Page to Screen: Enchanted April

In 1991, director Mike Newell brought Elizabeth von Arnim's 1922 novel The Enchanted April to life.  With a solid cast, slow pace, and stunning scenery, it is an enchanting little film and one that is sure to help put a bit of calm into a stressful life.

The four main female characters are portrayed by Josie Lawrence (Mrs. Wilkins), Miranda Richardson (Mrs. Arbuthnot), Polly Walker (Lady Caroline Dester), and Joan Plowright (Mrs. Fisher).  The men of the novel are played by Alfred Molina (Mr. Wilkins), Jim Broadbent (Mr. Arbuthnot), and Michael Kitchen (Mr. Briggs).  I thought the entire cast was simply marvelous.  Of course, the performances themselves were solid but it was also nice to see the characters brought to life just as I imagined them when I was reading the book.

The film also did a fantastic job keeping the plot and pacing of the book intact.  When a book has as slow a pace as this one, it is easy for the film to try and add lots of extra drama, etc. to make up for it.  That doesn't happen here.  Instead, the film embraces the quietness and self-reflection of the novel and allows the story to simply be about the characters themselves.  Couple this with some spectacular scenery and you have a film that feels like a quiet vacation in and of itself.

If you like the book, this is a wonderful adaptation.  True to the story and characters, beautifully shot, and nicely paced, it is a little gem.  I recommend it for anyone who enjoyed (or is even interested in) the book.  

Weekly Geeks Revisited: Best Movie Adaptations 2.0

I first began participating in the "Weekly Geeks" meme back in 2009 and continued on until its end in 2011.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, "Weekly Geeks" was a weekly meme for book bloggers to discuss various aspects of reading.  Topics were given, and we would each write a post pertaining to it.  I've decided to re-visit some of my favorite posts and update my thoughts and responses.

In July of 2009, Weekly Geeks were challenged to pick some of their favorite movies based on books.  There are a lot of factors that go in to deciding whether or not a movie makes a "good" adaptation and frankly it is all pretty subjective.  With that in mind, here are some more of my favorite book - movie adaptations:

The Fault In Our Stars 2014

There are plenty of adaptations that get the big things right.  They get the main characters, the plot, and the spirit of the book.  But it is rare for an adaptation to get even the small things right.  The Fault In Our Stars does that.  Granted, this is probably due in large part to the fact that the author was heavily involved in the production, but it is still pretty awesome.  I sat there the whole time saying "That room is EXACTLY like I pictured it" or "I knew that is what he would look like in that jersey".  A+ in my book.

Hugo 2011

This was a fairly tricky book to adapt as it is made up mostly of pictures.  But Martin Scorsese did a wonderful job of capturing the book's magical qualities.  It was particularly wonderful to see some of history's earliest films come to life again for a new audience.  Add that to some terrific acting from the young cast of Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz and you have a truly stunning homage to both film and literature.

The Painted Veil 2006

This is a good example of a movie that was able to tell a different story from the book without really changing the plot.  While W. Somerset Maugham's novel focuses mainly on the personal growth of Kitty, the movie focuses on the relationship between Walter and Kitty.  It does this, however, without greatly altering the story and provides the audience with a slightly more satisfying ending.  

Captain Blood 1935

Though older movies are notorious for straying a long way from the original source material, there are those that do a solid job.  One of these is Captain Blood starring Errol Fylnn and Olivia de Haviland.  Not only does it maintain the swashbuckling and romantic attitude of the book, but it does so without throwing away a chunk of the plot.  It is also wonderfully cast and a treat to watch.

What about you?  What are some of your favorite book adaptations?  What makes an adaptation good in your opinion?  Share with us!    

In Defense of Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice

Back in 2008, I wrote a blog post that was a basic comparison of the 1995 and 2005 versions of Pride and Prejudice.  You can read the whole post, but basically my conclusion was that while the 1995 was the definitive version, both adaptations were equal but different.  To this day I continue to receive comments on this particular post, most of them expressing utter loathing for the 2005 version and wondering how anyone could even dare to compare it to the perfection that is the 1995 version. 

After the most recent comment, I decided to re-watch the 2005 version.  It had been a long time since I had seen it, and maybe all of these people were right.  Maybe it was an atrocious adaptation of the classic story.  However, after finishing it, I have to say that my original feelings have not really changed.  I still feel that there are a lot of really good aspects to this version, or at the very least it is not as bad as some people claim.

First off, I have to say that there is a bit of a double standard here.  A lot of viewers complain that some scenes in the 2005 version don't happen in the book and therefore should not be here.  These same people are ignoring the fact that many scenes in the 1995 version also did not happen.  Lizzy walking in on Darcy in the billiard room, Darcy taking a bath and watching Lizzie from the window, Darcy jumping in the lake, etc.  Most of these people would also claim to love other adaptations such as North and South although it is not a scene by scene adaptation of the book either. Expecting a movie to have every scene in the book is to not have respect for the difference between the two mediums.

The cast in this version also seems to get a lot of hate.  Keira Knightley seems to be especially loathed.  One commenter insisted that the 1995 cast was a "different league of actors".  This made me laugh as I thought of the wonderful acting I have seen from Matthew MacFadyen, Tom Hollander, Carey Mulligan, Penelope Wilton, and Rosamund Pike.  These are all wonderful actors who have turned in many wonderful performances, including these.  It is also obvious from the get go that Joe Wright is attempting to distance himself from the 1995 adaptation by highlighting different aspects of the characters.  Where as Benjamin Whitrow played up Mr. Bennet's humor and contempt for the absurd, Donald Sutherland reminded us of his weariness and the distance he puts between himself and his family that ultimately leads to trouble.  Matthew MacFadyen portrays Darcy's shyness and coldness to Colin Firth's pride and embarrassment.  This plays well with Knightley's openness and vivacity to Jennifer Ehle's grace and verbal wit.  There is nothing wrong with these interpretations of the characters, they are just different.

And then we have the changes in settings that seem to get everyone up in arms.  More scenes seem to happen outside versus inside and the costumes have been changed to an earlier fashion.  While this is true, one has to wonder how much this really matters.  It does not inhibit our understanding of the story or the characters by having a conversation take place in a field versus a drawing room.

None of this is to say that the 1995 version is somehow beneath this one.  I do strongly feel that it is the definitive version and one that everyone should see.  At the same time, I do not feel that the 2005 version deserves all of the hate it gets.  It is a very pretty movie with gorgeous music and strong acting and it does a good job of telling the story in the short amount of time allowed.  It also makes small changes that help modern audiences unfamiliar with the time period to understand certain aspects of the story.  Again, I think these versions are different but equal.  This is why we continue to make adaptations of our favorite books.  It is a chance to see our favorite stories in a new light or to look at it from a different or more modern angle.

You may or may not enjoy this adaptation, and that is fine.  I just think it's time for lovers of Jane Austen to be open to different interpretations of her story.  This was the version that made me fall in love with this story and  author, and I know it did the same for many others.  So before you bash a particular adaptation, just remember it may have been someone else's gateway to the story we all love.         

Vlogging the Classics

It's no secret that last year's hugely popular The Lizzie Bennet Diaries completely turned the internet/literary world upside down  Creators Hank Green and Bernie Su took a widely known and well-loved story and recreated it a way that fit perfectly within our modern times.  And the new series Emma Approved is proving to be just as popular, showing that this new format of storytelling may not be going away anytime soon.

I was introduced to another modern "vlogging" adaptation of a classic story by Hannah.  A group based in Vancouver has been re-telling Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (as The Autobiography of Jane Eyre) for the last several months.  I was a little skeptical at first since it seems like this particular story would be difficult to adapt to modern times, but the writers have done an excellent job with it.  The acting was a little shaky at first, but has become better over time.  The female characters have been especially good, like the Reed and Rivers sisters.  And though this adaptation is low-budget (and thus less polished than LBD or EA), that in itself adds a bit more intimacy to the story.  If you are a fan of Jane Eyre, or of vlogging adaptations in general, I really recommend this series.  It is close to wrapping up, so you'll be able to really binge watch. 

Personally, I have really been enjoying this type of classic adaptation.  I think what is most amazing about it is that it takes a story that is so well known and loved and makes it seem new again.  Jane Eyre is a story that I know inside and out, and yet I have often found myself a giddy mess when some of my favorite scenes occurred.  In my mind, that is what really makes a story "classic"...it can be told in different ways in different times and it still resonates with us.  I especially loved the comments from viewers who were not familiar with the story and were now vowing to read it.

Do you enjoy these type of adaptations?  Do you have a favorite?  Is there a classic story you would like to be told in this way?  My vote is for Persuasion or North and South.

Page To Screen: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Last December saw the arrival of the highly anticipated second installment of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit film.  While I enjoyed the first film overall, I wasn't completely enamored with it.  Like many people, I found the pace to be somewhat slow and some of the characters lacking in development.  Many of those issues, however, are resolved here and I found myself enjoying this installment almost as much as The Lord of the Rings.  Here are some of my thoughts on it:

- This film has a pace that never lets up from beginning to end.  Jackson doesn't waste time re-hashing any of the back story from the first film.  We pick up right where we left off and roll seamlessly from one adventure to another.  You almost can't predict where it will end since the pace never lets up. 

-We get to witness so many great moments from the book in this film.  Whether you are most excited about the Elves of Mirkwood, Beorn, Bard the Bowman, Smaug, or (like me) dwarves in barrels, you'll find it here.  We also gain a little more insight to most of the dwarves and they each begin to be their own unique character rather than just a group with one stand out (Thorin).

-I didn't see this film in IMAX or 3D, but the visuals were still stunning.  Those spiders in Mirkwood were crazy scary and realistic.  I almost came out of my skin watching those scenes!  And Smaug was magnificently done with eyes that, as my sister put it, "look through your very soul".  For all of that, there were times that I kind of wish they had used a little less CGI and visual tricks.  Legolas' eyes were very distracting, and most of the Orcs seemed so smooth and almost fake compared to the ones from LOTR.

-The acting is, once again, superb.  Martin Freeman continues his impressive portrayal of Bilbo and I am more impressed with him every time I see him.  And may I just say...BENEDICT...CUMBERBATCH!!!  We don't even actually SEE him and he still commands the screen.  His portrayal of Smaug was spot on...evil, intelligent, bored, self-absorbed, insecure, jealous, and vengeful.  Every second with Smaug on screen was pure genius.

- I'm still not sure how I feel about Tauriel.  This character was created by Peter Jackson for, I believe, three reasons.  One was to make sure there was a female character somewhere in the film.  The second was to have someone for all of the Arwen fans to root for.  And the other was to give Legolas a bit of back story.  In the end, I think I had less of a problem with her more of a problem with Legolas in this film.  He seriously has nothing to do except to stand around shooting Orcs.  He was kind of a waste of space.

- I still think the Pale Orc story line is unnecessary, though certainly less of a distraction here than in An Unexpected Journey.

Overall, this was a step up from AUJ and it certainly deserves all of the praise that it has received.  It is a must see for all Middle Earth fans.  If you are on the fence after the first film, definitely see this.  You will be glad you did and, like the rest of us, eagerly await the story's conclusion.

Page to Screen: Saving Mr. Banks

The story of Mary Poppins holds a special place in the hearts of people all over the world.  For some, it is in the form of the original books written by P. L. Travers.  For others it is the magic of the 1964 film created by Walt Disney.  In his new film Saving Mr. Banks, director John Lee Hancock brings to life the events that lead to the creation of this iconic story, both on the page and on the screen.

The film opens in London in 1961.  Sales of the Mary Poppins books have declined significantly and author P. L. Travers is forced to consider selling the film rights, a move she has refused for decades.  She flies out to California to meet with Walt Disney who has been pursuing the rights to the books to fulfill a promise to his daughters.  She wastes no time in ripping the production teams' ideas to shreds.  She insists that everything line up with her original creation, driving everyone else insane.  What they don't know is that the Mary Poppins stories are not important to Mrs. Travers just because she wrote them, but also because they are drawn from her own experiences.  In flashback scenes, we see her childhood in Australia at the turn of the century.  She idolizes her father, but he is fighting a losing battle with alcoholism that is hurting his family in many ways.  These feelings cause her to lash out at the Disney staff, insisting that their interpretation of Mr. Banks is cruel and unjust.  As the secret of Mrs. Travers' relationship with these characters comes to light, the screenplay begins to evolve and Mr. Banks begins to catch a glimpse of redemption.

I have loved the Mary Poppins film for as long as I can remember and have watched it more times than I can count.  My mom also read the original books to us and my sisters and I loved them as well.  I had very high expectations for this film and it met every single one of them.  It is beautifully shot with a very nostalgic feeling about it.  The acting is top notch as well with Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks giving excellent performances as Travers and Disney, respectively.  It is also chock full of lots of "trivia" moments that will delight fans of both the film and the book.

But above all of this, there are many amazing aspects that raise this movie above a typical nostalgic/fan film.  First, you have the story of Travers' childhood which is a heartbreaking contrast to the fun and magic of the Disney studio lot.  You can't help but feel for young Helen Goff (Travers) as she is forced to watch the father she adores crumble before her very eyes.  Knowing that Travers was not able to see her own father be rescued from himself makes the ultimate redemption of Mr. Banks all the more sweet.  Another thing that was interesting was the idea of stories belonging to the audience.  Travers is reluctant to sell the film rights because she was afraid that Disney would change everything that made the story so personal to her.  What she didn't realize was that this had already happened.  Her interpretation of Mr. Banks was completely different from Disney's because they were seeing two different men; Travers saw her father an Disney saw his.  This shows how a story never completely belongs to an author, but rather the story becomes our own as we bring pieces of ourselves to it.

I enjoyed this film immensely.  Is it on the sweet and nostalgic side, which is perfect for people like me who adore all things Disney.  If you prefer cynical type films, this probably won't be the most satisfying one for you.  But if you are a fan of the story, this is a must see.  It has funny moments and heart wrenching ones.  It is full of nostalgic moments and moments that make you think.  I definitely encourage you to see it.

Page to Screen: Recent and Upcoming Attractions

Here at the end of the holiday season, it can often be difficult to find the time (or the energy) to throw yourself into a book.  Sometimes all you really want to do is to sit in front of the TV (or computer, or tablet) and soak up the images on screen.  Luckily, there are ways you can do that without necessarily giving up on literature all together.  Here are some programs that I have recently indulged in that still keep me in tune to the great literary works.

Emma Approved

You may remember a while back that I was raving about The Lizzie Bennet Diaries and could not wait for the team's new production, Emma Approved, based on Jane Austen's novel Emma.  It took awhile for this production to hit its stride (the story set-up period kind of strayed from what is in the novel), but things are coming together in a wonderful way.  The modernizing of the story is on track, the actors' portrayals are spot on, and things are getting tense in Emma's office.  Since the show is on hiatus until February (sad), now is the perfect time to start catching up.  Here is Episode 1:

Sherlock

Honestly, there is no fandom that has to wait as long as those of us who love Sherlock.  And it's even worse for those of us in the US as we have to wait even longer for gratification.  But the time is finally drawing nigh.  The long awaited Series 3 premiers on PBS on January 19.  You can read about my obsessive love for this show in my reviews of Series 1 & 2.  If you haven't seen the series, do yourself a favor and watch it now.  If you are like me and awaiting the 19th with bated breath, then check out this recently released mini-epsiode that will further whet your appetite:

Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness

Back in 2010, I read and reviewed Wandering Stars by Sholem Aleichem as part of my summer reading.  Recently, I discovered a documentary of the author's life.  It is a great look, not just at Sholem Aleichem, but also at the rise of Yiddish literature and the breakdown of traditional shtetl life at the end of the 19th century.  It also talks a lot about Aleichem's best known character, Tevye the milkman, upon whom Fiddler on the Roof is based on.  Here is the trailer for it.  You can see the full documentary on Netflix or rent it from Youtube:

Have you watched anything lately that was based on great literature?  Feel free to share it with us.  

Emma Approved

It's going to be Emma!  The creators of the wildly popular (and very well done) web series The Lizzie Bennet Diaries will be bringing another popular Austen story to the modern world.  The official title will be Emma Approved and will focus on the vlog of a young entrepreneur who also claims to be a fantastic matchmaker.  As in The LBD, this series will take the Austen original and change it to a modern setting and will also incorporate lots of social media aspects. Creator Bernie Su says that this story will most likely operate in the same universe as The LBD, so fans may get to see a familiar face or two in some o the episodes.

I am a huge fan of the original series and I can't wait for this one.  I think Emma is the perfect Austen story for this type of adaptation.  Emma Approved is set to premier this fall, so if you have been living under a rock and still haven't watched The Lizzie Bennet Diaries now is the time to correct that.  

Salinger

This looks interesting...the Weinstein Company will be releasing a documentary later this year on the mysterious life of J. D. Salinger.  Known the world over for his influential novel, The Catcher in the Rye, Salinger became a recluse in his later years and lots of mystery surrounds that time as well as what other writings he might have created.  While I haven't personally read this novel, it is impossible to ignore the affect it has had on our culture over the last 50 years.  Check out the trailer here.

Page to Screen: Les Miserables

It is one of the most beloved musicals of all time, and in 2012 The King's Speech director Tom Hooper brought it to the silver screen.  Based on Victor Hugo's classic novel of the plight of the poor in 19th century France, the film stars Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, and a host of others.  Though I had read the book and was familiar with the story, I had not seen the musical before.  Here are my thoughts on the film:

-I saw this film with a friend who had seen the musical multiple times and owned the soundtrack.  Like many other reviews I have read, she said that the film version lacked the overall grandness and majesty of the stage.  I attribute this to the fact that the stage and the cinema are different mediums with different effects.  On stage, most people won't be able to really see the actors, so they must convey the emotions of the story almost completely through their voices.  We are allowed greater intimacy through the screen, and so the actors can convey emotion with simply a look or an action.  Rather than being the main vehicle for the story as it is on the stage, the music was simply one of many aspects to touch the viewer in the film.

-Hooper's decision to not pre-record the music for the film was certainly a bold move.  Sometimes it works great (Jackman, Hathaway, Redmayne, Samantha Barks) and the raw emotion in the actor's voices move us deeply.  And then there are some who could have really benefited from pre-recording.  One person in particular was Russell Crowe as Javert.  You could tell that it took all of his concentration to simply hit his notes (which he didn't always do).  This caused him to not really be able to act his character out, and unlike with Jackman or Hathaway, he could never really convey the emotion behind Javert.

-The sets and costumes are good most of the time, though there was a sense of claustrophobia in some of the scenes.  There were also some scenes that had overly computerized backgrounds that took away some of the feeling.

-In my opinion, Anne Hathaway deserves an Oscar simply for her "I Dreamed a Dream" scene.  It is so powerful and the emotion so raw that you can't help but be moved to tears.

-Obviously there is no way to get every aspect of a Victor Hugo novel onto the screen, but the main bones of the story are there and flow together very well.

Though this film isn't perfect, it is still wonderful in many ways.  I defy anyone to watch this film and not tear up at either Hathaway's main scene or the grand finale on the barricade.  Hugo's story of the power of love and forgiveness is one of the most beautiful stories out there, and this film is a magnificent tribute to it.  If you haven't seen it, then do so.  If you have, go see it again.  It is very likely that this film, like its stage counterpart, will be popular for many years to come.

Why You Should Be Watching "The Lizzie Bennet Diaries"

The world has had it's fair share of "Pride and Prejudice" adaptations.  Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier brought the story to life in 1940, Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle created the definitive adaptation in1995, Renee Zellweger recast the story as Bridget Jones in 2001, and Bollywood even gave the story it's own spin in 2004's Bride and Prejudice.  But now there is an adaptation that is changing the way we enjoy the story, and it is taking the world by storm.

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is a web series that tells the Pride and Prejudice story as a vlog (that's a blog in video format).  Created last April by Hank Green & Bernie Su, it stars Ashley Clements as a modern day Lizzie Bennet.  Lizzie is a grad student majoring in mass communications, so she enlisted the help of her best friend Charlotte Lu (Julia Cho) to create a vlog series about her life.  Many of the initial episodes are filmed in Lizzie's bedroom and we learn about her life at home with her sisters, fashion guru Jane and immature but fun Lydia, and her parents.  When a rich (and single) medical student moves into the neighborhood, Lizzie's mom begins devising plans to get one of her girls married off, and the Bennet household is never the same again.

There are lots of reasons to enjoy this series.  The first is that the adaptation of the book to modern day California is perfect.  The writers do a great job of staying true to much of the plot, tone, and spirit of Austen's original while being able to make everything fit in with life in modern America.  I am constantly amazed at how they adapt specific plot points whether it's Jane and Lizzie staying at Netherfield or Charlotte connecting with Mr. Collins (Maxwell Glick).  Another reason this series is so great is the casting.  Everybody is spot on and gives a modern flair to each character while still paying homage to the original.  Ashley Clements is spectacular as Lizzie portraying her humor, intelligence, and "prejudice" in a way anyone can relate to.  And Daniel Gordh as William Darcy (introduced in episode 60) plays off of her very well as a professional, socially awkward, and slightly hipster version of the literary character.  There is a really great chemistry with all of these actors and it definitely makes every episode lots of fun.

What really sets this series apart from other adaptations is it's use of social media to connect with it's viewers.  The show makes use of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler, and more to make fans accessible to the story.  Viewers can comment, characters will tweet, and the story uses every outlet to move forward.  There are even occasional question and answer sessions with Lizzie where she takes random viewer questions.  This all combines to make it seem like this is actually a real vlog and not just a scripted series (Lizzie would even question viewer's eagerness to see Darcy in the early episodes, insisting that she would never make a video in his presence).  I really think it is the interactiveness that has made this such a popular series.

If you haven't yet jumped on the LBD train, now is the time to do so.  There are 2 episodes every week (Monday and Thursday), plus episodes of The Lydia Bennet (Lydia's sporadic vlog) and Maria of the Lu (Charlotte's sister's blog).  Episode 79 appears tomorrow, but you must start at the beginning.  Head over to YouTube to start catching up.  You can also interact with the story via Twitter, Tumbler, and Facebook.  I am completely addicted to this series, and I'm sure any other P&P fan will be as well.         

Page to Screen: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

This is what we have been waiting for!  Ever since it was announced that a prequel was being made for the hugely popular Lord of the Rings series, fans have been speculating and eagerly anticipating its arrival.  There were a lot of ups and downs that caused production to drag on and on, but Tolkein's original masterpiece has finally come to life.

 I love the original Lord of the Rings movies and was very excited for this film.  I saw it in IMAX 3D, but not in the new 48 FPS so my review won't comment on that aspect of it.  Here are some of my thoughts:

-Though this is a prequel to the original films, there is a sense of nostalgia and "coming home".  We are back in Middle Earth and simply seeing the Shire and Rivendell again will warm the hearts of any fan.  Peter Jackson did a great job of keeping the scenery and feeling of each place consistent with the previous films.

-It was also nice to see how they were able to tie this story into what was to come later in LOTR.  You don't have to have seen the original films in order to enjoy this one, but it is fun to make those connections.  Scenes like when Bilbo finds the ring, when Saruman appears in council, or when Sauron (called the Necromancer here) enters the story all bring chills to those who know the roles they will play later.

-We see the return of many beloved characters in this film and the actors who play them do an excellent job.  Andy Serkis is especially brilliant in his reprisal of Gollum.  Equally brilliant is Martin Freeman as Bilbo.  When I first heard that he had been cast as Bilbo, I knew that he would do an excellent job and I was right.  Best known in America for his roles in Love Actually and the immensely popular Sherlock series, Freeman brings a sense of compassion, bravery, and comedic timing to the character and you can't help but root for him every step of the way.  His scenes with Gollum are AMAZING and easily the best part of the movie.

-The biggest problem I had with this film is that it seemed to be too much.  Compared to LOTR, The Hobbit is a pretty basic story with none of the epic tones found in the longer work.  Yet Peter Jackson seems determined to bring the same epicness to this film as the others and it just doesn't quite work here.  There is no real foundation for a story that large in scope and the weaknesses show.  The Pale Orc backstory was pretty unnecessary, I thought, and simply slowed the pace of the film.

-Though Richard Armitage certainly gives a regal air to Dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield, overall the Dwarf band is pretty weak as a group.  Unlike the Fellowship of the Ring, we don't feel that we really know each individual member by the end of the film.  There just isn't enough time spent developing the individual characters to make you care about each one.

If you loved the LOTR films, then this is a must watch no matter what anyone says.  If have never seen the originals, or if you did not care for them, this may or may not be the best choice for you.  It isn't a perfect film, but it was still wonderful to be back in Middle Earth and I am optimistic about where things will go in film number 2.  The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will be released December 13, 2013.

Page to Screen: Anna Karenina 2012

Director Joe Wright is no stranger to bringing literature to the silver screen, having directed the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and the 2007 adaptation of Atonement.  Now, he brings us a brand new adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's classic tale of passion, betrayal, and true love.  The film stars Keira Knightley as Anna, Jude Law as Karenin, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky, Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, and Matthew Macfadyen as Oblonsky.

I left the theater unsure as to how I really felt about the movie.  I liked some aspects while I found others to be somewhat odd.  Here are some of my overall thoughts from the film:

-When I first heard that Keira Knightley was going to be playing Anna, I felt that to be a case of miscasting.  After finishing the film, I still felt that to be a case of miscasting.  While she certainly wasn't horrible, she just didn't play the character as that sensuous, voluptuous, almost larger than life woman that I pictured while reading the book.  I guess she just left me a little cold.  On a side note, it was pretty great to see Lizzy and Darcy together again on screen.

-I felt that most of the other actors hit the mark (or close to it).  Jude Law was stellar as Karenin, a man who has subverted his passions to his role in Russian society.  Taylor-Johnson is adequate as Vronsky, though perhaps a little on the sulky side at times.  MacFadyen brings comic relief to his role as Oblonsky, and Gleeson pours forth the earthy heart and soul of Levin.

-Wright chose to film most of the movie inside an old Russian theater, the point of which is to show that society in Moscow is all theatrics, putting on the face that is necessary, while life in the country (shot in the exterior) is real.  It is a bold move, but one that does not always work.  In the opening scene we move through time at almost breakneck pace, sets whirling and changing constantly as characters are introduced.  It is all pretty dizzying and not easy to keep with if you don't already know who everyone is.  Also, there is no consistency as some Moscow scenes are not set theatrically.  Some of the scenes that did benefit from the stage setting were the ball where Vronsky and Anna dance together and the horse race scene, the tension of both gaining from the closed in surroundings.

-Those who have read the novel will note that this is a pretty bare bones adaptation story wise.  Tolstoy's commentary on Russian life and spirituality are nowhere to be found.  And while there is plenty of time to flesh out characters in a 900 page novel, that is not true of a 90 minute film.  Having said that, I didn't find it to be that bad, and people new to the film will be able to follow along pretty easily once they sort out who all of these characters are.

-The story does not shy away from some of the moral questions the book asks.  In our world, we assume that the love we feel in the moment is the love that is right.  The film shows that sometimes, what we want is not what is right and that there are consequences to the choices we make.  

-Lovers of British TV will see lots of familiar faces popping up here and there like Olivia Williams, Ruth Wilson, and Michelle Dockery.  I went to see it with a friend and we were constantly whispering "Oh look!  It's so and so from such and such!"

-The costumes and set pieces were GORGEOUS!!  They seemed to create the illusion of a 19th century child's playroom full of rich colors, well dressed dolls, and extravagantly detailed pop-up books.  There was definitely an artistic eye applied to this film.

I do recommend seeing this film if you haven't already.  While it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, there are aspects that are worth taking in.  It is a visually bold film and will probably leave traces of itself in the films that come after it.  Have you seen the film?  If so, tell us what you thought of it.