Godzilla: King of the Monsters

Spoiler-free!

In this sequel to the 2014 Godzilla, the King is back -- here to protect the Earth yet again by fighting off even more Titans (giant monsters sleeping under the Earth). The human side is filled with the returning cast of Sally Hawkins and Ken Watanabe's scientists, and new faces in Bradley Whitford, Charles Dance, and Ziyi Zhang, and a new starring central family in Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, and Millie Bobby Brown.

That roar = fingernails on a chalkboard x 1000. My ears are still ringing.

I would like to say that it doesn't matter what the humans are up to because we have epic monster battles to get to, but that isn't true. And I'd like to say that the apocalyptic rampaging is insignificant compared to the heart of the matter which is the human characters and their personal struggles -- but I can't say that either. This movie is a mixture, and both sides suffer for it. There's more of the monsters this time than in 2014, and that takes away from replicating the calculated character journeys, but they couldn't do away with the humans altogether, so their side is focused on often, though in a more going-through-the-motions, shorthanded style to allow for more destruction.

I always want to care more for the human characters in movies, and I did care for the central family here. They had a complex dynamic on page but the longer the film went on, the more plot holes opened up and began leaking soul everywhere. In the end they hang on but only just; and I liked the characters less in the end than in the beginning. I really wanted to like Kyle Chandler, doing his usual Distant Dad Who Cares bit, but so much of the significant actions are given to everyone else surrounding him. It makes sense when they're technically more capable, but if there was a human lead, he was it, and he got to be heroic in only one instance.

He was also in King Kong (2005) and this movie is in the same universe as Kong: Skull Island. Idk why I think that's cool.

Vera Farmiga got most of the character arcing, but her arc was too complicated for the movie to pull off in the time allotted, and it felt cheapened in the end. Millie's character wasn't much to speak of -- a normal brand of good -- but she brings so much natural energy to her every moment of screen time. She's a star. Or she would be, if they existed these days. She's the kind of person who doesn't need a unique character to disappear into -- she can carry a movie like a classic leading lady. Charles Dance is Charles Dance; excellent. Bradley Whitford is a scene-stealer, but when is her not? And Sally and Ken are given respectable focus but take too much away from others (like Kyle) and the film would've been improved without them.

Okay, the people are out of the way -- now for more monstrous things. High carnage has its thrilling moments but overall the result seems less than was promised. Four unique beasts is "better" than the last movie's three, but scaling back was necessary to prevent an incoherent mess. I saw this movie because I figured if I wanted to ever see it, a big screen would be ideal. But the epic visuals promised in the trailer were a let-down. Events take place disproportionately in the dark and rain, so the "epic" cinematography is monochromatic and distant, then the "in-the-battle" shots are hectic and grainy. And that gorgeous shot of Mothra under the waterfall? That's the extent of her looking beautiful. Elsewhere she glows so brightly it "over-exposes" the camera, or she doesn't glow at all and looks dull.

Shots of her glowing as she flies around are treated like the Second Coming, complete with hilarious angel choruses. Elsewhere in blatant yet confusing symbolism, we have this shot. 

The 2014 made everything dark and rainy too, but that movie was about ambiance, mystery, following the people as they follow the wake of the monsters, rarely having direct contact with them. I was bored by that film at times, but in retrospect I appreciate what it was trying to do. This movie attempts to course-correct -- they heard the 2014 was too slow-paced, so they speed things up, but they over-correct and fall into ridiculous territory too many times. Godzilla isn't some force of nature in creature form anymore, he's some kind of sentient being who does his noble duty of protecting the Earth because he's good and wise or something. He'll make expressions in this movie that make him almost humanoid. It weird and too much for me.

The coolest thing about the 2014 was the return to gritty realism. This movie keeps that in its physical aspects like the visuals and the dialogue and serious tone, but it's so over-the-top and silly in what happens, it all seems disingenuous. I have nothing against silly and over-blown monster madness (I loved Kong: Skull Island after all!) but this film doesn't embrace the silliness, it pretends that it's not. It's not the seriousness or the silliness that's a problem, but the dissonant combination that indicates this movie had no clear or determined vision for what it wanted to be.

Try to please everyone and you'll wind up being middling all-around. 

Another victim of catering to the common denominator of fans. If that's all it wanted, I certainly can't say anything against the plan. It's appealing enough to please those who want to be, and has enough moments of interest to keep those on the fence from frustration. The only problem is it may not make much of a profit at this rate, so perhaps cheap gratification on a big budget wasn't the best plan after all. Oh well, the Earth goes on turning. Fictionally, that may be all due to Godzilla, but in the real world, the King of the Monsters is just another passing blip -- to be enjoyed and forgotten.

Me Before You

Major Spoilers!

Before I begin, I want to make two things very clear. 1: I did not pay to watch this movie. I would never do that. And 2: My motivation for watching it was so that I could confirm its status as a miserable, wilting pile of BS. Well -- BS confirmed.

Thanks JoJo moyes for inspiring me to write something better -- like this sentance. It has spelling and grammatical errors, but I'm not going to fix it to make a point about the height of the bar you set.

I knew it was, because I read the book (I was super, naively, embarrassingly unwitting to what it was), and since the movie is exactly like the book, I now have a nice opportunity to go on a ranting rampage and get a few things off my chest. So in case you're ignorant to this story, here it is in a nutshell. Girl (Emilia Clarke) is hired by rich parents (Janet McTeer and Charles Dance) to be a sort of care-giving companion to their previously wild playboy son (Sam Claflin) who was hit by a motorbike and now is a quadriplegic (basically he can move his head, and his fingers enough to drive his wheelchair). Girl and boy develop friendship, improve each other's lives, fall in love. Boy commits assisted suicide with the support of girl and parents. Isn't that so sweet? You're probably bawling already from the tragic romantic beauty of it all.

So the movie spends most of its time and more than most of its effort in trying to justify the suicide (still never sticking to one argument long enough to see it through, but more on that later) but in the beginning, before Clark learns of Will's intentions, there are a few events to keep one entertained. The growing friendship and the mutually improved lives were by comparison, well done, and bolstered by the movie's visual aspect which featured a lot of good-looking people wearing pretty clothes and surrounded by pretty, well filtered locations.

That's Brendan Coyle in the center. And Jenna Coleman is Clark's sister -- a pointless role outside of the book.

But the movie is torn between improving Will's life and making it tragic so that the end "works." He gets to spend all day being waited on, watching movies, listening to music, and rolling through beautiful English countryside, and his loving parents are rich and doting -- but no, his life is miserable. Examples? Well, he used to be a daredevil, and has explored places and done things that most would only dream of. Sounds like he was lucky to be able to do those things before the accident. He also had a girlfriend (Vanessa Kirby) who is now engaged to his old best friend and it's super awkward. But he attends their wedding and she makes a point of thanking him for coming. She also implies to Clark that the reason they broke up was because he pushed her away. I dunno y'all; it's an unfortunate situation, but she sounds like a decent girl.

On the flip side, Clark has her own boyfriend (Matthew Lewis), a fitness-obsessed, bit-of-a-doofus kind of guy you know is gonna be gone by then end. But again, there's really nothing wrong with him. He's just ignorant to Clark's wishes, like, he plans a holiday that he wants to do, which she pretends to be excited about! And then we're supposed to hate him for not understanding her? She won't tell him what she thinks about anything, so of course he thinks everything is fine. Then he starts getting jealous of Will, which, considering the romance that blooms later is totally justified. They finally break up and I feel more relieved for him, poor fellow.

At the wedding, Clark sits on Will's lap and they "dance" to shock the snobby crowd, but we are never given any reason to think they are snobby except that they're rich. And Will's rich too. And Clark...

Clark all by herself is just as confusing, and is also, I think, the movie's one casting flaw. Everyone else has pathetic or underused characters but is still a bunch of talented, well put-together and probably highly paid actors who got to phone in decent performances. Emilia Clarke acts by wiggling around her very flexible eyebrows, and misses the mark on a pretty cliched lead character. Bubbly, optimistic, fashion-brave, care-free Clark comes across as a self-righteous snob who will insult employees for doing their job. She plays everything like a comedy bit, and couldn't capture any semblance of genuineness. Oddly, most off was her singing. She sings like a mouse. Bad singers who don't care just let it out -- especially with a silly song like that.

On to the main event. So Clark discovers that Will has made an agreement with his parents to stick around for six months and then they'll let him kill himself. Will's mom still hopes he'll change his mind and she and Clark plan adventures and trips to try and make him see that life isn't so bad, the final trip being a vacation to some expensive resort on a tropical island. On these trips Will pushes Clark out of her comfort zone in ways she never could have dreamed, let alone had access to without him. On their last night in the tropics, he tells her that he was never happier than in those past six months, and then he casually invites her to come to the suicide resort with him.

And then they have a nice giggle about it and smile way too much to mask the fact that this movie is sick and disturbing.

First of all, WHAT?? If he doesn't want to die because he's unhappy then why does he want to die? Clark and others offer feeble arguments to all his reasoning, but none of the arguments are seen all the way through, because their natural conclusion is that he shouldn't kill himself. DUH. Unhappy? No, admittedly he is happy now. Quality of life? Granted, it's not at the extreme heights it was before, but he's still wealthy and surrounded by people who love him. Killing yourself because you can't skydive or windsurf anymore sounds more than a little petty and selfish. Very few fully able people have that kind of quality of life. Also he admits that the playboy him was a jerk and never would have given Clark a second look; seems like the accident made him a better person in the end. Then he says he wouldn't be able to stand being in a relationship with her without being able to have sex, which is also pretty petty, but I'll give him that one -- he should break up with her if that's how he feels. Suicide is maybe overkill in that scenario.

It seems to me that the only reason he has to kill himself is because he's disabled, not because the disability affects his life in any kind of significantly negative way. But the movie can't say that because it's evil and untrue. So they make up excuses.

So she's devastated because she thought she had changed his mind, and oh yeah, she's in love with him now, so she goes home and mopes... but then comes around before it's too late and they make up, with him on what will be his death bed. The argument the movie settles on -- for the sake of the romance -- is that he loves Clark so much he wants her to go live her life without him holding her back. So before he kills himself he creates an itinerary of adventure for her to complete after he's gone and gives her some money to "buy her freedom." The end of the film shows her sitting at a cafe in France, reading his final letter. Alone.

Look at her: doesn't she look happy as she sits there ALL BY HERSELF READING THE WORDS OF THE MAN SHE LOVED WHO KILLED HIMSELF SO SHE COULD GO SIT ALONE??????

BS, honest and simple. There's no angle to look at this pile of crap that makes it even faintly resemble a beautiful, inspiring butterfly, but that's what we're constantly told it is. Are we really supposed to believe that her newfound capacity for travel is supposed to replace a relationship with a human being? It what world is her life better because she got to go to Paris alone? (And by the way, what exactly was it that stopped his going to France? Oh yeah, he wanted to be there as his old self... the playboy jerk who loved no one.) No -- her life was better because of him; it can't also be made better because he's gone. This story painted itself into a corner and stubbornly stuck to its ill-advised propaganda. A literal death grip.

What kind of message is this movie trying to send, anyway? Well obviously it's trying to push the "right to die" agenda and normalize assisted suicide. (I'm on Clark's cross-wearing mum on this point -- it's no better than murder. And also a fundamentally extremely deceitful idea.) But besides that, what does it accidentally imply at the same time? If you're unhappy you should be able to kill yourself. If your quality of life is in any way diminished from what it used to be or what you want it to be, you should be able to kill yourself. If someone loves you and wants to spend their life taking care of you, you're holding them back -- you should kill yourself. And most broadly: Selfish aspirations are more important than personal relationships. Essentially, the title -- you, before anything or anyone else.

Talented actors Charles Dance and Janet McTeer as: Everyone as they realize what they just watched. Also probably: Them regretting their involvement in the project.

I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who noticed all these terrible ideas ingrained in this terrible, miserable movie. Briefly on the technical side: Of course I wasn't watching to enjoy myself or be involved in the story, but I never had to bother with any effort to keep myself from being pulled in. I was never tempted -- never even nudged to be emotionally moved. The movie was stale, unromantic, whitewashed moral excrement. Pooped out by a male cow, and smeared over pages of a book and a screenplay by an ignorant, misguided person armed with an agenda and absolutely no ability in or inclination toward critical thought.

I wish this story would kill itself. We would all definitely be better off without it.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

Last month, Captain America: Civil War hit and I saw it opening night... and was one of very few people who didn't absolutely adore it. In fact it left a very bad first impression on me -- which has toned down a little since and I'm looking forward to hopefully being able to ignore those things and focus solely on what I liked the second time round. But that opportunity has yet to come. Much like the opportunity to see Love and Friendship and X-Men: Apocalypse, both of which I still want to see, in spite of middling reviews for the latter. Unfortunately, extra time for theater trips is not readily available to me currently.

The month of June is looking very fine with three or four releases that if I don't get to the theater to see will still be watching at some point all the same. What movies look good to you this month?


Me Before You
Jun 3rd; PG-13
This romance's large British cast led me to read the book, and for the first time in my life reading a book before the movie came out didn't make me more interested in seeing the movie. I didn't love the story, and though it was well-written, sometimes funny, and very memorable, I don't care to see the story play out on the screen. However, I am still slightly interested, because the cast still is what it is. Sam Claflin and Emilia Clarke in the lead, with supporting favorites like Jenna Coleman, Charles Dance, Janet McTeer, and Brendan Coyle. (I am disappointed that the actor playing Nathan is from Australia, not New Zealand though.) And there is an element of plain and simple curiosity to know how well it was adapted. So I may watch it someday, but not anytime soon.




Now You See Me 2
Jun 10th; PG-13
Haha! "We thought" (and hoped) "they were gone forever, but now they're back!" Minus Isla Fischer, but hey, that actually a good thing. If it weren't for me having sat though the original movie I wouldn't even be mentioning this one. I'm really surprised it even exists. Plenty of people may have enjoyed Now You See Me more than I did, but did anyone really enjoy it enough to warrant a sequel? This one certainly doesn't look one bit better then the first, in spite of having "cooler" tricks. It's all just movie magic anyway, so really, what's the point?




Warcraft
Jun 10th; PG-13
I'm not a gamer and have never played any Warcraft games. My brother tried to make me play Hearthstone once, but I was confused and bored within seconds. But, I want to see this move. No, it doesn't look like a great movie, but something about the over-the-top Lord of the Rings impression it evokes really really appeals to me. I like that motion-capture was used for the Orcs, and the CGI looks like real effort was put into it, which is a good sign. And I like the cast. Video game movies have never been good before, but with a movie like this it doesn't necessarily have to be good to be enjoyable. Early reviews are not boding well for the film's quality, but for the enjoyment part, I'm pretty determined to see for myself.




Finding Dory
Jun 17th; PG
For these upcoming movie posts, I make a list of all the movie I might want to talk about and then go watch the trailers. I got to this one and said a sarcastic and disappointed "Oh, great." Which says a lot about what I think about this movie already. I still haven't watched it. I don't want to. I don't want this movie to exist and add on to one of my childhood favorites -- even it if it turns out decently -- which I kinda doubt it will. Okay watching it now.... ..... ....Help me. Well... there was one good joke. Maybe I watched the wrong trailer, but I sure as heck aint gonna risk watching another. I'm done. Nope nope nope nope nope.




Independence Day: Resurgence
Jun 24th; No Rating yet
Man, this trailer gets me with the nostalgia every time during the speech from the first movie. This could very easily not be a worthy successor to the original, but for me the original wasn't too great for it to not be worth a good shot. Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman are back and Liam Hemsworth has been added, and there's nothing particular in the trailer that makes me thin it'll be really good, but there's nothing that makes think it'll be bad either. It's a good trailer that doesn't give away a whole lot and doesn't have to since everyone can figure out what it'll be about pretty much on their own. And I'm definitely interested to see this movie.




Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Jun 24th; PG-13
Now, this. This is my movie. This is my pick for June. If I could only watch one movie in the whole month it would be this one. If I could talk about only one film in this post it would be this one. I could tell you about how it's set in New Zealand; how the trailer makes it feel like a Wes Anderson comedy; how it has raving reviews and a perfect score on RT; or more personally, how it reminds me of another summer flick from three years ago that inspired this whole post series in the first place -- The Way, Way Back. But never mind all that. Just watch this trailer and see for yourself.




Have a lovely June everyone!

And Then There Were None

I'll start with a spoiler-free review, and probably add a spoiler section at the end. If you don't know this story it is not one you want to have spoiled -- and in fact I would even recommend reading the book before watching any film adaptations. Because, as we all know, the book is always better. However, this new three-hour BBC miniseries comes magnificently close.

Ten little Soldier Boys went out to dine;
One choked his little self and then there were nine.

Ten people are invited to a mansion on a tiny island, where they are then killed off one by one in a manner dictated by a children's poem that hangs in every room. Starring in alphabetical order: Douglas Booth, Charles Dance, Maeve Dermody, Burn Gorman, Anna Maxwell Martin, Sam Neill, Miranda Richardson, Toby Stephens, Noah Taylor, and Aidan Turner.

The only other film version of this I've seen is the 1945 one, which was really quite disappointing by having neither a tone nor even a plot that was accurate to the novel. This one was the first adaptation in quite a while, and being made in modern times, it was practically guaranteed to have the right amount of darkness in its tone, and also boasts an absolutely fantastic cast. Even the characters that die first have big names to them, and are characterized so well that when they suddenly die you honestly feel like it was before their time.

Nine little Soldier Boys sat up very late;
One overslept himself and then there were eight.

The run time was around three hours, and in the first half-hour to hour, the film gets off to a very slow start. I was impatient for the murdering to get going, and once it did things picked up pretty well and started a nice slow-build to the end, but before that it didn't sit right. I'm all for movies taking their time to set up properly, but here it felt like the film was actively stalling and trying to wait as long as possible to start the bloodbath. Later, the plodding, smoothly moving pace creates some quite thrilling suspense, but it should have started with more of a beat.

That is one of two problems that actually dampened my watching experience, but the second is spoiler-y, so I'll get to it later. One thing that annoyed me a little but didn't hinder any enjoyment was that any sexuality in the story was amped up and squeezed in because you-know-you-gotta-have-that-stuff! All was kept at a PG-13 level though, and with a quick tap of the remote they were skipped with no harm done. Still, I reserve the right to be annoyed. People just don't seem to understand that Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None was actually one-hundred percent perfect exactly the way it is, and that the best way to adapt it would be to translate it to the different medium as exactly as possible and resist the temptation to add one's own "spin" or anything else.

Eight little Soldier Boys traveling in Devon;
One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.

This adaptation ultimately flounders while trying to add its own spin but succeeds in being the best adaptation yet by attempting to add or change the least amount of things. It smartly takes most of its cues from the novel, and expertly plays the chilling terror of this mystery. It is gruesomely violent on occasion and is always giving off a feeling of dread as it slowly and methodically goes through its horrible checklist. The cast delivers spectacularly with many poignant performances, and whenever the script remains in the adaptation area, it does its job beautifully. I almost wish it were shorter, and had less of a "period drama" feel to it, because it takes a little patience and a certain amount of interest to actually watch it, but for me it was easy -- even with the overlong beginning. It's not perfect, but it's flaws you can count on one hand and I am happy to consider it the current (and first) definitive film adaptation of Christie's masterpiece.

Seven little Soldier Boys chopping up sticks;
One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.

Six little Soldier Boys playing with a hive;
A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.

Spoiler Warning! (From here to the end.)
And now on to some points that involve spoilers. First of all, a little more on the cast: Douglas Booth impressed me with his short-lived character, as did Anna Maxwell Martin in her nearly unrecognizable and creepy role. They, and then Sam Neill, Noah Taylor and Miranda Richarson were the first half to go, and while each of their characters were fully developed, the remaining five were doubly so. Toby Stevens' Doctor and Burn Gorman's Inspector Blore defined their characters so well, while in the book they never stood out to me. The characters that did stand out in the book where Vera (Maeve Dermody) and Lumbard (Aiden Turner) and they were the two I was most excited to see. And another whose performance I was highly anticipating, Charles Dance, did impress effortlessly and coolly -- when he was able that is -- sadly his character was involved this show's worst failing.

Five little Soldier Boys going in for law;
One got in Chancery and then there were four.

Four little Soldier Boys going out to sea;
A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.

Turner was Lumbard down to the bone -- ideal casting. Dermody was the only actor in the show I'd never seen before, and she impressed me right along with the rest of them. And I liked that these two were given more attention overall; so we could get even more attached to them before they died. The scene on the beach when they are down to two and Vera shoots Lumbard was my favorite part of the book, and I was thrilled by how it played out here. So intense, terrifying and tragic; it was spot-on perfection, and the highlight of the whole production. After that Vera is supposed to go back to her room, find a noose waiting for her, and willingly hang herself. The book then gave us an epilogue to explain everything. But that's where this adaptation made its biggest blunder.

Here, instead, Justice Wargrave reveals himself to Vera once she's alone and explains his whole plot to her -- villainous monologue style -- effectively bringing the story to a screeching halt mere seconds before the end of the climax. It totally destroys the pacing that was up until then very tight and brilliantly effective, just so that there wouldn't have to be an anticlimax in order to explain everything. After he finishes his monologue the pace isn't able to get up to speed enough before the end and therefore the end doesn't have to power it should have had. Instead it was rather confused and sadly disappointing compared to what I was expecting after the previously mention magnificent highlight on the beach.

Two little Soldier Boys sitting in the sun;
One got frizzled up and then there was one.

That final flaw being so close at the end makes it stick in my mind and put a pretty large damper on the whole production, but when I remember everything else, it's flaws are in such a small percentage of the show that it doesn't seem fair to judge it all only on my disappointed last impression. I want to re-watch it soon, in the hope that my adjusted expectations in some places might help my overall impression be more evenly positive. Right now, I completely adored some of it, and actually despise other parts. The cast was flawless, and the characterization wonderful. The violence level was exactly where I was hoping it would be. And the tone was somberly rich and thrilling, and even legitimately scary. Not cheap horror-jump-scares, but real, chilling fear.

One little Soldier Boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.

And considering it all, all the flaws I saw where just things that lightened the fear and the darkness, or made the disturbing, sobering side of the story less hard-hitting. I suppose it's hard to create and develop characters so well only to kill them off with no resolution, abruptly and heartlessly. And I suppose that the fact that no one can do it with as much resolve as this story's original creator even making an adaptation speaks quite powerfully to why Agatha Christie is the one who is called the "Queen of Crime." You can rise to some pretty impressive heights and still not even hope to match her.

The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby

I seem to have started a little tradition for myself of reading a Dickens novel over the Christmas season every year. First it was Little Dorrit, after having watched the fantastic, wonderfully long miniseries adaptation by BBC; this past year, it was Nicholas Nickleby, and this time, I did the reading before the watching, falling in love with the book, and then this adaptation.

The Nickleby's.

When his father makes a mistake that results in the loss of his fortune, and then dies soon after, young and naive Nicholas Nickleby and his sweet sister Kate are thrust into the cold and cruel world where they must learn to work for a living. Their good and honest personalities clash with the rest of society and causes much trouble for them, and we follow them through their ups and downs as they determinedly forge a path through the worst humanity has to offer in 1830's London.

This 2001 TV film clocks in at 3 hours, and by my reckoning could have easily been twice as long, because as good as this lesser-known adaptation of one of Dickens's lesser-known novels is, it only seems like a highlight reel of the 770-page book. They did the best they could with the time they had though; the content was packed in at an almost dizzying pace, but it was there intact. Most of what was left out wasn't necessary to include -- Dickens seemed more invested in page numbers than concise, rabbit-trail-less storytelling. Some of my personal favorite parts were left out, but the important plot lines were all present, and a good amount of the not-so-important, but entertaining smaller bits besides.

Our dashing hero.

James D'Arcy, I knew from very early in reading the book, was ideally cast as the young hero Nicholas, and I was not wrong. Nicholas is a potentially tedious character to portray; pride and naivety are easily bothersome flaws for a hero to have, and his positive qualities -- mainly his passionate good heart -- are difficult to bring out on screen without helpfully explaining text, but besides looking the part exactly, D'Arcy does the character justice admirably. My only complaint would be that he comes across a little too reserved or stuck-up at times, and that I tribute to the lack of honest, expressive speeches he gets to make, and that the lighter side of the whole story is left out. He never lacks for charm, sincerity or cheerful optimism though, and one thing done exactly right is his righteous anger; seething underneath his outward calm.

The only character I liked, but didn't wish more screen time or development for was Smike, Nicholas's friend and faithful companion. He's played by Lee Ingleby, and is translated to the screen and portrayed flawlessly. Okay, I did wish one thing more for him, but it was at the end where everything was going at break-neck speed, so I understand. Ingleby was sweet and sad and wonderfully pitiable and everything he should have been.

Their friendship and dynamic together was great.

The gorgeous Sophia Myles is Nicholas's sister Kate, and she winds up in the same place as most other characters; she is obviously well-cast, but doesn't get quite enough time to give the character a full, totally satisfying arc. She does do Kate's kindness, gentleness and sweetness every bit of credit it deserves though, in a true, sincere way. Their mother may fall into the same category of lacking time also, but of that I'm actually glad, since here, she doesn't go on endless flighty ramblings, but you know that she could at any moment, and the threat of it is enough.

Imagining them as their characters in the book was almost too easy. They were perfect for the roles.

There's no shortage of villains to antagonize our hero and his family, but the best (and therefore the worst) of them is also his family -- the uncle, Ralph Nickleby. Ralph is a remarkable, amazingly complex antagonist I thought, and Charles Dance embodies him and his coldness with chilling believability, and underlying human realism. It is much more difficult to understand his inner-workings without Dickens's helpful guidance, but already knowing it, I found I could see it come out in the subtleties of the performance.

The story is about Ralph Nickleby almost as much it is about his nephew; he is no one-dimensional villain.

Other villains' existence was more focused on causing trouble for Nicholas than their thoughts and motivations behind it, so they were all done well; doing their duty and then fading out. Most notably is the Squeers family, who were all -- father mother daughter and son -- detestable through and through. And so disgusting that I wished they wouldn't be shown eating so very much. I have to admit I enjoyed Fanny's attempts at attracting Nicholas though, and it was one of few things that didn't feel hurried. Also worth a mention are Sir Mulberry Hawk (Dominic West) who was perfectly terrible, and his brace of followers, which includes the most familiar face this film can boast; before his rise to fame and mischief-making, Tom Hiddleston! He had a grand total of four words to say, but the camera did like him plenty.

Sir Mulberry and his secondary crony, Old Fashioned Blonde Loki.

The Cheeryble Brothers were the exact opposite of the villains; their sole existence was to make the Nickleby's lives better without examination of "why's," but I must say I wished to see more of their antics, and I definitely missed the inclusion of the honorary third brother Tim Linkinwater, who was undoubtedly excluded from this version for not having anything really important to do.

Then -- ah! -- there are the romantic interests! The definition-of-charming period drama veteran JJ Feild is Kate's, and of course he does a wonderful job being sweet and romantic like always. It goes without saying that they didn't get nearly as much time to develop their relationship as I would have liked. Neither did Nicholas and his girl, played by Katherine Holme. She looked the part perfectly, but had a nasally voice, and was barely given a half a chance to develop a character. A scene was added to give them some extra time on screen together, and a cute as it was, it felt out of place by not contributing at all to the plot.

Yay, Dickensian romance!

At the surface, this story doesn't have much a plot to speak of; it literally just follows the life and episodic adventures of its dashing young hero. Yet I would have sat through ten hours of this movie if it meant only a handful more of those insignificant adventures were included. Nevertheless, this film makes a valiant effort. It sets a good, dark tone, and keeps the focus and heart in the right place; it cast the characters flawlessly -- to actors who, in their turn gave wonderful performances -- and, with an understanding of what was most important to include, the story was trimmed down to three hours in the best way I could imagine possible.

The short run-time is the biggest flaw, and a significant one, causing repercussions throughout the plot and characters and restricting them from their fullest potential. But when their fullest potential is the great amount of time, attention and understanding Dickens devoted to them, the lesser level they reached in a three-hour low-budget film adaptation is not only acceptable, but quite impressive in itself. It doesn't lack in compelling characters, humorous moments, heartfelt moments or classic old-fashioned entertainment, and stays true to the feel and themes Dickens gave it. If it weren't for the attention and love put into this adaptation, I would have wished I hadn't wasted three hours on it, but instead, my one wish is that it could have been even longer; if only so I could spend a few more precious moments in the world of Nicholas Nickleby.