take place after an event that is important to the plot, where characters stand around and discuss said event. The event itself is rarely a scene; occasionally we get to see it play out in part, but it is invariably explained to a character whether we see it or not. This makes for a lot of scenes that don't have anything happen in them. The progression of location and action of the scenes goes something like this: Arriving at a house; sitting in a room; walking in the garden; sitting in a room; walking to a room and sitting; walking in the street; arriving at a house; sitting in room; standing in a room. It gets very boring very fast. There's one short scene with dancing, but no dialogue. Question: can it really be considered a Jane Austen adaptation if there's no dialogue with the dancing?

My instinct says it cannot be so!

All the scenes are very disjointed too, as if the filmmakers were actually trying to avoid the interesting stuff and only show us the in between. What about a dinner scene? Or a whole sequence at the dance? Why must everything be talked about in nondescript locations? Perhaps it was because Jane never gave locations, and they just plain weren't creative enough to think of any on their own. I'm not one for being super creative with Austen's work when everything you need is already there, but that is not the case here. These filmmakers needed to pull together and actually finish the story before they adapted it! This is a rare case where things needed to be changed. And that makes an interesting prospect; what if this story were adapted to film multiple times, and each time the filmmakers wrote the basic story into a totally unique framework? Each film would be so different! I'd love to see that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to happen now.

Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin was very good. Inside the right film he could have been excellent.

The critics adored this film, and I'm still scratching my head over that, but it is true that the movie is not all bad. All those sitting rooms and front porches are lovely. The costumes are legitimately good, an earlier fashion from your average Austen that we don't see much of. The characters are interesting (credit: Miss Austen) and the acting is fine. Kate Beckinsale leads as Lady Susan, the title lady of the book. She is good, handling Austen's wit well but not exceptionally. The supporting cast, in my opinion, should have been more than a supporting cast. It seemed to me that Lady Susan's daughter was the heroine of the story, but we really only get to see her when she's around her mother. If her story had been followed we could have got all the development of the story, but instead she was practically ignored and the ending, which was hers, felt very abrupt and extremely unsatisfying. It felt as if nothing had been overcome, and I wanted to identify with the character, but with how little we get to know her, it was impossible.

Morfydd Clark as Frederica. I enjoyed her the most.

But I meant to be giving out what praise is due this picture. It had nice lighting and coloring, so the frames weren't as terrible boring to look at as they might have been. I got the distinct feeling though, that once the camera found a nice shot it was afraid to move again. It was pretty, but it was also very static. And that brought down the script too. That was one of the best parts, because it's what came most directly from Austen, but was only occasionally used to full advantage. Watch the trailer and you will every instance that I refer to. Most of the time, the wit and the punchlines were simply breezed over and instantly forgotten. I'm no filmmaker, but I'm pretty sure that if the shots and the staging had been composed around the comedy to enhance it, it would have had a much better effect. No matter how great your script and no matter how great your actors, if you just have them sit still in a room, point a camera at them and have them say their lines, credit to them and to the script will not be done.

It's really unfortunate that so little effort could result in so little and still get all the praise this film has received.

For some reason professional critics loved this movie. Maybe they thought it was being artistic. It did have a very distinct, lightly charming tone to it -- that did no more to enhance the film than the pretty chair covers did. And maybe writer/director Whit Stillman thought he was being artistic too. Or maybe he just thought he could get away with this underwhelming amount of effort. In a way, he did. But he also didn't, because this movie is no good. For dedicated fans of Austen and/or period dramas, it may be worth a look provided the price is cheap, but for me, even though I saw it for free, the most I got out of it was a longing for a good adaptation -- and I could have got that easily enough just from reading the book.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

So I got a big surprise in April when I went to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because I was curious and my brother wanted to see it, and it turned out to be not the most terrible movie ever. I didn't actually hate it but managed to mostly enjoy it and that quite impressed me. But predictably no April movies were able to tempt me to see them. I did think about how much I wanted to see 10 Cloverfield Lane again quite a lot. And I looked for Midnight Special, but it isn't playing in my theater. So now we have come upon it; it's May, and it's time for War. Civil War.

What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?


Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!




High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.




Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.




Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!




The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.




X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.

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.

The Janeite Tag

Thanks to Hannah over at Miss Daydreamer's Place for tagging me to talk about my love for Jane Austen!

The Rules:

• Thank and link back to the person who tagged you.
• Tell us how you were introduced to Jane Austen and share one fun fact about your Janeite life (this fun fact can be anything from "I stayed up all night reading Emma" to "I visited Chawton and met Anna Chancellor.").
• Answer the tagger's questions.
• Write seven questions of your own.
• Tag as few as one or as many as seven other Janeites and let them know you've tagged them.

My introduction to the world of Jane Austen:
It would be hard to pinpoint the exact moment I became a fan of Austen, but it was sometime between when I first saw the 1995 Pride and Prejudice when I was about eleven, and when I finished reading all her books for the first time, when I was about eighteen. It was probably closer to the latter though, because even though I would watch P&P with my family every time they watched it, it took a while for me to come to appreciate anything more than the pretty dresses and the pretty horses. It could have been in '08, when the new version of Sense and Sensibility aired on TV, and waiting a week between episodes was filled with impatience. Or you could argue that it was when I first appreciated Austen's work in it's purest form; perhaps when I was at the end of Emma and it suddenly occurred to me how much I'd enjoyed the book -- way more than either of the film adaptions. To quote Lizzy on her loving Darcy, "It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberly." So I guess you could say it really was the pretty dresses!

My fun fact about me and Austen: 
This past summer I portrayed Mary Bennet in my theatre group's performance of Pride and Prejudice, a Musical. I got to sing and play the piano badly and everything. And now I feel slightly more connected to and understanding of poor Mary.

Hannah's Questions:

What is your favourite Jane Austen novel?
Oh, starting with a hard one, I see. I remember enjoying reading Emma the most, but I wouldn't take that to mean it was my favorite. Northanger Abbey made me laugh the most, and Persuasion was wonderfully melancholy. But I think I'll have to go with the classic, and say Pride and Prejudice. It has a little of everything, and I think the best romance.

Who is your favourite Austen hero and heroine? (I guess that could be considered two questions!) So since it's two questions, I can pick a hero and heroine who hail from separate stories? If I had to choose them as a pair, I'd say Catherine Morland and Henry Tilney. They are just so adorable together. Separately, I've always been partial to Mr. Knightley, and identified most with Elinor Dashwood. But don't underestimate my liking of Lizzy and Darcy, separately, and as a pair.

Who is your favourite secondary character?
It's funny how most of Austen's secondary characters are usually pretty dis-likable, isn't it? I could never really find it in me to dislike Mr. Churchill though, ever since I first saw him as Ewan McGregor with that adorable smile and that weird, long red hair.

Which relative of any of Austen's heroines/heroes do you find most annoying?
Mrs. Bennet. Next question! Oh, wait, maybe Lady Catherine... hmmm, no, I'll stick with Mrs. Bennet.

Provide up to five of your favourite Austen quotes. (I know, hard! Just pick a few random quotes that you love. They don't have to be your absolute favourites) (Passages, more like, for me!)

1. (A hilarious conversation between Catherine and Henry in Northanger Abbey.)‘“Now I must give one smirk, and then we may be rational again." Catherine turned away her head, not knowing whether she might venture to laugh. "I see what you think of me," said he gravely -- "I shall make but a poor figure in your journal tomorrow."
   "My journal!"
   "Yes, I know exactly what you will say: Friday, went to the Lower Rooms; wore my sprigged muslin robe with blue trimmings -- plain black shoes -- appeared to much advantage; but was strangely harassed by a queer, half-witted man, who would make me dance with him, and distressed me by his nonsense." 
   "Indeed I shall say no such thing." 
   "Shall I tell you what you ought to say?" 
   "If you please." 
   "I danced with a very agreeable young man, introduced by Mr. King; had a great deal of conversation with him -- seems a most extraordinary genius -- hope I may know more of him. That, madam, is what I wish you to say."’
2.  (My admitting to liking this one might make me out to be anti-social, but, oh well. Said by Lizzy.) "The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."
3. (This one from Mr. Bennet reflects the lighter side of my anti-social tendencies.) "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"
4. (This is one of my favorite moments of Elinor's.)"My dear," said she [Mrs. Jennings], entering, "I have just recollected that I have some of the finest old Constantia wine in the house, that ever was tasted -- so I have brought a glass of it for your sister. My poor husband! how fond he was of it! Whenever he had a touch of his old cholicky gout, he said it did him more good than anything else in the world. Do take it to your sister."
   "Dear ma'am," replied Elinor, smiling at the difference of the complaints for which it was recommended, "how good you are! But I have just left Marianne in bed, and, I hope, almost asleep; and as I think nothing will be of so much service to her as rest, if you will give me leave, I will drink the wine myself."
   Mrs. Jennings, though regretting that she had not been five minutes earlier, was satisfied with the compromise; and Elinor, as she swallowed the chief of it, reflected that, though its good effects on a cholicky gout were at present of little importance to her, its healing powers on a disappointed heart might be as reasonably tried on herself as on her sister.
5. (And since I've already made this very, very long, I'll put Mr. Knightly's declaration of love last. Not the entire thing though. But I like the entire thing.) “My dearest Emma," said he, "for dearest you will always be, whatever the event of this hour's conversation, my dearest, most beloved Emma -- tell me at once. Say 'No,' if it is to be said." She could really say nothing. "You are silent," he cried, with great animation; "absolutely silent! at present I ask no more."
   Emma was almost ready to sink under the agitation of this moment. The dread of being awakened from the happiest dream, was perhaps the most prominent feeling.
   "I cannot make speeches, Emma," he soon resumed; and in a tone of such sincere, decided, intelligible tenderness as was tolerably convincing. "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more. But you know what I am. You hear nothing but truth from me. I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”

What is your favourite adaptation for each of Austen's books?
For Pride and Prejudice, the '95 version. Hands down, no contest. (If you're interested, here is my review of the '95, and my review of the '05.)

Northanger Abbey is also easy, since I've only ever seen the '07 version with Felicity Jones and J J Feild. In spite of it's shortness, I consider it to be a very good adaption, perfectly cast at the very least. With the rest though, things get a little more complicated. (Click here for my review.)

For Sense and Sensibility, the '08 version. It's a close call though, as the '95 version is great as well, but the longer runtime, the casting of people who look like they could be their required age, the great casting of the side characters, Dan Stevens, and David Morressey all make me partial to that version.

With Emma, there are commendable aspects in three versions, but I've never really included Kate Beckinsale's version; the race is really between Gwyneth Paltrow's and Romola Garai's, and they're practically equal, only with differing good parts and bad parts. Combined, they would be nearly perfect, but as it is, I think I must go with Paltrow's version, because it's better-made in its own right.

For Mansfield Park, I have to say the '07 version with Billie Piper. None of these adaptations are very good, but the 1999 is just way too different from the book, and the 1983 is old and of low quality had distractingly ugly actors. Plus the '07 has James D'Arcy in it.

With Persuasion it's halfway like Emma -- if I could combine the versions it would make a good one -- and halfway like Mansfield Park -- there really aren't any good versions. The '95 version is certainly the best adaptation, but it doesn't have the heart (however misguided) of the '07 version. Neither does the characters how I see them. (Click here for my review of the '07 version. But know that my opinion of since writing this has dampened slightly.)

Are there any books that you would recommend to a fellow Janeite? For example: some books that I would recommend to a fellow Jane Austen fan are Much Ado About Nothing, North and South and Cold Comfort Farm. 
Oh yes, I definitely agree with the recommendation of North and South. Great book and film adaptation. If you can handle longer and darker, I would recommend Little Dorrit, which was amazing, and more romantic than I expected it to be. (And it has a fantastic, 8-hour-long film adaptation too (my review)) And perhaps if I'd read other Dickens' I could possibly recommend those, of maybe a Bronte, but sadly Austen is just about as far as I've gone with that type of novel. The next closest thing that springs to mind is The Great Gatsby, but I'd recommend that to anyone. If you like the Austen-type movies though, you absolutely must see Cranford -- it's wonderful.

Little Dorrit

It seems that all my Janeite blog friends have been tagged already, I'm going to opt out of the last two steps. However, if you do love Austen, haven't been tagged yet, and want to participate, you absolutely should -- consider yourself tagged and answer the same questions I did!

Austenland

Austen fanatic goes to Austen themed retreat where actors are paid to act like Mr. Darcy. Obviously, chaos ensues.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that any Jane Austen fan must be crazed, obsessed, and in love with Mr. Darcy...

From the premise you can see at least three things:

1. This is a movie catered to fans of Jane Austen.

2. It will be very, very silly.

3. In the end, our heroine Jane will end up with her very own Mr. Darcy.

The first is obvious, and typically I won't fall for that sort of thing. As a Jane Austen fan, I'm required to hold strong opinions about the adaptations of her work, and one of my strongest is that "Austen fanfiction" is guilty until proven innocent of being -- for lack of a better word -- sacrilegious. Since Austenland never at any point actually takes place inside an Austen narrative, it passed the basic test, and even had more draw besides the authoress, like yes, the premise, and the cast. In short, they succeeded. I felt catered to. Evidenced by the fact that I watched the movie.

Jennifer Coolidge, the clueless, strictly comic character, Keri Russell, the heroine, and Georgia King, an actual period drama actress. I'm currently watching her in Little Dorrit.

The second is fairly obvious too, and not so much a bad thing as you may think, especially if you, as I did, expect the silliness, and plan to enjoy the silliness. In fact, silliness was the only way to go -- it would have been awful if it tried for one second to be serious, but no, it winks and nudges its way admirably through the whole hour and a half run-time making it a mostly pleasant diversion. (Whenever it wasn't being awkwardly and modernly inappropriate.)

If you roll your eyes, does that mean you were not charmed?

The third I knew as confidently as the others at first, but then there was a little snafu, because Bret McKenzie is just as awesome as JJ Feild. Feild is, of course, Mr. Tilney from Northanger Abbey, but McKenzie is from New Zealand, and was Figwit (aka Lindir) in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, and is an Oscar winning songwriter. For The Muppets, no less.

Spoiler warning!

So while Jane (Keri Russell) was being all proud and prejudiced against stick-in-the-mud Henry (Feild), a charming grounds worker Martin (McKenzie) who can't keep away from modern conveniences like iPods and sunglasses is wining her over. Eventually Henry warms to her and begins the romancing charade, but Jane's not interested in getting her promised charade anymore, and at that point even I'm hoping that maybe the movie isn't as predictable as I thought -- although there's something shady about that Kiwi accent and those elvish features.

Which will win the lady?

And in the twist that confirms the predicted predictability, it turns out that Henry is, in fact, not an actor at all (why he didn't make that clear is a convenient mystery since Jane made it obvious that she knew he was) and Martin was the pretender, assigned to romance her.

In due time my slight disappointment in that fact was appeased in the cheesiest fashion as the two fellows fight over her in an airport. The scene ends with an actual fight after Henry insults Martin by asking him if he couldn't get a job in The Hobbit. Oh the hilarity.

If there was a moral to all the silliness it'd be along the lines of "don't expect a romance straight out of an Austen novel." Right, very good, one problem though; they drive the point home by giving the heroine a "perfect" Pride and Prejudice style romance? Right... So I guess that just about sums up my point.

I couldn't call this a good movie, but since I can "delight in anything ridiculous" I got plenty of amusement out of the deal, and that is a worthy enough result.

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- August

Well, this looks like a generally dull month of new movie releases. The most potentially interesting movie, Elysium, just got an R rating, which is disappointing to me because I try to stay away from R-rated movies as a general rule. Sadly, the strong rating is also a good sign for the movie's quality. If I get to a theater this month it'll most likely be to play catch-up. Unless I take a sudden fancy to some surprise hit, or perhaps read and love this series of books...

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
Releasing on the 7th; PG.
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) and friends are back for round two. With the addition of fan-drawing actors Nathan Fillion, Anthony Head and Stanley Tucci. And I must say, it's working on me. I almost want to see this for Nathan Fillion alone. I saw The first film on a whim because it was free, and I enjoyed it. (Never mind that it was late and my brothers were cracking jokes about it the whole time.) Cheesy, a little immature, but definitely fun. So I'm mildly interested in the franchise now, but I have never read the books, and I will not go to theaters to see this one unless I have. By the trailer, I'd say they at least made an effort to kick it up a notch, and I did mention Nathan Fillion right?




Paranoia
Releasing the 16th; PG-13.
Liam Hemsworth leads a office mystery/thriller. The lesser Hemsworth (as he will probably always be to me) stars as a usual, unusually good-looking guy who get caught in the middle of a corporate war between Gary Oldman and Harrison Ford. Mystery, danger, drama and action ensues. Apparently. This movie looks good, in the most purely superficial sense of the word. It's pretty and glossy but as to a meaningful plot, it doesn't look quite as promising. (The trailer appears to summarize the whole movie excluding the ending.) The cast is what interests me most; Oldman and Ford are always great, and though he is the lesser one, Hemsworth isn't bad either, and I'm really interested to see if he can pull off being the action hero. Still, the cast isn't enough to convince me to see it, (especially if the film is as inappropriate as the trailer implies) but if the plot surprises and turns out better than it appears to be, or if Hemsworth surprises and holds up against his villainous co-stars, I may surprise, and take an interest.




Austenland
the 16th, limited; PG-13.
Cazy-Austen-fan Keri Russel saves up her money and goes on a Austen retreat, where people live how they would have in those days. Hilarity and romance may or may not ensue. This movie is like a good-news/bad-news scenario. Good news: it's made specifically for people who love Jane Austen. Bad news: it's really more like a spoof of Austen, and it's produced by Stephanie Meyer. (What...?) J. J. Feild plays the apparent hero... named Henry, which is both good, because I like Feild, and bad, because that reference is a bit too obvious for me. I want to see it because of it's Austen connection, but I'm afraid it could easily wander into territory that is a bit (for lack of a better word) sacrilegious. Early reviews on RT are pretty negative, which supports my theory, but, then again, Bret McKenzie (Figwit!) is also in it, so... maybe I'll have to give it a watch sometime after all.




Bonus: I'm mentioning "The Way, Way Back" again, since I still haven't seen it because its still not in my theater. (And because there's nothing else I want to talk about.) Since it's original release in the beginning of July, I've been tracking reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Turns out, bad idea, because I'm dying to see it more than ever, and who knows when I'll get the chance. Reviews on RT are generally glowing, saying that if you're tired of half-hearted summer action flicks full of numbing explosions from beginning to end then this movie is like a beautiful breath of fresh air. A truly funny and moving coming-of-age story with top-notch performances all around, and Sam Rockwell tearing it up in his most Rockwell-iest role ever. I must. See. This. Movie!



What new releases are you looking forward to this month?