Review: Becoming Jane (2007)

I had heard about Becoming Jane. From what I've heard, some people like it and others don't. We actually own the DVD, but I've never watched it. I happened to see that it was on TV one night, so I watched it on TV instead of the DVD.

Box Art

Synopsis
Becoming Jane is the untold love story between Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy. When Tom Lefroy first meets Jane, he insults her writing abilities and wounds her pride. But she eventually falls in love with him.

Characters
There are some actors and actresses that you may recognize in Becoming Jane. Anne Hathaway (Jane Austen) is well known in her role in The Princess Diaries movies. James McAvoy (Tom Lefroy) was in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Maggie Smith (Lady Gresham) has been seen in a number of movies, including Downton Abbey. Anna Maxwell Martin (Cassandra Austen) was also seen in North and South.

I'm sorry, but Anne Hathaway just isn't Jane Austen. There were spots in her character that didn't seem to fit. Spoiler For instance, I honestly don't think that the real Jane Austen would have consented to an elopement. Jane was a very smart, moral person and would know how an elopement would affect her family and her reputation. Even if she was in love with Tom Lefroy, I still don't think that she wouldn't have accepted. And Jane also accepted a proposal from Lady Gresham's nephew (?): from what I know about Jane Austen's life, she was engaged to her friend's brother for one day, but then broke off the engagement when she realized that she didn't love him. I have not heard of her accepting another proposal, so that part in the movie must have been invention. End of Spoiler Another spot which didn't seem to fit was this: Tom Lefroy takes Jane to some dark boxing pit (?) that looks like no respectable lady would be anywhere near, let alone in. Honestly, would Jane have considered going to such a place? No. On another note, I also found Anne Hathaway's voice a little irritating -- it was high and not like what I would have imagined Jane's voice to have been like. She's simply not Jane Austen.

Jane (Anne Hathaway) dancing with Tom Lefroy (James
McAvoy)

The other problem I have is with Tom Lefroy. With the way they presented him, would anyone think that Jane Austen would have even considered liking him? The first time we see him, he's in a dark boxing ring (possibly a bar? or inn?), fighting and flirting with some of the women in there. He's not a very serious student in this film (which, from what I've read about the real Tom Lefroy, he was a serious student). I've looked around at some other reviews, and I think a couple of times I've run into reviews that said that he resembled Willoughby from Sense and Sensibility or Wickham from Pride and Prejudice. And the filmmakers were trying to make him look like Mr. Darcy? Something went wrong with him while they were writing the script for the movie.

I did like that they included George Austen, Jane Austen's deaf brother. The scenes when Jane and George interacted were heart-warming. It may not be as accurate as it could have been (read this article from the Jane Austen Center on George Austen to learn more), but I still liked that they included him.

Scenery
The scenery is very lovely. There are a lot of greens in the outside scenes, so the outdoor scenes look very crisp and fresh. The houses are very nice too. This film is very lovely to look at.

Costumes

Cassandra Austen (Anna Maxwell Martin) with Jane Austen

As far as construction goes, the costuming was well made and looked great... However, most of it was not Regency era fashions. Many of the dresses were Georgian, so earlier than the Regency era. There are only a couple of ways to get away with characters wearing out of date fashions in a period film: a) the character is poor b) the character is old. For characters like Mrs. Austen, Georgian fashion would be acceptable since she is both poor and older (I wouldn't want to say old exactly). For Lady Gresham, yes she was rich, but she was also an old character. But for the younger characters, it seems like they should have had the Regency attire. Cassandra Austen, though not quite having Georgian-wear, had a dress with a low waist line (see the picture with her and Jane), while Jane, her younger sister by a couple of years, had a fashionable Regency waist on her dresses. Jane's cousin, Eliza, a countess with money, doesn't appear to be that old and yet she doesn't have Regency wear. So, the accuracy of the costuming is off.

My other complaint on the costuming is that for Jane's Regency dresses, the waist-line was not as high as it should have been. The waist line on these Regency dresses seemed to hit the natural waist line -- they did not have the true empire waist that should have been.

Overall: 1.5/5

I'm not convinced by this movie. Anne Hathaway is simply not Jane Austen. Tom Lefroy was all wrong. The costuming looked nice, but wasn't very accurate. The scenery -- very pretty. In summary, if you want an accurate portrayal of Jane Austen and her life, I wouldn't watch this movie. There were a lot of things that were off for this movie and a great deal of it must have been invention. But if you don't know much about Jane Austen's life, you might enjoy this film (though after viewing it, I would recommend that you research Jane Austen's biography to see what is true and what is fiction).

I should also note again that I viewed this movie when it was on TV, so some objectionable content was edited out for TV viewing. I have heard that there are a couple of scenes that you may want to avoid, but I couldn't place where they are in the movie, unfortunately. There was an implication about Eliza de Feuillide and Henry Austen, but nothing was shown (at least on the edited TV version).

Becoming Jane is available on DVD and Blu-Ray. It runs for 120 minutes and is rated PG (but originally PG-13).

Review: Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Couple of things before you read this review: 1. I am a bit biased for this review since I not only have seen the 1995 miniseries of Pride and Prejudice, but I absolutely love it and it's one of my favorite things to watch. 2. I'm not much of a fan of the older BBC period dramas (though there are some that I absolutely love *cough* Barchester Chronicles *cough*). So as you read my review, you may or may not agree with me. But this is my opinion of this version of Pride and Prejudice.

Box Art

Synopsis - Taken from Pride and Prejudice (1995) Review
Mrs. Bennet is trying to marry off her five daughters. When the rich Mr. Bingley moves into the neighborhood, Mrs. Bennet is determined that he marry one of her daughters. Mr. Bingley takes an interest in Jane, the eldest daughter, while his friend, Mr. Darcy, offends Elizabeth, Jane's sister.


Characters
I only recognized two members of the cast. Elizabeth Garvie (Elizabeth Bennet) I have seen in the second season of The House of Eliott as Lady Elizabeth Montford (Does she tend of have characters with the name Elizabeth a lot?). I also saw that Judy Parfitt (Lady Catherine de Bourgh) was in here: I have seen in Little Dorrit as Mrs. Clennam.

Elizabeth (Elizabeth Garvie) with Jane (Sabrina Franklyn)

Most of the characters I was severely disappointed in. (Forgive me, but I'm going to have to make some comparisons here). Sabrina Franklyn's Jane Bennet was pretty, but I thought that she just wasn't Jane; I pictured Jane as being much more quiet/gentler in her manners and way of speaking. Elizabeth Garvie's Elizabeth just isn't Elizabeth, but more on Elizabeth Garvie's Elizabeth later. Mary Bennet was portrayed as being much too silly: they made her more like Kitty and Lydia, especially at the beginning (honestly, did Mary really care that Mr. Bingley was renting Netherfield Park like everyone else?). Kitty seemed like she was either coughing or crying the entire time (plus when Mr. Bingley returned, suddenly Mrs. Bennet wanted him to marry Kitty?!), but Lydia does exhibit her usually annoying character (though I think Julia Sawalha was more entertaining to watch in the 1995 miniseries). Mr. Bennet seems to be much more malicious than he is supposed to be: he always sounded annoyed at everyone and the lines that were supposed to be said in a light way were said quite angrily. Mrs. Bennet was annoying, which she should be, but she lacked the over dramatic personality that Alison Steadman was a much better in portraying in the 1995 miniseries. I will say that I did like Irene Richard's Charlotte Lucas, though everyone remarked on how she was plain, but I didn't think she was that plain, but even her character wasn't as accurate as it should have been. A lot was added when Elizabeth visited her and Mr. Collins at Hunsford. If you didn't like that in the 1995 miniseries that Mr. Darcy jumped in the lake for a swim, you probably won't like that Mr. Collins had an "aqua hat" and that he actually wore it to pick stuff out of a pond with Charlotte. And it seemed like if Lady Catherine said something about cleaning the house (or in this case, chairs), Charlotte would personally attend to it on her hands and knees. Would Charlotte have done something like that? I don't believe so. Lady Catherine herself could have had a home improvement show: when you first see her, she's giving all this housekeeping advice. It was much overdone.

Elizabeth Garvie is not a very good Elizabeth Bennet. She seemed to be more catty than she should have been. I've never thought of Elizabeth as catty, but rather as someone who was offended by Mr. Darcy. In this Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth seemed to be actually in love with Wickham for a while and everyone seemed to know about it and she seemed to express it pretty obviously, which isn't supposed to be. Also, the way that she delivered some of her lines at some serious moments was almost done comically. If she wasn't comical in the delivery of her lines, she was quite dull. Honestly, Elizabeth Garvie's Elizabeth can't even compare to Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth in the 1995 miniseries. Jennifer Ehle had a way of speaking Elizabeth's lines that was very easy and natural to her -- and it came out very natural and sounded like the Elizabeth in the book. Elizabeth Garvie seemed to not only say her lines in a way that was quite dull, but she also made Elizabeth look more catty than she should have been.

Mr. Darcy (David Rintoul) proposing to
Elizabeth (Elizabeth Garvie)

Let me say this: David Rintoul is not Mr. Darcy. All his lines were said very, very dully and with absolutely no emotion. It seemed like the whole time, he was just spitting out his lines as quickly as possible. Even when Elizabeth ran to Pemberly to tell him about Lydia's elopement (which is definitely not the way it happened in the book), he failed to be at all affected by Elizabeth crying in front of him. It seemed like he was merely speaking the lines and not acting them. He barely moved as he was talking, resembling a block of wood. Spoiler I'm also not one for romantic scenes much, but could Mr. Darcy's second proposal possibly be any duller? There seemed like there was absolutely no emotion in the entire scene (I know the emotion is not supposed to be excessive, but it ought to have been subtle. It was just entirely lacking here). Again, it's another example of both Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul just saying the lines and not acting as Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. End of Spoiler I think I am much more far assured that Colin Firth is the definitive Mr. Darcy.


Scenery
You can't really expect very breathtaking scenery from a BBC miniseries made in the 70s or 80s. The outdoor scenes were okay, but nothing special. The miniseries does come off like a play (as do many period dramas of the 70s and 80s). Comparing to other period dramas from the 80s, I would say the quality is about the same.

Wickham telling Elizabeth how Mr. Darcy
wronged him.

Costumes
The costuming was okay. Everything looked for the most part period accurate. I notice that many of the women wore chemisettes under their dresses, which would be accurate to the time period. A lot of lace in the necklines for evening wear was used, though, which is something that I've never noticed before. I don't have any reason to say that it's inaccurate, but I haven't seen it before and I've seen quite a bit of movies that take place in the Regency Era.


Music
Not the best music. I wouldn't say that the background music is representative of the music of the time. And the Mr. Collins theme was horrid! It sounded like a song out of some really bad comedy. A little bit of a side note: I noticed that Mary Bennet would always sing the song "Early One Morning". I instantly recognized the song since I am a fan of the show Bonanza, and that was a song most notably sung by the character Adam Cartwright. (By the way, Adam sung it much better)


Overall: 1.5/5
There are a lot of people who really love this version of Pride and Prejudice: I'm not one of them. There were just so many elements of the story changed and many of the characters were not the way that they should have been. This miniseries was much more duller than it should have been. I would definitely say that if you only want to see one version of Pride and Prejudice, skip this version and watch the 1995 one: it's much more accurate to the book and a lot more fun to watch.

Pride and Prejudice is available on DVD and VHS and is also on Netflix Instant Streaming. It runs for 265 minutes and is made up of five episodes.

Review: A Doll's House (1973)

I had to read this play for school a couple of years ago. While I was reading it, it was tolerable, but then once I got to the end it was very disappointing. I happened to see that this was on Netflix's Instant Streaming, and, having nothing better to really watch at the moment, I thought I would try to watch this even though I was not fond of the play. I also happened to see that Anna Massey was in this movie, so I thought "maybe this will be interesting..."

Note: Unfortunately, I couldn't find screenshots of the movie. Sorry about that.

DVD Box Art

Synopsis
After years of being poor, Torvald and Nora Helmer finally have plenty of money to have a very nice Christmas. But when Torvald's coworker threatens to reveal that Nora forged her father's signiture on a loan to get money for a trip for Torvald's health, Nora tries to hide that fact from Torvald.

Characters
You might recognize a couple of characters in here. As Torvald, you will notice a young Anthony Hopkins. Claire Bloom (Nora) was also in The King's Speech as Queen Mary. And also, Anna Massey (Kristine Linde) was also in He Knew He Was Right as Miss/Aunt Stanbury.

I found both Torvald and Nora to be very irritating. Between his treating her like a child and the squirrel noises that she makes trying to be cute, they got very irritating quickly. Spoiler As I said in my introduction, I found the ending to be very disappointing. The ending was that Nora, after years of not being taken seriously by Torvald, leaves Torvald and her children. There are many people that applaud her decision, but I cannot. I found that what she did was very selfish: she abandoned her responsibilities, at the very least, to her children to find out who she is. And she also didn't even attempt to work things out with Torvald; she just left him. In this movie, they made it so that Torvald slapped Nora after he found out what she did, but I don't think he did in the play. But even still, she didn't even try to work it out her problems with him, which really bothers me. End of Spoiler

Anna Massey did a great job at acting. I didn't know she was in here when I started to watch the movie, but then I saw her name in the credits and recognized her name. She was probably one of the characters that didn't irritate me. She was level-headed, sensible, and wanted to be of some use after her husband died.

Scenery
The scenery was okay. The entire play is supposed to take place in one or two rooms, but they moved it around more in the movie (which would make sense: if someone wanted to talk to Krogstad, the antagonist, why would they go to the Helmer's residence?).

Costumes
The costuming wasn't the worst that I've seen. It was good overall, but I've seen better. The costumes were from (I would say) around 1875 - 1883, which in the time that the play was published.

Overall: 1/5
Well, I gave it a shot. I never really liked A Doll's House (In fact, I'm not fond of Henrik Ibsen), but I still thought I would give this movie a try. This movie just wasn't good. There is a scene that looks like it could get mature, but it doesn't. There is a little bit of swearing (Nora swearing just because she isn't allowed).

A Doll's House is available on DVD. It runs for 105 minutes and is rated G (though I would say it should be rated PG).

Review: Jane Eyre (1996)

I first read Jane Eyre for summer reading for school one year and this was the first adaptation that I watched (which we coincidentally watched in class). I'm going to warn you now: Jane Eyre is not my favorite book; it's not the most uplifting book that I have read, and, this will be a bit of a spoiler, but I'm not quite sure what Jane sees in Mr. Rochester. But I rewatched this adaptation, and here's what I thought.

Box Art

Synopsis

Young Jane Eyre was sent away from her cruel Aunt Reed to go to school at Lowood school. Ten years later, she gets a job as a governess at Thornfield Hall, which holds many secrets.

Characters

Fans of Persuasion (1995) will recognize Amanda Root as Miss Temple and Samuel West as St. John Rivers. Other than those two, I don't think that there were other actors/actresses that I recognized from other period dramas

Charlotte Gainsbourg's Jane I liked. She was a very pretty Jane, yet she was able to appear plain. She was also able to portray Jane's quiet nature well and with emotion. Overall, I'm satisfied with this Jane; I just don't have too much to say about her other than I liked this version of Jane.

Jane meets Mr. Rochester for the first time.

Overall, Mr. Rochester irritated me, but I think that can be applied to any adaptation I see of Jane Eyre. His character always annoyed me: he was, for lack of a better term, a really big jerk in my opinion and he also very seriously lied; I know there are a lot of fans of his out there, but keep in mind this is just my opinion. As far as accuracy to the novel goes, I don't think William Hurt's portrayal was as accurate as it could have been; he was missing something that was in the novel that just didn't get translated to the movie.

Scenery
The scenery is kind of dark most of the time. Or better yet, I should say that it's not as vibrant as other period dramas that I have seen. Lowood was very dark and dirty, which would be an accurate portrayal. Thornfield Hall itself is very dark, which would be fitting with the story. I didn't really care for the darker scenes, but it was fitting with the story.

Costumes

There isn't much to say about the costuming. On the richer characters, the costumes were nice and pretty, but they weren't there for too long. Jane had very few dresses since she is a plain and humble character. The only thing that bothered me was this: when Jane was an adult, the gowns looked like they were from the 1840's, but ten years ago in Jane's childhood, the costumes did not look like they were from the 1830's, but still the 1840's. That was probably the only thing that irked me about the costumes. Overall, they were good, I guess.

Helen Burns and Young Jane about to get their hair cut.

Music
Most of the music sounded very similar and didn't vary greatly. The music was very flowy and smooth. It had kind of a sad, beautiful tone to the music. It was nice music, but all the tracks seemed to be either the same song or very similar songs.

Overall: 2/5
This adaptation is not as accurate to the story as others, but it gets the overall point across. There were quite a few things changed from the novel, especially at the end. Jane Eyre isn't much of a favorite story with me, but this version is tolerable. I probably wouldn't rewatch it, but it wasn't as bad as some period dramas that I have seen.

Jane Eyre is available on DVD. It runs for 112 minutes.

No Review Next Week

Due to the Jane Austen Week festivities, there will not be a review for next week. However, the week after that, there will be a review!


 God Bless,
 

Review: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

I really didn't have much of an interest in watching this movie, but one day my sister watched it on Netflix and said that I might enjoy the costumes. I was a little intrigued and decided to sit down and watch Alice in Wonderland.

Box Art

Synopsis
Nineteen year old Alice Kingsleigh goes to a party where she is proposed to in front of the whole party. She goes off and finds herself falling down a rabbit hole into Wonderland/Underland. Everyone there seems to know her name, but she has no recollection of Wonderland/Underland.

Characters
There are a couple of actors/actresses that you might recognize here. Johnny Depp was the Mad Hatter, Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre (2010)) was Alice, Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech) was the Red Queen, Anne Hathaway (Becoming Jane) was the White Queen, Stephen Fry was the Cheshire Cat, Alan Rickman (Sense and Sensibility) as the Blue Catepiller, Timothy Spall (The King's Speech) was Bayard the dog, Geraldine James (He Knew He Was Right) was Lady Ascot, Imelda Stauton (Sense and Sensibility) was one of the flowers, Christopher Lee (Lord of the Rings) was the Jabberwocky, and Jim Carter (Downton Abbey) was one of the Red Queen's subjects.

Johnny Depp (Right) as the Mad Hatter. Mia Wasikowska (Left)
as Alice.

Amazingly enough, Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter didn't irk me as much as I expected. I assumed that his Mad Hatter was going to be overly hyper and crazy, but it didn't get as crazy as it could have been, though I did find the dance that he did at the end to be a little too modern.

Is it just me or did the White Queen seem a little odd? Whenever she appeared on screen, it seemed like there was something wrong with her. She was a bit creepy but trying to hide that creepiness with this airy tone (if that makes sense), but she was still a bit creepy; even her body language was a little creepy. Since the White Queen is supposed to be good, Anne Hathaway should have took another look and reconsidered how to portray the White Queen because you get the sense that the White Queen might not be the good character that she appears to be.

Scenery
Three words: glum, grim, and grotesque...at least for about 95% of the movie. As many of you might know, I do not like dark settings in movies. The real world scenes, as few as there were, were much brighter and nicer to look at. I know the dark scenery in Wonderland/Underland was supposed to express that Wonderland/Underland was under the oppressive rule of the Red Queen, but it was a little too creepy.


Costumes

Alice, dressed in armor, about to do battle with the Jabberwocky.
The White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and the Mad Hatter
(Johnny Depp) stand behind her along with the White Queen's
followers.

I much preferred the real world costumes to the fantasy costumes. The fantasy costumes were mostly modern, but I wouldn't say they were terrible. My only concern was with Alice's dresses. When she arrives in Wonderland, she's wearing her real world dress; then she drinks the potion that makes her smaller and she gets a new dress; she eats the cake that makes her taller and she magically gets another new outfit; she goes back to being small and gets another new dress; but then when she meets the Mad Hatter and she drinks the "short" potion, suddenly she needs new clothes made for her, and anytime after that, a special point is made that she needs new clothes made for her. It seemed to be a problem with continuity and it is a small issue, but it still bothered me. I also thought that the Mad Hatter was too heavily made up. Other than that, the costuming was good.


Overall: 3/5
This was a weird version of Alice in Wonderland, but I wouldn't say that it was terrible. It is a little dark, which I don't particularly like, but it wasn't a bad movie. I probably wouldn't have much of an occasion to watch it, but if I was over at someone's house and they wanted to watch this movie, I wouldn't have many objections to it; I just probably wouldn't watch this again on my own. There is some violence and creepy parts however (and maybe some crude humor), so I wouldn't show this movie to a very young audience.

Alice in Wonderland is available on DVD and Blu-ray. It is 108 minutes long and is rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar.

Review: Persuasion (2007)

I watched this version of Persuasion a while ago: half on Youtube, half on Masterpiece Classic (which was shortened and edited). When I first watched it the whole way through, it really didn't make too much of an impression on me. But recently, I re-watched it and have formed a better opinion of it. I guess I noticed more than when I first saw it. I had also recently finished reading Persuasion: it wasn't my favorite Jane Austen book, but I still liked it.

Box Art



Synopsis

Eight years ago, Anne Elliot was proposed to by Frederick Wentworth, a poor man who joined the navy, and accepted his proposal but was persuaded by her godmother, Lady Russell, to break off the engagement since Anne would be taking a big risk marrying him. Now twenty-seven and still unmarried, Anne assumes to be an old maid. When Captain Wentworth comes back into her life, having made his fortune in the navy and now looking for a wife, he is very cold to her and she thinks that he cannot forgive her for what she had done eight years ago.

Characters
Couple of members of the cast I recognized in here. Most notably:  Stella Gonet (Mrs. Musgrove) was Bea Eliott in The House of Eliott, Peter Wight (Admiral Croft) was also in a couple of episodes of Lark Rise to Candleford. I also know that Rupert Penry-Jones (Captain Wentworth) was also in the 1997 adaptation of Jane Eyre, but I had only seen clips of it.

Sally Hawkins as Anne Eliott

Sally Hawkins was absolutely lovely as Anne! I think she really captured Anne's meekness and quietness very well. In Persuasion (the book), a good part of it is what Anne is thinking or feeling: there can be pages of her thoughts and emotions. To illustrate this, the film-makers had Anne keep a journal to write down her feelings, some of which was spoken through a voice-over of Anne. In this case, I think it really worked to do that: they included that part of Persuasion which could be difficult to include and it was done fairly well. Spoiler What I didn't care for was Anne's marathon through Bath at the end. It wasn't at all like the book. She ran out of Camden Place (without a bonnet, by the way), met Mrs. Smith (who should be crippled, yet she was walking; and did anyone else find it kind of funny that her name is Harriet Smith? Any Emma fans out there?) to find out that Mr. Eliott isn't honorable (and added something that included Mrs. Clay that wasn't in the book, at least to my memory), ran to the Croft's residence to find that they had left and Captain Harville gives her Captain Wentworth's famous note, runs to find the Crofts and discovers that Captain Wentworth had just left them, to which she runs a great distance and happens to bump into Charles Musgrove, her brother-in-law, and Captain Wentworth. (Woo... That was confusing). It seemed to be unnecessary to add this whole running escapade; could anyone help thinking "Run, Anne, run!"? End of Spoiler But excepting that part, I think Anne was portrayed very well in here.



Rupert Penry-Jones as Captain Frederick Wentworth

Rupert Penry-Jones's Captain Wentworth... I'm not fully convinced by it, but I'm about 90% convinced. I mean, I didn't hate his Captain Wentworth, but it didn't seem quite right. To me at least, he looked too young (I know Rupert Penry-Jones was actually about 36 or 37 for the role, and Captain Wentworth is supposed to be in his early thirties): it didn't look like he had been in the navy at all. His acting, however, was pretty good. Although Captain Wentworth isn't my favorite Jane Austen hero (he seemed to be purposely trying to ignore/hurt Anne a lot of the time, which I didn't like), but I think overall Rupert Penry-Jones did justice to Captain Wentworth as far as acting goes. I still think they could have made him look more like a Captain Wentworth that had been in the navy and worked hard to get his fortune: here he only looks like he didn't have to work hard to get his fortune.

I really didn't like Anthony Head's Sir Walter. I never pictured Sir Walter as a creepy guy... Arrogant and narcissistic, yes, but not so much creepy. There was something in the way he said lines that made him a little creepy, which isn't the effect you want for Sir Walter. You want to portray him as a caricature of an arrogant narcissistic baronet, and I just don't think that effect was expressed in here. I did think that Elizabeth Elliot was portrayed well: uncaring, selfish, and trying to be fancier than she really is.

Scenery

Good scenery in here, but sometimes it can be a little bleak, especially at Lyme. I didn't care for the darker scenery at Lyme: Persuasion is one of Jane Austen's more serious novels, but I didn't picture it as dark. If they used the darker scenery at Lyme after Anne's sister-in-law, Louisa, gets hurt, it would make sense, but during the whole time? It just didn't seem to fit. The rest of the scenery was very good: the houses were very nicely furnished and there is lovely outdoor, country scenes to be seen.

Lady Dalrymple: notice the hair piece

Costumes
Great costuming! Wonderful costuming! All the dresses looked lovely! My only complaint is towards the end at the concert in Bath, Elizabeth Elliot, Mrs. Clay, and Lady Dalrymple were wearing hair pieces that didn't become popular until the 1830's; I don't think they were even worn in the Regency Era or even in the early 1820s. Other than that, everything seemed pretty accurate to the period.

Music

All the music sounded similar, but it was still very lovely. It really expressed the serious tone of the novel.

Overall: 3.75/5

Left to Right Background: Anne Elliot, Elizabeth Elliot, and
Mary Musgrove. In front: Sir Walter Elliot

Overall, I liked this version of Persuasion. It might not be exact to the book (especially at the end), but I still think that it was still a great film. Sally Hawkins was wonderful as Anne and Rupert Penry-Jones's Captain Wentworth was good. The costuming is very beautiful and a pleasure to look at. The scenery could sometimes be a little bleak, but most scenes are very nice and pretty. I enjoyed this film and wouldn't be sorry to watch it again.

Persuasion is available on DVD either with Sense and Sensibility (2008) in a special collection or on it's own. It runs for 120 minutes.

Review: Amazing Grace (2006)

YES! Finally, I got to watch Amazing Grace. I had wanted to see this movie when it came out in theaters, but as I don't go to the theaters often, I never got to see it. Then, years later, when I got into period dramas, I remembered this movie and really wanted to see it. And finally, I was able to watch it yesterday.  

DVD Box Art



Synopsis

William Wilberforce, a member of parliament, is taken to Bath to stay with his cousin, Henry Thornton, and Henry Thornton's wife Marianne Thornton. The Thorntons try to set William up with Barbara Spooner, a young lady of their acquaintance; both Barbara and William have a lot of things in common and the both become very close. The movie moves back and forth between the past where William begins the movement to abolish slavery and the present. In parliament, William faces much opposition: Lord Tarleton and the Duke of Clarence lead the opposition to keep the slave trade. Slowly and over many years, William makes progress toward the abolition of the slave trade.

Characters
There were quite a bit of period drama actors and actresses in this movie. If you scroll to the bottom of this review, I have included a table with all of them; there were just so many that the table would make everything look neater.

William Wilberforce (Right) seeking advice
from John Newton (Left)

The acting is great! Ioan Gruffudd was wonderful as William Wilberforce. He conveyed the emotion that a politician would need in order to win over people to the abolition movement. His performance here shows that he is a great actor. I am convinced by his portrayal of William Wilberforce. Romola Garai also starred as his future wife Barbara Spooner; her acting job was wonderful as well. My only complaint is that it would have been nice to have seen more of John Newton (Albert Finney), but it's only a minor one; my favorite quote from the movie is said by him: "...I remember two things clearly: I'm a great sinner and Christ is a great savior."


Scenery

William Wilberforce presenting a petition to parliament.

There is some nice scenery in Amazing Grace. There is a mixture of scenes in the country and in London, but everything looks good! The only scene that was not so great was when Olaudah Equiano was showing William the slave ship (in fact, if you do not want to hear the details of the treatment of slaves on the ships, you may want to skip that part). Other than that, the outdoor scenes and even the indoor scenes were great; the colors were very nice for the most part in both the indoor and outdoor scene.

Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai)

Costumes
The costuming was good. It's usually hard to review the men's costumes since most of the time they are pretty much the same; their costumes did seem to be period accurate, though. There were only three women in this movie, but their costumes were great. Through Barbara's dresses, you could tell roughly at what time each sequence takes place. When her and William first meet, she is wearing clothes that would represent the late 1700s, but before the Regency era (so before 1795), . Once her and William are married and have their first child, her clothes represent the very early Regency. Once the law is passed to abolish slavery, you can pretty much tell that her clothes are Regency.


Music
The song "Amazing Grace" does have some importance in this movie. It is sung once by William Wilberforce and it is sung again at William WIlberforce and Barbara Spooner's wedding. At the end, there is a band of bagpipes, drums, and wind instruments that play it. It was performed very nicely each time. The rest of the soundtrack had more serious music.

Overall: 4/5 4.5/5
This was a very good movie! It was very well acted, the scenery was great, and the costuming was good. I could have done without hearing about some details about the treatment of the slaves (which is probably something that children shouldn't hear). Other than that and some talk of the ill actions of a politician, there wasn't too much that was very bad. I would say that this would be great to watch in a history class.

Amazing Grace is available on DVD. It runs for 117 minutes and is rated PG for thematic material involving slavery and some mild language

Actor/Actress -- Role in Amazing Grace -- Other Period Dramas

Ioan Gruffudd -- William Wilberforce -- Pip in Great Expectations (1999)

Romola Garai -- Barbara Spooner -- Emma Woodhouse in Emma (2009), Gwendolen Harleth in Daniel Deronda

Benedict Cumberbatch -- William Pitt (the Younger) -- Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock (2010)

Michael Gambon -- Lord Charles Fox -- Mr. Woodhouse in Emma (2009), Thomas Holbrook in Cranford (2007), Squire Hamley in Wives and Daughters (1999)

Rufus Sewell -- Thomas Clarkson -- Will Landislaw in Middlemarch (1994)

Ciraran Hinds -- Lord Tarleton -- Captain Frederick Wentworth in Persuasion (1995)

Toby Jones -- Duke of Clarence -- Daniel Quilp in The Old Curiosity Shop (2007), Squercum in The Way We Live Now (2001)

Sylvestra Le Touzel -- Marianne Thornton -- Mrs. Allen in Northanger Abbey (2007), Fanny Price in Mansfield Park (1983)

Nicholas Farrell -- Henry Thornton -- Edmund Bertram in Mansfield Park (1983)

Bill Paterson -- Lord Dundas -- Mr. Meagles in Little Dorrit (2008), Mr. Gibson in Wives and Daughters (1999)

Michael Gambon as Lord Charles Fox

Movie Poster



Review: Great Expectations

Box Art

I've never read Great Expectations, but I was aware of it and knew it was a classic. I noticed this film in a store once, but I kind of glanced past it. After a while, I noticed this movie on Youtube, so I thought I would give it a try on Youtube and see if I liked it or not.

Synopsis
Young Pip is invited to the home of Miss Havisham to entertain her and Estella, a orphan that she raised after her fiancee abandoned her on her wedding day. Years later, Pip comes into a great fortune from an unknown benefactor that quickly changes his life.

Characters
I only recognized three members of the cast. Though I haven't yet seen Amazing Grace (but I really want to!), I knew of Ioan Gruffudd (though I never realized it, he was also in 102 Dalmations, which I loved to watch as a kid) and he was Pip in this version of Great Expectations. Justine Waddell from Wives and Daughters was also in this adaptation as Estella. The last actor that I recognized: I saw Jaggers come onto the screen and I thought "Where have I seen him before", and it dawned on me that he was in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (though not my favorite Star Wars movie). Other than those three, I didn't recognize anyone else in this Great Expectations.

Miss Havisham (seated) with young Estella
and young Pip

The acting overall was good. However, this was one of those movies where you like a couple of character, and the rest you either don't like too much or they just irritate you. Characters like Joe and Herbert I found to be likable, and, at first, I found Pip likable. Pip kind of got on my nerves after he got money: I thought he started to spend money irresponsibly, but this was probably the angle that Dickens was going for to prove a point; maybe Pip was similar to Mr. Dorrit in Little Dorrit -- how Mr. Dorrit got his money and started to act like a jerk to everyone from his past, only in Little Dorrit, there wasn't much of a sign that he was running out of money while he was spending it while in Great Expectations there is talk of Pip running out of money. But back to my original point, before Pip became rich, he seemed a lot more likable. Other characters, like Miss Havisham, Estella, and Mrs. Joe, I couldn't like too much. Well, maybe I felt more sorry for Estella after she got married, but before that I really didn't like her. Miss Havisham seemed to be a little "off her rocker" (for lack of a better phrase), and Mrs. Joe seemed to treat young Pip unfairly all the time.

Scenery
Since the story isn't really a happy story, you won't find much bright, colorful scenery as you would in other period dramas. Most scenes have a grayish tinge to them and, for the second half of the movie, take place in the middle of London. There are some scenes in the country, but they aren't anything spectacular.

Costumes

Justine Waddell as Estella

The costumes were good! Estella's dresses were very lovely to look at; they seemed to dress her in a lot of red (at least to my memory). Miss Havisham had only one dress: a Regency era wedding dress. It would make sense for her to have Regency fashion: yes, she is wealthy, but she also hasn't left her home in a very long time and she is also older.

Music
There wasn't much music to speak of. If there was a soundtrack to this miniseries, it would be composed of probably only one song: a very eerie song that seemed to pop up every once in a while. 

Overall: 2/5
I found this Great Expectations to be only tolerable. Some of the costumes were okay to look at, but not much else recommended itself to me. While the acting was good, I found a lot of the characters to be dislikable or irritating. I'm not quite sure if this version is accurate to the original story (though, from what I read on a synopsis, the ending was different), so if anyone out there has read the novel and can compare it with this adaptation, I would be thankful. Honestly, I probably wouldn't watch this version again, but maybe if a new version of Great Expectations came out (which, from what I hear, there are two in the making), I might watch it.

Great Expectations is available on DVD. It is a two part movie that runs all together for 168 minutes.

Review: Little Dorrit

I'm a big fan of the 2008 miniseries of Little Dorrit, and I've read a little bit of the book (though a small part of it), but everything seemed to follow the story okay (maybe a couple of things left out or changed, but nothing too bad). I've heard of this version of Little Dorrit, but I didn't think too much of it, but I saw it on Netflix's instant streaming, so I thought that I would give it a try.

Synopsis

VHS Box Art

Synopsis from Little Dorrit (2008)
William Dorrit is imprisoned in the Marshalsea for debt. His daughter, Amy (also known as Little Dorrit), lives with him in prison and goes out to support him secretly because of his pride. Amy gets a job doing needlework for Mrs. Clennam whose husband and son are overseas in China. When Mrs. Clennam's son Arthur returns from China, he brings word that his father has died and that his dying wish was to correct a wrong. Arthur notices that Amy is working for his mother, and learns that her father is imprisoned in the Marshalsea for numerous debts. He suspects that his family might have something to do with this, and he tries to right the suspected wrong.

This miniseries is divided into two parts: the first part is Arthur Clennam's story, while part 2 is Amy Dorrit's story.


Characters/Presentation of Story
There were three members of the cast that I recognized: Sir Alec Guinness (easily recognizable from Star Wars Episodes 4-6) was William Dorrit; Derek Jacobi (The King's Speech) was Arthur Clennam; and Liz Smith (Lark Rise to Candleford) had a couple minute scene early in Part 2.

Derek Jacobi as Arthur Clennam

I had a lot of issues with this miniseries. First of all, I didn't like how they told about 95% of the story through Arthur's eyes, then part 2 comes and you have to rewatch the entire thing through Amy's eyes. I could understand why they did this if the book was actually like that, but it isn't. I've read about 200-250 pages of Little Dorrit (which I really enjoyed, but I fell away from reading it, so I'll have to start over one of these days... Oh well.), and the book goes back and forth between the different plotlines (for example, there will be a couple of chapters that focus on Arthur and then a couple that focus more on Amy). So the directors told the whole story (complete with spoilers and holes) and then go to Amy where you can tell what's going to happen next? It didn't seem to make much sense to me...

The next issue that I had was what they left out of this miniseries. In the book (and the 2008 miniseries), there are three main plots: Amy Dorrit and her life taking care of her family, Arthur Clennam and how he's trying to find out a family secret, and the escaped convict Rigaud (who does become a pretty big part of the story). They included the first two plots, but completely left out the third. Since that plotline that includes Rigaud becomes very important at the end of the book, they completely had to rework the ending... and not in a good way. The ending just turned out to be a big mess.

There were even subplots left out of the movie (which may be a little more forgivable since you can usually work the story around enough without changing the story and leaving less important parts out). I also didn't like that they mixed up the order of scenes. Like I've said before, I've only read 200-250 pages of Little Dorrit, but even with that little bit that I've read, I could already tell that scenes were mixed up.

If characters weren't left out, their part in the story was changed severely. The Meagles were only there briefly (and you get the impression that Arthur knew them for a really long time), you don't get to see Pet Meagles after she gets married, Daniel Doyce dies in the middle of the story (which wasn't necessary and another reason the ending had to be reworked) and Pancks's had a bigger role in the end than he should have.

I will say this, however. They did do a good job of making Maggy and Pancks look like their characters described in the book and Amy did look young. However, I thought that Derek Jacobi looked too old to be Arthur. In the book, Arthur is supposed to be about 40, but in this movie, he looked like he was in his fifties.


Scenery

The Marshalsea

The scenery was okay, but I thought that the Marshalsea was too bright for a prison. I know I usually like vivid scenery with lots of colors, but I don't think that it worked for the Marshalsea. I'm not saying to make it black and white, but tone down the colors a little: it is a prison after all. I will say that they did succeed in making the Marshalsea look cramped.


Costumes
The overall quality of the costumes wasn't too bad. They looked okay and seemed to be constructed properly. However, I think that these costumes are inaccurate to the time period. Little Dorrit takes place around 1826, which would be after the Regency Era and before the Romantic Era. From the looks of the costumes, it seemed like they were more from the 1840s and even 1850s: the way that the sleeves were, the poof of the skirt, and some of the necklines screamed 1840s or 1850s.

Sarah Pickering as Amy Dorrit

Music
I wasn't too impressed with the music score. When music did come on, it usually came on blaring and overly dramatic at times. It was also really difficult to hear some of the speaking parts, namely Amy, but other characters were really hard to hear too...

Overall: 1/5
Honestly, if you want to watch Little Dorrit and really enjoy it, watch the 2008 miniseries: the costuming was closer to the time period (although some seemed like they were from the 1830s, but it would be closer than the 1840s/1850s), the acting was so much better, and it was far, far more interesting. This miniseries is very dull (which it shouldn't be since the story itself is interesting) and even hard to hear (I know Amy is supposed to be quiet, but to the point that you can't hear her?). I will say that this miniseries doesn't include the questionable scenes that were in the 2008 miniseries (although those scenes can be skipped over fairly easily), so if you wanted to show a younger audience this Little Dorrit, there really shouldn't be a problem with questionable scenes: the hard part would be actually keeping the kids interested in this movie...

Little Dorrit is available on VHS or on Netflix instant streaming. It is rated G and runs for 357 minutes.

Review: A Christmas Carol

I'm going to say it: I'm not a Jim Carrey fan. I've never been much of a fan of his acting since it is usually always too wild for me. I reluctantly watched this version of A Christmas Carol knowing that Jim Carrey was going to voice many of the characters, but I thought I would give it a try since I heard that Colin Firth (Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) was in there and I wonder how he did in it.

Poster

Synopsis
It's Christmas time and everyone is in a great mood except for Ebenezer Scrooge, a stingy old man who does not like Christmas. On Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his former business partner who announces that Scrooge will be visited by three more ghosts.

Characters
There are a couple of famous actors in this film. Jim Carrey is a well-known actor, and he plays a good deal of the main characters. Colin Firth is also in here as Scrooge's nephew, Fred. Other well-known actors include Gary Oldman and Robin Wright (known for her role in The Princess Bride).

Getting a little too silly, aren't we Mr. Scrooge?

Jim Carrey was slightly tolerable as Scrooge at the beginning (but only slightly), but it didn't take too long before he started to get annoying. Many of his mannerisms were something that one would find in some sort of children's comedy and not something that should have been in A Christmas Carol. And I don't know why they had a five minute scene in which Scrooge was running all over London, getting smaller and smaller, voice getting higher and higher, and the whole thing becoming just about ridiculous. By the end of the movie, when Scrooge is overjoyed, you can tell right away that it's Jim Carrey and not the overjoyed Scrooge that should be in the movie.

Could they have made the ghosts any more grotesque? When I pictured Jacob Marley, I never pictured him as some sort of zombie ghost whose jaw started to dislocate itself towards the end of his visit. They also made the Ghost of Christmas Past a bit creepy towards the end of his visit too, and I didn't like the way that he was portrayed either: they made his head a giant candle flame? And what about towards the end of the Ghost of Christmas Present's visit: the boy and girl representing Ignorance and Want seemed a little more mature than what I've pictured. And the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was more of a hooded shadowy figure and not... well, three dimensional like the other ghosts. And seriously, some of the characters (the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Ignorance, and Want) looked more like they came out of The Lord of the Rings than out of A Christmas Carol.

Animation
I have this section in place of the scenery section since this is an animated movie. There seemed to be something quite odd about the animation the whole time. Scrooge looked too tall, too thin, and too lanky. Even if that was the angle they were trying to go for, he still looked unnaturally thin. Bob Cratchit also looked kind of odd. I think I also remember that the way the fabric on the clothes seemed to move very oddly.

Costuming

Belle's dress seemed to be accurate (not pictured here fully,
sorry), but Regency women did not wear their hair down.
In the background/middle, we have old Scrooge and the
Ghost of Christmas Past with a candle flame as a head...

This is going to be a little hard reviewing the costumes for an animated movie, since no one actually made the costumes but drew them, but I'm going to give it a try. Overall, the costuming didn't look too inaccurate for a good portion of the movie. My complaint lies in one of the flashbacks. At the Christmas party in Scrooge's past, there were Regency era costumes (which would be correct since at that time, Scrooge would have been a young man), but the Fezziwigs wore older Georgian clothes (which, since they were already an older couple in the Regency era, wouldn't be hard to believe). While Mr. and Mrs. Fezziwig were dancing (a dance which looked more modern than period: who ever heard of flips during a Regency dance?), you can briefly see that Mrs. Fezziwig was wearing drawers. Drawers were invented in 1806, but very few women wore them, and those few women were usually young. It would be very, very unlikely that Mrs. Fezziwig would be wearing drawers (she would probably be of the generation that thought they were hideous and wouldn't dream of wearing them). The other thing that I noticed was inaccurate was while young Scrooge was dancing with Belle (later his fiancee) at the party, her hair was half down. Regency women never wore their hair down like that in public, let alone at a ball. Only very young girls could get away with having their hair down, but never young ladies looking for a husband. And it seemed like she was the only one with her hair down. Other than that, I don't have any more complaints about the costuming.

Music
The music was actually nice. A lot of the songs were Christmas carols that were sung very nicely. I also recognized a dance song from Pride and Prejudice (1995). The music was probably one of the few things that partially saved this movie.

Overall: 1/5

Scrooge's nephew, Fred (Colin Firth) serving up Christmas
dinner.

Probably the only redeeming qualities of this film were the music (which was nice) and that Colin Firth was in the movie (though for too short a time). Other than those two aspects, the rest of the film was not good. Jim Carrey was just too wild towards the end, the animation wasn't all that great, and the costuming could have been better. I can't even say that if you have small children who might enjoy it watch it: there were scary scenes that might frighten small children; wait until they get older and they might not enjoy the film because Jim Carrey just doesn't fit the role(s) well or it gets too silly. If I were you, I would save my time and watch another version of A Christmas Carol (the Patrick Stewart version, which I've seen half of, seemed to be pretty good; my dad and my sister are fond of the Alastair Sim version, but I've never seen it); if you have young kids or siblings or relatives, the Muppet's Christmas Carol might be more worth watching than this version.

A Christmas Carol is available on DVD and Blu-ray. It runs for 96 minutes.

Review: Hamlet

Looking on Netflix again, I happened to ran across this version of Hamlet starring Sir Laurence Olivier. I had only seen bits and pieces from the 1996 version of Hamlet and the 1990 version of Hamlet in English class when we were reading Hamlet. I'm not that big of a Shakespeare fan (I liked some of his plays, but I only liked them), but my dad had said that Laurence Olivier was one of the greatest actors, so I gave this version of Hamlet a try.

Poster

Synopsis
Laurence Olivier tells the story of "the tragedy of a man who couldn't make up his mind." After Hamlet's father, King Hamlet, dies, Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, remarries his brother, something which does not sit right with Hamlet. And when guards claim to see the ghost of King Hamlet, it goes to show the audience that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Characters
There were only two actors that I recognized. Sir Laurence Olivier I know of because he is a well known actor (he was also in the 1940 Pride and Prejudice, but from the clips I've seen of it, I wasn't impressed). The other was Jean Simmons, who I've seen in Guys and Dolls and The Robe.

There are multiple ways of portraying Hamlet, particularly whether or not he really is crazy or just acting the entire time. I think Laurence Olivier portrayed the former. There were just times you could tell that Hamlet was just crazy.

Jean Simmons as Ophelia

Jean Simmons played Ophelia, Hamlet's love interest, well. Since Ophelia is supposed to be fairly young, there has to be an innocence about her, which Jean Simmons captured well.

Scenery
Not much scenery to speak of. The whole movie is in black and white, so the set looks very dark. The dark setting would be fitting for Hamlet, since it is a tragedy and a very serious play.

Costuming
The women's costumes were fine (but keep in mind, there are only two women in the whole play), the men's costumes, on the other hand, were nearly horrendous! If the costumes are historically accurate, then my opinion on this could just be that I don't like the costumes of the period, but I really didn't like the men's costumes. The shirts that the men wore were very puffy and excessively decorated: it was kind of loud and "out there".


Music

Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, talking to Hamlet (seated). Hamlet's
mother, Gertrude, stands behind Hamlet.

Ouch! Since it's an older movie, some of the speaking roles can be really quiet and the music blaring! The music tended to be much more serious than uplifting (due to the nature of Hamlet).

Overall: 3/5
Hamlet is not my favorite play by Shakespeare (course I've only read five of Shakespeare's plays); I don't hate it, but it's not my favorite; just somewhere in the middle. The overall themes are very serious and not exactly uplifting (plus there are a lot of implications and mature language).

Review: Under the Greenwood Tree

I happened to be looking through Netflix to see what movies I could watch. It occurred to me that I have seen Under the Greenwood Tree mentioned on Old-Fashioned Charm. And (to my liking) I found that it was available on live streaming. So I watched it one evening.


Box Art


Synopsis
Miss Fancy Day, a young educated woman, comes to live in a village in order to care for her ailing father and becomes the teacher of the local school. Three men immediately fall in love with her and want to marry her: the rich Mr. Shiner, the poor, hard-working Dick Dewey, and the local vicar Mr. Maybold.

Characters
There are two members of the cast that I recognized. Keeley Hawes (Fancy Day) was Cynthia Kirkpatrick in Wives and Daughters (her character I found more likable in this movie), and Ben Miles (Mr. Maybold) was Sir Timothy Midwinter in the first season of Lark Rise to Candleford.

This story was a lighthearted story, so most of the plot didn't have anything too sad in it. Part of the story has to do with the church choir being replaced with a harmonia played by Fancy. This plot was funny and comical. It was one of the elements of the movie that really added a light tone to the entire story. I even found the romance of the story comical! The two characters Mr. Shiner and Mr. Maybold were so comical in their own way (Dick Dewey was the only one of the three that I took seriously Spoiler since it seemed like him and Fancy really loved each other, so I could tell they would end up together End of Spoiler).

Fancy Day in the front. In the background from left to right:
Mr. Shiner, Mr. Maybold, and Dick Dewey.

Scenery
A lot of shots were taken to a tree (hence why the title is Under the Greenwood Tree). I'm not quite sure what the significance is (if anybody would like to help me out on this, I would be grateful). But the colors are very nice and the scenery is very pleasant to look at.

Costumes
The movie take place in the 1840s, which would be before the crinoline (hoopskirt) was used. I really liked some of Fancy's dresses. The red ball gown that she had for the first party that she attended in the village was so cute!


Music

Fancy Day

The music can vary between the music played in the background, the music that is being played or sung by the characters, or the dance music. All of which are lovely! The music that is sung is mostly by the choir and includes Christmas carols and church music. The choir had a lovely sound to it! The music that was played by the instruments was also very nice, and the dance songs were good too!

Overall: 4/5
I really enjoyed this movie. It was light-hearted and entertaining, perfect for an evening at home. This isn't a story that would bring you down from a happy mood, but rather would make you feel better after a bad day. I was amused throughout the entire movie and I wouldn't be sorry to watch it again!

Under the Greenwood Tree is available on DVD and is about an hour and a half long.