Jack the Giant Slayer

Jack the Giant Slayer opened in theaters a few weeks ago, playing to the current public fascination with retooling classic tales for modern audiences. Growing up, "Jack and the Beanstalk" was always one of my least favorite fairy tales, due primarily to a distinct lack of any sort of romance -- or, at the very least, the presence of any female character with whom I could identify. (The only retelling of this story that I enjoyed at all was the 1967 film version starring Gene Kelly -- PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one that's seen this!) Trailers for this film promised not only a hint of romance but a healthy dose of humor as well -- and as a decent Saturday afternoon entertainment the film (mostly) delivers, even if it falls a bit short in my view of being a truly memorable fairy tale retelling, lacking a certain spark that I look for in film and bookish retellings of this type.

According to the film's Wikipedia page, the script for Giant Slayer was based on two "Jack" stories -- the widely-known "Jack and the Beanstalk" (English in origin, Jack living with his widowed mother, steals hen that lays golden eggs & a harp from giant, NO romance) and "Jack the Giant Killer" (Cornish fairy tale, King Arthur figures into the plot, and there is a lot about Lucifer, magical accouterments, Jack ends up marrying a Duke's daughter, etc.). Personally I think I would've liked Jack a whole lot more growing up if I'd been exposed to the Cornish version of his story -- I mean HELLO?? Jack has loads of adventures, a magic sword, and a CAP OF KNOWLEDGE! Clearly I spent my childhood reading the wrong fairy tale compilation. *wink*

While I enjoyed this film well enough, on the whole I think it was something of a missed opportunity as it felt like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be -- an old-fashioned fairy tale, an epic war adventure with modern sensibilities, or something more...slapstick, and ultimately forgettable. Something just felt "off," and while it is hard for me to pinpoint exactly why this movie didn't work for me quite as well as I'd hoped, nonetheless it gets points for making Jack a winning character on the big screen.

This film positions Jack from childhood as a boy with a longing for a life bigger than his father's farm, one in love with the legends of his kingdom -- particularly Erik the Great, the king of Cloister who defeated an army of invading giants by crafting a magical crown that allowed him to banish them (as long as the crown remained safely in his keeping). Now right off the bat this movie loses a ton of points with the gosh-awful CGI flashback of the giants and Erik. It was BAD...I mean like ten years ago, in a video game, this maybe, maybe would've been cutting edge. So I'm immediately predisposed to think of the giants as ridiculous instead of fearsome...but clearly that is something the filmmakers were conflicted about as well, given how things play out.

But back to earth, for a moment...the script makes the smart decision to introduce a female lead early on, juxtaposing the young Jack's fascination with his kingdom's history, an interest unbeknownst to him that he shares with the current king's only child, the Princess Isabelle. Years pass and Jack grows up under surly uncle's care, having lost his father years earlier -- a loss he shares with Isabelle, left struggling against her father's desire to be the "perfect," protected princess after her mother's untimely death.

Even though this film hasn't been loved by critics or the box office, one cannot deny that as Jack, Nicholas Hoult is having a pretty good year. Following his turn as R the zombie in the charming (yes, CHARMING) zombie-romantic comedy Warm Bodies, Hoult tackles more traditional Hollywood fare here with this throwback to classic Hollywood adventure spectacles of yore. He's adorable as the poor boy longing to make good, and has an appealing chemistry with Eleanor Tomlinson as Isabelle -- but both tend to come off as a shade too...sincere, is perhaps the word I'm looking for (though I tend to blame the script rather than the actors...they don't have a great deal to work with here).

The absolute best thing about this film is its stellar supporting cast, particularly Ewan MacGregor as the dashing and PERFECTLY COIFFED Elmont, leader of the king's guard. According to Buzzfeed, MacGregor's hair was the best thing about this movie, and I've got to say I'm inclined to agree with that assessment -- only I'd take it a step farther. MacGregor seems to be the only one having any real FUN here -- he knows he's in an absurd film and clearly relishes every opportunity he's given to ham it up for the camera (i.e., when he's about to become a human "pig in a blanket" in the giant's kitchen -- his bravado is hilarious). I really rather wish that if this movie was going to be made, it had been given the greenlight five or so years ago, when perhaps MacGregor would've had a shot at playing Jack instead of stealing the show in a supporting role.

How did I get in this movie?

Me and my awesome hair, totally responsible for any and all ticket sales.

Eddie Marsan (Lestrade in the Guy Ritchie Sherlock films) plays Elmont's ill-fated sidekick Crawe. He doesn't have quite as much fun as MacGregor (considering the end he meets at the hands of the giants' general, that's the understatement of the year), but I love any opportunity I'm given to see him on-screen. The always adorable Stanley Tucci plays the villainous Sir Roderick, who first strives to conquer Isabelle's kingdom through marriage, and failing that, brute -- GIANT -- force. Tucci chews the scenery as Roderick in very much the same fashion he does as Caesar Flickerman in The Hunger Games, only with measurably less biting wit. *wink* As a point of reference, Roderick reminded me quite a bit of Cary Elwes as Edgar in Ella Enchanted. That.. *ahem* ...ridiculous. :P

Ooooohhhh, SHINY.

Last, but certainly not least, Ian McShane plays Isabelle's father, King Brahmwell. Now I love McShane. L-O-V-E him. But I kinda want to weep if this is what he's doing now...I just hope he didn't take this job and turn down the Gabriel Byrne role in the new Vikings show on the History Channel...because goodness THAT would've been a mistake. If you're interested in seeing McShane being AWESOME watch the all-too-short-lived series Kings, where he plays a memorable Silas -- and for a taste of Ian in his younger years, check out Gypsy Girl. It's a weird, WEIRD movie, but oh my WORD is McShane hot in it. :) As the embattled king, McShane exhibits a lot of strum und drang, but the second he turns out in gold-colored armor he loses all credibility. I don't know WHAT it is about gold armor, but it is SUCH a buzzkill for me. True story. I mean who can own THAT?

Seriously, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Bill Nighy, phoning it in...

The vocal talent behind the giants is much more impressive than the actual giants themselves, sad to say. Led by Bill Nighy as General Fallon (seriously, BILL NIGHY...disguised as a cartoonish giant...what. a. WASTE), the giants skitter between moments bordering on menace and bathroom humor stupidity. While the CGI that brought them to life was better than the "flashback" at the beginning of the film, it still didn't quite work for me...too cartoonish, too much of a rip-off of the Ents from Middle-earth.

While this movie is a decent enough popcorn flick, as a "classic" fairy tale retelling it misses the mark in too many respects for me to truly love it. Throughout I felt as though it was struggling with a split personality -- wanting to either be a silly, kid-friendly flick or something more epic in scale and scope, as evidenced by the battle scenes in the final act. And while there is plenty of likeable talent to be found, the script and therefore the characterizations are either a mess or colorless caricatures. This latter point is what makes me most concerned about director Bryan Singer's return to the X-Men universe next year. I was thoroughly impressed with Matthew Vaughn's handling of the First Class universe and it's sprawling cast of characters, and I really wish he'd been given the chance to test his mettle with the sequel. (At least he's on board as producer.)

The end of this movie is the icing on the cake of COMPLETE RIDICULOUSNESS, but maybe that's just me. I mean I don't mind exploring folk and fairy tales as part of history but this movie took things a little too literally IMO. But John Ottman turns in a fun score for this hot mess! And any script/story problems aside, this is totally worth renting for Ewan's hair alone...it should be classified as a certified wonder of the filmic world. If you've seen the movie I'd love to hear what you thought!

Snow White & the Huntsman

Snow White is the current princess du jour, enjoying quite the resurgence in popularity with no less than three wildly varied incarnations within the last year -- as a central character in the television show Once Upon a Time and in the family-friendly flick Mirror Mirror, the latter released just a scant three months ago. Snow White & the Huntsman is the latest big-screen incarnation, and from the previews it promised to be a dark and twisty take on the familiar story, with an epic feel more akin to Lord of the Rings than the classic Disney animated film. It succeeds...to a point. To be clear, I really liked this film, but that does not mean I was immune to its many (MANY) issues. So let's discuss. :) This is apt to be LONG...

The film opens with the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) as storyteller, sharing Snow White's story and how her kingdom fell under the power of a charismatic evil queen. (I COULD LISTEN TO CHRIS HEMSWORTH ALL DAY.) The opening scene promises a tale surprisingly in-step with the story's Brothers Grimm roots -- a beautiful queen (Liberty Ross), longing for a child, comes upon a brilliant red rose blooming in defiance of winter's cold. Pricking her finger on a thorn, three drops of blood fall to the snow, a stark visual contrast that prompts her to wish for a child with skin as white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair as black as a raven's wing -- and this is key -- a spirit akin to the rose's defiance and strength in blooming in the dead of winter.

In time a daughter is born to the queen and her husband, King Magnus (Noah Huntley -- the older Peter in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe!), and christened Snow White (Raffey Cassidy), as physically she embodies the beauty her mother wished for prior to her birth. But more than outward beauty, Snow's mother never fails to remind her daughter that true beauty comes from within, and that is her greatest strength. But Snow's happy childhood is doomed to fail, no more playing weird games with apples with William (Xavier Atkins), her best friend and son of Duke Hammond (Vincent Regan -- Wallander, Miss Marple, Inspector Lewis, ShakespeaRe-Told), her father's closest advisor. Snow's mother dies and her father goes COMPLETELY off the rails. Conveniently the king's resulting death wish coincides with an invasion of dark knights who happen to be MADE OF GLASS, and let me tell you watching them shatter is absolutely mesmerizing. Following his disturbing easy victory, Magnus comes upon a prison wagon holding a beautiful woman named Ravenna (Charlize Theron) and is instantly smitten. Her golden hair and clothes are the complete opposite of the dark knights, so OF COURSE SHE'S A VICTIM, right?! (Let's not think about why she would be the only human in a sea of glass warriors, whatevs...) Magnus carries her off to the castle and makes plans to marry her THE NEXT DAY, because WHY WAIT, that would make sense. Silly man.

The wedding night does not go well for Magnus, as to be expected. Ravenna is no victim, she's the sorceress who used the dark knights to gain entry to the castle -- and does she ever have issues with men and power. This dichotomy between Snow and Ravenna is one of the film's most interesting points -- Snow, raised with the understanding that true beauty and strength comes from purity of heart, while Ravenna (as it is revealed later in flashback) bears the mark of her mother's conviction that beauty is her only power, a weapon to be used to avenge her mother's death and to crush her enemies. But such a curse is not without  a failsafe -- by Ravenna's fairest (innocent) blood the spell was cast, but by fairest blood it can be undone.

On that fateful wedding night, Ravenna siezes control of the kingdom and imprisons Snow, the girl's only allies -- William and his father -- barely escaping with their lives. Now I'm not entirely sure how much time is supposed to have passed (if it's mentioned in the film I can't recall) -- in the novelization it's ten years, but on the film's Wikipedia page it's fifteen -- but either way, Snow is now of age and is played by Kristen Stewart, who is wisely given very little dialogue. And here's where things start to get interesting...

Charlize Theron as Ravenna OWNS this film. Her evil queen is by far the scariest, most intense, mesmerizing incarnation of the legendary villain to every grace the screen (or my imagination for that matter). Her icy blonde beauty is the perfect foil for Snow's darker looks, and the intensity she brings to bear on this role is just incredible -- screaming, bodily thrashing around, she throws herself into this role heart and soul. That said, I wish -- oh, how I wish -- the film gave Ravenna's character more context. It isn't revealed until over halfway through the picture the source of Ravenna's power, and that is only in a hazy flashback sequence. I wanted to see what brought Ravenna to Snow's kingdom, what set her on the course to become a power-hungry queen. And perhaps most ofa ll -- who was responsible for the attack on her family that led to her mother's "gift" of the spell that would ultimately become her daughter's destruction? The idea, the set-up, of physical beauty as a weapon versus beauty and strength of spirit is nicely meted out throughout the film, but I was left wanting -- there's a lot of promise in the "twists" this incarnation of the familiar story brings to life, but all too often the development of potentially fascinating plot points are left under-developed.

So Ravenna's power is waning because Snow has finally "come of age." No longer content with consuming the youth of captured young women (I thought this was just a brilliant twist on the queen's desire to remain "the fairest one of all"), her mirror -- played by Christopher Obi (seriously, the molten mirror? AMAZING) -- advises her to consume the heart of Snow, her primary rival, and in doing so promises her immortality. Ravenna sends her brother Finn (Simon Spruell), a completely disgusting creep, to bring Snow's heart to her. (Was it just me, or did Ravenna and Finn's relationship have some disturbingly incestuous overtones? ICK.) When Finn enters her cell (and is COMPLETELY GROSS), Snow siezes her chance and slashes him with a nail, escaping her cell and barely escaping the castle with her life.

This is where Snow kind of goes off the rails a bit -- she shows little ill effects from her imprisonment. She has a surprising amount of stamina and apparently no negative psychological impact from being locked up by a psycho since she was a small child. Thanks to a conveniently available horse she makes it to the Dark Forest, a.k.a. the point of no return. Now the forest in the Disney film terrified me as a child, and I loved how the filmmakers took that concept and ran with it -- the menacing trees with their groping branches, the idea of hallucinogenic pollen increasing the terrifying visions, the concept of the forest feeding on one's fear -- all of that brilliantly played out on-screen. Indeed it is a mark of one of the film's greatest assests -- it's world-building and set design. This is a movie you can lose yourself in quite literally, and I was happy to do so for two hours. :)

With her prey loose in the forest, Ravenna requires a hunter with nothing to lose -- and enter the Huntsman, the other best part of this film when it comes to acting. I could write PAGES on Hemsworth's performance. It's riddled with angst (love me some angst!) and self-loathing -- the Huntsman is a man in need of redemption, in need of a cause, and as such he was responsible for the greatest part of my emotional investment in this film (really, this just should've been a movie about Ravenna and the Huntsman...who needs Snow? LOL). The Huntsman is all for delivering Snow to Ravenna until he meets Snow in the Dark Forest and is -- what? impressed by her desperation to live? Unaware of the value of his charge's identity, the Huntsman takes Snow to a nearby village, claiming all he wants is a monetary reward...but oh Chris, we know your type...you are not as far gone as you'd like everyone to think. *wink*

Now, prior to this film's release, thanks to the trailers and reading various summaries online, I fully expected a lot of screentime to be given to a teacher/student relationship between Snow and the Huntsman -- I was under the impression she would transform into a "warrior queen" under his tutelage. Well unless I missed something, the Huntsman teaches Snow one (1) defensive move, and by the end of the movie she is wearing armor and leading men into battle. *rollseyes* The script instead spends far too much time (especially once Snow meets the dwarves) developing this rather silly idea that she is some sort of healing, mystical savior -- there is NO context for this savior complex, it is just a given thanks to dwarf Muir's (Bob Hoskins) apparent power as a seer. I'm sorry but Kristen Stewart has the charisma of a two-by-four, I cannot buy her as a savior or warrior queen at all. She works fairly well as Snow White when she doesn't say anything, but even then that gets a bit nuts because she's mum when you expect dialogue (i.e. the concluding scene) and ridiculous when she talks (ie. the "rally the troops" speech).

So, let's try to wrap this up. INTERESTING CAST MEMBERS -- the dwarves are brought to life by a score of familiar faces. There's the aforementioned Hoskins, joined by Ian McShane (Beith), Ray Winstone (Gort), Eddie Marsan (Duir), and Toby Jones (Coll), to name a few. I confess that after a single viewing I was left rather lukewarm by the dwarves' appearance -- I enjoyed seeing the familiar faces, but was annoyed by their use as a vehicle for driving home the idea of Snow-as-savior. I wish they'd (like all the characters in this film) had been a bit better realized script-wise. I was thrilled to see Rachael Stirling as Anna, one of the women Snow and the Huntsman encounter in the village at the edge of the forest. Anna is the one who reveals Snow's true identity to the Huntsman, and she brings this tragic sort of gravitas to the role - it was espeically heart-breaking to listen to her explain how the women of her village voluntarily scar themselves in order to escape Ravenna's search for "consumable" beauty and youth. I've been impressed by Stirling's appearances in The Young Victoria, Inspector Lewis, and Miss Marple, and look forward to seeing more of her work in the future.

The adult William is played by Sam Clafin, of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides fame, doing a lovely Robin Hood/Hawkeye impression with his bow & arrows (seriously, what IS it about archers on film lately? LOVE IT). I loved William's loyalty to Snow White, the way he goes undercover with Finn's men in order to find her, but oh how I wish he had a more charismatic leading lady to work with. OH WELL. *sigh* I was fascinated by the script's twist on the famous apple scene, and how it involved one of Snow's oldest friends -- seeing William offer Snow the apple, then realize Ravenna adopted his form, and watching her transform -- that was really well-done. Also of interest is the famous kiss, and that it is not William, whom we expect to wake Snow, that delivers it...

It is the Huntsman's kiss that wakes Snow White from the poison apple-induced slumber. From talking with a few friends I gather many viewers would prefer Snow to end up with William -- but the Huntsman's kiss certainly points in another direction (will be VERY interesting to see how these relationships play out in the sequel). Leaving aside the fact for the moment that I think both the Huntsman and William deserve other leading ladies -- working with what we're given I love the idea of Snow White and the Huntsman as a twist on the traditional princess ending up with a prince fairy tale trope. Hemsworth's delivery of the Huntsman's apology for not protecting Snow is just heart-rending, saturated in regret and "what-ifs." In principle, if not in execution, I loved the concept of Snow White making the Huntsman a better man, of two individuals from such disparate backgrounds complementing each other. I want my revised and refreshed fairy tales to have twists like this -- and having Hemsworth fill half of that equation, well that goes a long way in my book. :)

Lest you think I didn't like this film, rest assured that I did -- but there was so much unrealized potential that I couldn't help but over-analyze. *wink* (I'm actually thinking about seeing it in theaters again.) I'm not holding my breath, but if the planned sequel materializes, with more attention to story and character development, married with this film's stunning visuals and costume design (seriously, Colleen Atwood had BETTER get an Oscar nomination for her amazing work), there's a lot of potential here. I love the Huntsman character and the suggestion that he is perhaps the princess's best match -- and with the ambiguity of this film's ending, I'm VERY curious to see how this love triangle of sorts is further addressed in any sequel(s).

All things told, I'm pleased with Rupert Sanders' directorial debut. He's crafted a stunning world here, one that holds great promise for future projects. Composer James Newton Howard also delivers a score with some memorable cues -- it isn't my favorite work by the prolific composer, but it gets the job done. And if a stronger script is delivered for the sequel, I may be able to further overcome my antipathy towards Stewart as a leading lady. *wink* In any case, Hemsworth and Clafin win the day. :)

Let's end this with just ONE MORE Huntsman picture, because I really feel you can never have too many:

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was another one of my most anticipated films of the holiday season, which I'm sure is no surprise given my not so secret love of all things Holmes-related. :) The only mystery (which I still haven't figured out) is how this film was in theaters for almost a month before I finally got around to seeing it. My apologies to Sherlock and Watson.

Like its predecessor, this film franchise isn't for the Sherlock purist. That said, I thoroughly enjoy director Guy Ritchie's darkly compelling, gorgeous realization of Victorian England (and in this case, a great part of Europe), and the positively irresistible chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. as the world's foremost consulting detective and the delicious and adorable Jude Law as his long-suffering BFF Dr. Watson.

As promised at the end of the 2009 film, A Game of Shadows sees Holmes obsessed with tracking the movements of Professor James Moriarty, a shadowy puppetmaster intent on plunging all of Europe into a cataclysmic war. Moriarty is brought to life by Jared Harris. I have only a passing familiarity with Harris's filmography, but oh my word he was pitch-perfect as Sherlock's arch-enemy. His Moriarty is cold, calculating, and chilling, a soulless force of evil that counterbalances some of the ridiculousness that comes with this realization of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories -- the explosions, slow-motion fights, etc. Harris's Moriarity is a villain worthy of the name, and perhaps best of all he, by contrast, has the ability to make Downey's rather unorthodox Sherlock feel and be a hero.

My favorite aspect of this incarnation of Holmes is the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Downey and Law have this amazing on-screen chemistry. Whether or not you like the term bromance (if you have a better one, let me know!), Downey and Watson help define it and never better than the work they deliver in A Game of Shadows. The banter, the fights, the exasperation and most of all the never-changing, unshakeable affection between the two of them  -- GAH!! I absolutely love it. This film begins with Watson on the eve of his wedding to Mary (Kelly Reilly). Of course Sherlock buggers up his best man duties and forgets to invite anyone to the bachelor party, instead investigating a Moriarty-related lead (Watson remains happily - and drunkenly - oblivious). But despite his veneer of selfishness and denial, Sherlock still manages to get Watson to the church on time, and Downey still manages to break my heart by looking on his friend's happiness with such a forlorn look that it just killed me.

And this is where things get really interesting if you're a fan of this Holmes/Watson dynamic asI am -- so much of the subsequent action results partly from Sherlock's desire to keep his best friend close, but more than that, to keep him safe. Sherlock may trash-talk marriage, may make a great show of trying to get Watson to rethink his future, but when Moriarty threatens Watson and Mary, Holmes will do anything to keep them safe (including throwing Mary from a moving train). Speaking of Mary, Kelly Reilly is absolutely superb in the role. Though her screentime is limited, she and Law make a lovely couple, and for all that Sherlock must try her patience, Reilly tempers what would be understandable frustration with a warmth that acknowledges just what Sherlock means to Watson. It's rather like when Mary is in the picture, Sherlock is the Watsons' wayward child, or that relative that you love but wears you out to no end with their shenanigans. *wink*

Given how fantastic it was to see Mary decipher Moriarty's stolen accounts book (and does she every relish the work -- the girl has moxie!), one wonders Ritchie and company don't make greater use of Reilly's talent. Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) makes a brief appearance, only to be dispatched within the first fifteen minutes (one assumes she's in a sanatorium since Moriarty infected her with tuberculosis, if not dead altogether). Reception for McAdams's Adler was mixed as I recall when the first film released -- the scripting for her character did her no favors, though I do like the spark that enters Downey's eye when dealing with "the Woman," and placing her squarely on the wrong side of the law as a sort of "spy for hire" is a premise with possibility. If nothing else her questionable fate gives Downey an excuse to up the angst factor, and we all know how much I love that. :)

This script introduces gypsy fortune-teller Simza Heron, played by Noomi Rapace in her English-language film debut. I didn't think Simza was a very well-realized character, which in hindsight should be no surprise. However, I LOVED the atmosphere and culture that introducing gypsies to the storyline gave the film, in particular how it gave Hans Zimmer an excuse to incorporate gypsy-like rhythms into his fantastic score for the film.

I am so glad I somehow managed to stay away from an reviews of this film that mentioned Reichenbach, as revelation that the scene of Holmes and Moriarty's ultimate confrontation figures significantly in the movie's climax. The film is bookended with scenes of Watson typing up this film's nod to the canonical "The Final Problem", giving me great hope that a third Sherlock film is in the offing that will build on the strengths of this second installment. A Game of Shadows is at its best when showcasing the Holmes/Watson friendship first and foremost, and secondarily for its colorful evocation of late 19th century Europe, a powder keg ready to explode with the slightest provocation (Moriarty's goal) -- and we can see Ritchie hint at the pieces of the puzzle that would become a perfect storm twenty three years after this film is set, and engulf Europe in World War I.

From the construction-strewn streets of London, seen awash with a wonderful sepia tone that adds a richness to each frame of film, to the glitter of a Paris opera house, to a gloriously-rendered castle on a Swiss mountainside, A Game of Shadows is a feast for the eyes. The film is packed with wonderful period detail, from the clothing to the sets, and that coupled with an energetic pacing and a more focused storyline makes this sequel an improvement on a predecessor that despite its oft-irreverant treatment of its source material I found surprisingly enjoyable. There's enough surprises planted throughout these films, little nods to Doyle's stories that make the Sherlock aficionada in me quite happy (such as Moriarty's lieutenant being Colonel Sebastian Moran of "The Adventure of the Empty House," played by Paul Anderson). I have to acknowledge Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes -- he really is ideally suited as a foil to Downey's Sherlock. And I was so happy to see Eddie Marsan make a brief appearance at the end of the movie as Inspector Lestrade.

After Watson's utterly bereft, horrified look at Holmes falling to his death (seriously, Law has gorgeous eyes), I'm really looking forward to the third installment in this franchise -- it has to be made. The promise of Sherlock's return and Watson's indignation (at being so monstrously used)/joy is to tempting to pass up. :)

War Horse

War Horse was one of my most anticipated films of the holiday season. Much like the noble animal from which the film takes its name, this movie has a flawless and impressive pedigree -- based on the beloved novel by Michael Morpurgo, directed by Steven Spielberg, packed with well known British acting talent, this story of a boy and his horse set against the backdrop of a world at war is guaranteed to tug at the heartstrings. And for the most part, it works. The one glaring factor working against this film is its length. Clocking in at two-and-a-half hours, the film is at least a half hour too long. Told in a mostly episodic style, the length, combined with the narrative "chapters," results in a meandering movie that misfires when it strays too far from the core conceit of the story -- the extraordinary bond between Joey the horse and his boy, Albert (Jeremy Irvine -- after seeing Irvine in this film, I'm really looking forward to his turn as Pip in Mike Newell's big-screen adaptation of Great Expectations). That's not to say the movie is a wash -- far from it. But Spielberg's reluctance to tighten the on-screen storytelling does the movie no favors.

But let's talk about what works. At a livestock auction Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan), a poor, hard-drinking Devonshire farmer with a gimpy leg -- a souvenir of his service in the Boer War -- sinks his family's precious savings into the purchase of a thoroughbred colt, all in order to pique his landlord Lyons (David Thewlis). Unknown to Ted, his son Albert had been eyeing the horse from afar and is thrilled with his father's purchase, promising to train the animal himself and christening him Joey. And so the groundwork is laid for an extraordinary friendship -- these two become everything to each other, and that faith and trust in each other is what enables the pair to conquer mountains (or, as is the case in the film, plow a rock-strewn field). But when the crop fails, the only way to save the family farm is to sell Joey to the army, now preparing to head across the channel to Europe thanks to the recent declaration of war.

Before I touch on Joey's wartime experiences, I have to say that I think what interests me most about this film, and what works best, is the relationship between Ted and Albert. THIS is something that I wish had been explored in greater depth. It's obvious that Albert is devoted to his family, but Irvine shades his performance with jus the right touch of youthful frustration and shame. Frustrated with his father's drinking, with his constant struggles to provide for his family, Albert like so many of us at one point or another just doesn't get his father, sure he can do better. It isn't until his mother Rose (Emily Watson) reveals the cost of Ted's war service that we get an inkling of what made the dreamer the drinker he is today. Ted, for his part, wants to do better, wants to be more, but he's spent so long repressing his Boer experiences he doesn't know how, I think, to come out of that protective shell. Mullan's performance is really quite powerful in its restraint.

Through Joey's wartime experiences we witness the best and worst of humanity, all the more starkly drawn because our guide, the constant throughout each vignette, is an innocent animal. In my opinion the best aspect of this "second act" of the film are the war scenes the bookend Joey's experiences -- the beginning, when he's trained as a cavalry horse, one of a noble company full of honor and ideas about how this war will be fought, little realizing the crushing blow to come that will strip away those ideals and along with them, so very many lives. And the end of the war, full-blow trench warfare when Joey, and the men around him fighting are thrust, quite literally, into the middle of hell on earth. I am sure some will disagree with me, but I could've done without Joey's brief respite at the French Grandfather's (Niels Arestrup) farm with the horse-loving granddaughter Emilie (Celine Buckens). The forward-moving narrative slowed to a crawl during this scene, and the grandfather's later appearance, solely in order to throw a convenient wrench into Albert's attempts to buy back Joey, felt a little too contrived and unnecessary.

The advent of the war brings several familiar faces to the screen, namely Benedict Cumberbatch as the ill-fated Major Jamie Stewart and Tom Hiddleston as Joey's first soldier-owner, Captain Nicholls. While I love Cumberbatch (thank you for Sherlock), this sequence was all about Hiddleston (my appreciation for him has been well documented on this blog). He is ADORABLE. I loved how seriously Nicholls took his promise to Albert to watch over Joey, and it broke my heart when he was killed in the group's first charge. The concluding scenes of the war also featured several familiar faces, from Liam Cunningham as the Army doctor who treats Joey's wounded leg, to Pip Torrens as Major Tompkins, in charge of overseeing transport back to England after the Armistice, to Eddie Marsan as the hard-nosed Sgt. Fry, whose bluster hides a heart of gold.

As is the usual with Spielberg's period films, the attention to period detail is astounding. Every frame of film is a miniature work of art, from the sun-drenched, idyllic Devon countryside to horrifically realized trench scenes. There's a great deal of restraint in the war scenes -- this is not on an R-rated Saving Private Ryan level -- but nevertheless those sequences chilled me. I couldn't help but think of my father's stories about one of his uncles, who was a machine gunner during World War II, and who, much like Albert's father, could never talk about his wartime experiences. This was a war that changed everything, how the world fought and viewed combat, and was in many respects a great equalizer between the aristocratic officers and the "commoners" they commanded. I loved how the latter is realized in the understanding Albert reaches with David Lyons (Robert Emms), the previously insufferable son of his family's landlord, after saving his life in the trenches -- it was an extraordinarily well-done moment.

As the film ended, I found I wasn't focusing on Joey specifically as much as what Albert's homecoming would mean to his parents. Joey, Ted Narracott's one-time folly, the horse he purchased in a fit of pique -- that folly brings his son home -- and that may have been the film's most powerful moment for me. Because while so much had remained unspoken between those two characters, Albert's survival signals the possibility of a healing and a deeper understanding and appreciation between father and son. Whether or not the novel suggests that, whether or not that was intended I don't know -- but that to me is one of War Horse's most powerful moments. A father's folly brings his son home -- "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Though overly long, War Horse is a beautifully rendered film with many powerful moments -- definitely a worthwhile big-screen experience. (And film score fans -- John Williams has delivered yet another stunner with his work on this film -- that man is amazing.)

The 39 Steps

A couple of weeks ago now, Masterpiece Classic aired the newest adaptation of The 39 Steps, based on the novel by John Buchan. Here's a bit about the storyline from the PBS website:

"A prehistoric boor and an unhinged hysteric. Hardly a marriage made in heaven." Richard Hannay and Victoria Sinclair in The 39 Steps

Newly returned to England on the eve of World War I, Richard Hannay's (Rupert Penry-Jones, Persuasion) listless London life is about to spiral out of control. When a neighbor bursts in with a top-secret notebook full of cryptic codes and a frantic story of an impending assassination, unlikely patriot Hannay is soon on the run to save himself and his country. He bumps into feisty suffragette Victoria Sinclair (Lydia Leonard), and while their fates may be intertwined, their personalities aren't. But like it or not, they'll together navigate murder, betrayal and near death in order to untangle a plot of national importance, and understand the charms and challenges of human nature. A bracing and romantic thriller, The 39 Steps is based on the novel by John Buchan.

Now, I've yet to read Buchan's novel, and I have only the vaguest memories of seeing what is perhaps the most famous film adaptation of this story - the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock film starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll. In general being a fan of Hitchcock's work, I remember enjoying it, but that's about it. That said, I feel like I was able to come to this film with no expectations - and I thoroughly and completely enjoyed it. First of all, as far as Masterpiece and British film in general goes, it's got a unique and fresh setting - it's quite rare (in my experience, anyway) to find films set during the World War I years. Everything from the history to the clothes and sets is feels fresh and makes for absorbing viewing.

Of course it's hard to argue against Rupert Penry-Jones being the film's biggest draw. Anyone who has read my review of Persuasion can probably guess that I'm a fan. :) I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an actor more suitable to play Richard Hannay and make the transformation from languid, bored aristocrat who is pushed quite unwillingly into the high stakes world of international espionage. It would almost be enough that RPJ wheres a tux for a good part of the film, and I don't think I can even begin to talk about the shirtless scene halfway through the movie without starting to drool and mumble incoherently. That was a gift, thank you BBC. ;-) But in addition to all that, RPJ reveals quite a knack for light comedy. Had no idea he had that in him after seeing his much more serious turns in Persuasion and MI-5. Rupert can be quite funny given the right material, and has a real gift for sarcasm and understatement. Very, very well played. Yet another random side note - I loved the scene where Hannay pulls a Cary Grant and runs from the plane trying to shoot him down in the field. That scene just defines another Hitchcock classic, North by Northwest, and anything that reminds me of that favorite is a good thing in my book. :)

Hannay's love interest in the film is Victoria Sinclair, a fiesty suffragette played by Lydia Leonard. Previously, Leonard has appeared in one episode of Foyle's War and played a Angela in one of my all-time favorite mystery shows, Jericho. It's my understanding that there is no love interest for Hannay in the book, and that one's always been created in the film versions. I absolutely loved Victoria's character, and watching her spar with Richard provided scene after scene of laugh-out-loud moments. Their relationship is a case of the battle of the sexes and opposites attracting at its finest. In Victoria it's great to see such a strong-willed, fearless character. RPJ and Leonard have some excellent on-screen chemistry, and I loved watching the relationship develop between their characters and they sought to outwit German spies (apparently given free reign in Scotland, haha).

There are several other notable cast members worth mentioning. First of all let's talk about Scudder, the spy who gets Hannay into this life-or-death mess. Scudder is played by Eddie Marsan, who's become quite fixture in films mentioned on this blog - he's appeared in Little Dorrit, Me and Orson Welles, and Sherlock Holmes, to name a few of his recent credits. There's something about his face and manner that allow him to play the desperate secret agent quite well. David Haig is another familiar face - he plays Sir George Sinclair, Victoria's uncle. Haig has appeared in everything from Marple to Two Weeks Notice. Patrick Kennedy plays Hellory, Victoria's brother - he also appeared in Me and Orson Welles, as well as Bleak House and Atonement. Kennedy is quite funny in his role - he's so spacey and vapid compared to his razor-sharp sister, the differences between them are hilarious.There's a couple more familiar faces, but I'll end by mentioning Alex Jennings' appearance. Jennings plays the elusive Captain Kell, the secret service contact Scudder wants Hannay to pass his encrypted notebook on to. Jennings was most recently seen in Cranford as Reverend Hutton.

Aside from the hilariously random, tacked on ending which I'll talk about in a minute, I really loved everything about this film. James Hawes directed this film, and combined with a solid script he keeps the pace of the film flying - there's nary a dull moment in the movie's short 85-minute run time. The way this film is structured and the story unfolds, I was hooked from the first scene. As a random point of interest, Hawes has apparently also directed several Doctor Who and Merlin episodes. He's got a good handle on making some of my favorite television programs, no? :) I also really liked Rob Lane's score (Lane has also scored Merlin). It's got an old-fashioned, adventure movie feel to it which fits perfectly with the storyline.

I love a good adventure/spy flick, and The 39 Steps fits the bill perfectly. But seriously, what is with the randomly tacked on happy ending?? (Possible spoilers...) So RPJ delivers this adorable speech about wooing Victoria, and then she's shot by the random German agent everyone seems to have forgotten about, falls into the lake, and magically survives to see Hannay off to war several months later?! NO ONE was around to pull her out so how the heck did that happen?! Getting shot and then having to pretend to drown is some national secret? And seriously, we're supposed to cling to the hope that Hannay somehow survives the trenches to reunite with Victoria after the war...hmmm...I hate that the cynic in me is surfacing here, but he's going off at the beginning of the conflict. Odds are not good for poor Hannay. *sob* I am a total and complete sucker for happy endings, but compared to the rest of the movie the way the Victoria thing is resolved was more than a little lame. But considering everything else this movie has going for it - Rupert Penry-Jones, fabulous settings, great costumes, a life-and-death car chase in Model-Ts, Rupert Penry-Jones, brisk direction, wonderful music, and did I mention Rupert Penry-Jones? :) - The 39 Steps is a thoroughly entertaining, unique entry in the Masterpiece Classic schedule. Highly recommended.

And just because, here's another picture of RPJ...go ahead and swoon, I'm right there with ya... ;-)

Sherlock Holmes

Possible spoilers…

I have to confess, I went into the new Sherlock Holmes movie with relatively low expectations. I’m an inveterate Jeremy Brett-IS-Sherlock Holmes fan, so the news that Robert Downey Jr. would be taking on the role was greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism. No one else can seriously compare to Brett in my view, end of story, period, the end. I’d say I was intrigued by the idea of the movie – I like Robert Downey Jr. well enough, and Jude Law is, well, JUDE LAW, but the movie was being directed by Guy Ritchie. I mean the guy married MADONNA for goodness’ sake (that does not gain one points in my book, just sayin’). However, color me shocked on all fronts – I loved this movie. Downey may not be “the” definitive version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation, but his take on the iconic character is the most fun and entertaining that I’ve seen in, well, ages. And I loved Law’s take on Watson – refreshingly, here Watson is mind-blowingly competent for once, and the movie gives you a good sense of the Holmes/Watson friendship, particularly the sacrifices Watson had to make in his personal life in order to make that friendship work. Downey and Law have a really wonderful best friends chemistry on-screen, and seeing that friendship play out is a big part of what made the movie so enjoyable for me.

The look of the film is spectacular. I loved every single thing about the way Ritchie presents his darkly foreboding vision of Victorian England. He gives the atmosphere of the movie a real gothic flair. I also loved the costumes – Downey and Law each wear their respective suits really well. And it’s nice to see Sherlock sans the deerstalker hat that’s become such a part of the character thanks to previous films. Here Holmes is a somewhat more bohemian dresser which fits with the character’s somewhat slapdash personal habits from the stories. Mark Strong’s costumes give his character, the villainous Lord Blackwood, a suitably Dracula-like flair. The only real punches of color in the film as regards costumes belong to Holmes’s muse, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). The shocking bursts of color in her costumes represent well, I think, what her character does for Holmes in the film (that is, shakes him up terribly!). Oh, and the Hans Zimmer score is just fantastic - definitely one of my favorites by him, full of cool themes and Holmesian flourishes. Probably my favorite work by Zimmer since the Pirates films.

This version of the Holmes story returns much of the character’s energy to the screen that’s lost or “toned down” in earlier film adaptations (like Basil Rathbone’s take on the character). Brett’s take on Holmes does a good job of balancing the more refined, aristocratic points of the character’s personality with his tendency towards rather manic bursts of energy, particularly in the middle of a chase. This is seen especially in the early Brett films, since as the series progressed the actor’s health grew progressively worse and the effects of those health problems can be seen on-screen. In 2009 much of the gentlemanly veneer Holmes has worn for the past 100 or so years is ripped away, and we get to see all of the character’s energy and brilliance on full display.

Which brings me to Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes – I LOVED every second of his performance. Downey’s Holmes is brilliant, eccentric, energetic, manic, selfish, mannerly, sensitive, and hopelessly inept at personal relationships. He’s extreme in all respects, but in the best possible way. One of the best aspects of how Holmes is portrayed in this movie is that you get to see how the detective thinks. Credit for successfully pulling off this not inconsiderable feat goes to both Downey's acting and Ritchie’s direction. Seeing the way the great detective’s brain views the world is not only fascinating, but it goes a long way towards explaining why he finds “normal” (haha) people so frustrating to deal with (and vice-versa). In addition to the really extraordinarily well-done depiction of Holmes’s mental acuity, this take on the character doesn’t shy away from any of Sherlock’s more sensational habits and skills. We get Holmes the drug addict, the fighter (fist-fighting, plus he’s quite handy with a cane), the amateur scientist, the disguise expert, and the violin aficionado.

Holmes’s ever-present friend and roommate is of course, Dr. Watson, whose film portrayals have ranged from the buffoonish to the competent (but never, ever approaching Holmes’s equal!). Jude Law’s take on Watson ranks as one of my favorites, not because of how it relates (or not) to the source material, but because it gives you such a great sense of the genuineness of the Holmes/Watson friendship. This movie comes at a rather trying time for the long-time residents of 221B Baker Street, since Watson is planning to get married. Of course marriage is going to alter some of Watson’s priorities, and that’s a change that the rather narcissistic Holmes is loathe to accept, which leads to some really funny scenes. I really liked how Law’s Watson is really competent, kind, loyal, and conscientious – he knows he’s not as flashy or quick-witted as Holmes, but he’s also not going to be taken advantage of (not without a fight, anyway!).

When I first saw the previews for Sherlock Holmes, I had somewhat mixed feelings toward the apparent steampunk direction of the storyline. It seemed as though Holmes was going to go all Van Helsing-like in this story, fighting baddies who can apparently raise themselves from the dead. The baddie in question is Lord Blackwood, played by the fantastic, fabulous, oh-my-gosh-his-voice-is-so-amazing-I-could-listen-to-it-all-day Mark Strong. Love him, in case you couldn’t tell. Strong is just terrific in this film – he’s scary, intense, evil, and wickedly smart, all in all a worthy adversary for Holmes. (He’s also gorgeous, weirdly crooked teeth notwithstanding. But that’s neither here nor there.) ;-) To speak to Blackwood’s methods – yes, he’s into all sorts of wonky spiritualism which fits well with the dark, gothic atmosphere of the movie. But the final confrontation at the end of the film neatly brings things back into Holmes’s most beloved area of expertise – that of a case solved through logical, well-ordered, scientific reasoning. I thought it was nicely done, and a touch I didn’t quite expect given the apparent tone of the movie. While I enjoyed the entire film, the concluding scenes are what really sold me on Downey as Holmes.

Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is the one ever-so-slightly missed opportunity in this movie in my book. Adler is such a fascinating character in the Holmes canon. She's the only woman who ever managed to gain the detective's genuine admiration. All other women were only interesting if they brought a fascinating problem Holmes's way, while Adler was the only one whose personality, mind, and capabilities fascinated him. This time around Adler is a little more than an American "adventuress," now she's a spy/thief for hire. When Adler and Holmes meet, sparks fly (I loved the moment when Holmes tries to hide her photo!), and it's clear that in this Holmesian universe the two have a passionate and complicated past. McAdams and Downey have some nice on-screen chemistry, and the characters' reunion raises tons of questions, like how did they meet, why were they separated, etc.? It's such an interesting premise, to place an iconic character like Adler on the wrong side of the law, but I just don't feel like the script did her justice. I wanted more context for her character, but perhaps that will be supplied in the promised sequel. The final scene between McAdams and Downey is very well-played, and I look forward to seeing the relationship develop in Holmes #2.

There's a few minor characters that I simply must mention. Eddie Marsan, last seen in Me and Orson Welles and earlier this year in Little Dorrit, is the perfect Inspector Lestrade to Downey's Holmes. He's Holmes's friend, but he's also enough of a by-the-books policeman to get aggravated with the detective's sometimes unorthodox methods. Kelly Reilly, who also made a brief appearance in Me and Orson Welles, plays Watson's fiancee Mary Morstan. She at first catches absolute hell from Holmes for "stealing" away Watson, but in a refreshing turn of events she very classily rises above this and recognizes not only how much Watson regards Holmes's friendship, but how much the too really need each other. The scene in the hospital was extraordinarly well played. Hans Matheson makes a brief appearance as one of Blackwood's cronies, the aptly named Lord Coward. Matheson is quit good at playing bad guys as he previously appeared as Alec D'Urberville in Tess on Masterpiece Classic earlier this year. James Fox also continues his practice of making a guest appearance in just about everything by playing Blackwood's father, Sir Thomas.

This is a seriously fun movie, was for me anyway. I may go see it again if time and finances permit. And I can not wait for the sequel this movie promises - the introduction of Moriarty (did I let that slip? *wink*) is beautifully done. Can. Not. WAIT. :)

Me and Orson Welles

Me and Orson Welles opened in my area last Friday, and I went to see it Monday night with my friend Lori. It is SUCH a treat. I wrote a bit about the storyline a few weeks ago in my review of the novel on which the film is based (you can read my review of Robert Kaplow's novel here). Suffice it to say Me and Orson Welles is one of the best book-to-film adaptations I’ve ever seen. I haven’t verified this, but I’m pretty sure whole passages of dialogue were transferred to the script, practically verbatim. I loved everything about this movie. I’m a movie nut, as long time readers of this blog well know, but it’s a rare thing that a movie comes along that caters so perfectly to my tastes. This story is a love letter to the golden age of New York theater, when another world war probably seemed like an impossibility to anyone not deeply interested or involved in politics or foreign affairs. Nostalgic and funny, Me and Orson Welles is not only one of the best book-to-film adaptations I’ve ever seen, it’s also got to be one of the best theater movies ever made. All of the backstage drama makes the scenes showing the actual performance that much more powerful. You can’t help but stand in awe at the magic that’s possible on stage, and it’s such a treat to see it unfold.

The runaway star of the film is British actor Christian McKay as Orson Welles. The man deserves every single accolade and award thrown his way. His performance is absolutely spectacular. Now, remember that I’m not a Welles-ian scholar by any means, but having read the novel and seen several of Welles’s films multiple times, McKay doesn’t just play Orson Welles, he is Orson Welles. He manages to capture at the very least the public persona (and that is no small feat!), the essence of the man and the magnetic quality of his personality that comes through on screen. McKay’s performance is the center of the film, and deservedly so. McKay deserves every acting nomination possible IMO.

Zac Efron also rises above his High School Musical roots to deliver a surprisingly strong performance as the teenage Richard. While Richard’s role is of course prominent in the novel (it’s told from his point-of-view), you lose a little of that on screen. The movie is a little less heavy on Richard’s coming-of-age angst and school drama, choosing instead to focus on the backstage theatrics that ensue in the frantic days prior to the Mercury Theater’s first performance of Julius Caesar. He nails the role of Richard perfectly, balancing the character's bravado and uncertainty, a perfect foil for McKay's rather overwhelming Welles. Efron "fits" period roles really well - this and his turn in Hairspray being favorites of mine. Would love to see more of this type of work from him in the future.

The rest of the cast is chock-full of notable acting talent and strong performances - just want to mention a couple. Eddie Marsan, who was so wonderfully funny as Pancks in Little Dorrit earlier this year plays Welles's long-suffering business partner John Houseman. It was a real treat to see him on the big screen. :) Claire Danes was pretty good as Richard's crush, Sonja Jones. She fit the time period well, and delivered a good sense of Sonja's take no prisoners attitude towards achieving her goals that comes through in the novel. James Tupper really impressed me as Joseph Cotten, not only because he's cute (LOL) but because he's such a dead ringer for the real Joseph Cotten, in my opinion anyway. I must also mention Kelly Reilly as Muriel Brassler, one of the lead actresses in the Mercury Theater troupe. She's becoming something of a familiar face, since I've now seen her in Poirot, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes (review of the latter forthcoming). I was also very impressed with Zoe Kazan's turn as Richard's more *ahem* age-appropriate love interest, Gretta. Kazan happens to be the granddaughter of Elia Kazan, which I thought was an interesting piece of trivia. She also had such a great "look" about her, not your typical Hollywood look which was rather refreshing to see. I could mention a laundry list of other enjoyable performances, but I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say, the film is packed with top-notch work.

The success of the film rests in large part on director Richard Linklater's pacing and world-crafting, both of which are superb. This story covers just one short week in Richard's life, and due to that time constraint, the pace never lets up. The film practically hums with energy and life. And the movie's depiction of 1930s New York is just fantastic - I could've stayed in that world for ages. :) Also, the costumes and set pieces just scream authenticity - everything on-screen represents period drama at its finest. I also adored the music - both the original score pieces, and the use of period songs, the latter so important to Richard's character in the book. It's all very, very well done. Loved the movie, can't wait until it comes out on DVD. It's backstage drama at its finest. :)

Sherlock Holmes

Okay, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this...this movie still scares me just a little. But I do have a couple of observations to make:

1. Mark Strong is the villain!
2. Jude Law is Watson (WEIRD casting IMO, but the moment where Watson complains about Holmes being a slob was HILARIOUS).
3. Eddie Marsan is Inspector Lestrade! This is GENIUS! (In case you missed my previous blogs - LOL - Marsan was the fantastically quirky Pancks in Little Dorrit.)
4. Robert Downey Jr. just because he's RDJ (I still can't wrap my head around the fact that he's playing Holmes).
5. MARK STRONG IS IN THIS MOVIE (did I already mention that?)!!

Edit: Video removed from YouTube, post updated 8/18/11.

Little Dorrit, Part Three

If you’re wary of spoilers, stop here.

Click to read my reviews of part one and part two of Little Dorrit if you need to catch up on the action from the last two weeks. Here’s the brief summary of episode three from the Masterpiece Classic website:

The villainous Rigaud (under an assumed name), begins an extortion scheme against Mrs. Clennam. Pancks uncovers information that dramatically alters the future for the Dorrits. Now able to move beyond his shameful past, Mr. Dorrit enlists the help of Mrs. General to instruct his daughters in etiquette. Disquieted by all the sudden changes, Amy continues her connection with Arthur through letters, and forges a closer relationship with Pet Meagles.

As I mentioned in part two’s review, I missed Mrs. Clennam’s (Judy Parfitt) cold presence and I couldn’t wait to see her interact with the murderous Rigaud (Andy Serkis). Happily, episode three starts off by gratifying both desires right away. Rigaud’s introduction to the House of Clennam was actually pretty funny. Poor Affery (Sue Johnston) may be constantly beaten down, but she’s still smart enough to recognize that Rigaud is not to be trusted. Her reaction to Rigaud climbing into the house, monkey-style, was priceless. All of Rigaud’s screentime in this episode really served to once again drive home Andy Serkis’s incredible versatility as an actor. Where Rigaud was just inexplicably creepy before, now Serkis layers on some darkly comic overtones to his presentation of the character (seen when he latches on to the Gowans), which make the murderous Frenchman seem even more threatening (and who thought that was possible?!).

Mr. Pancks (Eddie Marsan) continues to provide some welcome moments of comic relief. His joy over his success in discovering Mr. Dorrit’s lost inheritance is genuine and heartfelt. I also appreciated the dichotomy between the joy and fulfillment he finds in detective work versus his “day job” as a rent collector for the slumlord Mr. Casby. Pancks is definitely one of the “good guys” who’s stuck in the difficult situation of working for an unscrupulous landlord – perhaps this explains, at least in part, his happiness in being able to help someone who has been wronged by the system like Amy Dorrit. And Amy returns the favor by passing on her new-found blessings. In Amy, Dickens gives us a character proving that riches don’t make a lady – instead, in the right hands, wealth merely enhances a person’s character, as it does in Amy’s case when she shuns opportunities for self-aggrandizement and helps deserving friends like the Plornishes instead.

Speaking of the Dorrits, I am so over Mr. Dorrit by now. After his mini-meltdown last week, I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and cut him some slack. Last week, Tom Courtenay did an excellent job of portraying the cost imprisonment in the Marshalsea inflicted on William Dorrit’s mental and physical health. However, there’s a point where people need to take responsibility for themselves and not act like complete jerks when their fortunes change. After Arthur – out of the goodness of his heart, for pete’s sake! – takes it upon himself to “adopt” the Dorrits, investigate their situation, and show the family multiple kindnesses, he’s unceremoniously kicked to the curb as soon as Mr. Dorrit learns of his pending inheritance. It was positively painful to watch poor Arthur get treated like crap by the pretentious Dorrits (excluding Amy, of course, as well as her uncle Frederick), when they owe their good fortune entirely to the fact that he took the initiative to investigate their history! The behavior of Mr. Dorrit, his son Tip, and daughter Fanny is just plain awful – extraordinarily distasteful and selfish. I’m so over the whole lot of them!

This brings me to one of my favorite subjects to discuss…the character of Arthur, and by extension Matthew Macfadyen’s mad acting skills. LOL! Now that Arthur has no hope of marrying Pet Meagles (Georgia King) since she became engaged to artist Henry Gowan (Alex Wyndham), he’s left to nurse crushed hopes and, wonder of wonders, loosen up a bit and start to show some genuine appreciation for Amy and her constant friendship (when he carries her out to the coach after she faints – wowzers, that moment was fantastic!). One of the things I loved about Macfadyen’s portrayal of Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice 2005 was how he became a completely different person when he smiled – the storm clouds broke and the sunlight shone through. Arthur’s flashes of happiness had the same effect on me during last night’s episode – only perhaps they were a bit more poignant, because Arthur is really a criminally under-appreciated guy, and with his family background he clearly wasn’t given much to smile about. Watching Arthur journey from a place of emptiness and un-fulfillment into increased confidence, joy, and self-worth has been a rewarding experience thus far. He’s an easy character to cheer for – he’s not entirely a doormat, and he’s not a perfect, heroic ideal. He’s an everyday guy who’s taken more than his share of knocks who has this unshakeable desire to do the right thing, and be a decent human being, that makes him wonderfully relatable.

Once the Dorrits are freed from Marshalsea Prison, Mr. Dorrit engages Mrs. General (Pam Ferris) to prepare his children to take their “rightful” place in society. It was a real treat to see Pam Ferris in this role (you may recognize her as Aunt Marge from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban or as the sinister Grace Poole from Jane Eyre 2006). She’s hilarious being all fussy and proper and mercenary, all at the same time. Mrs. General encourages Mr. Dorrit to take his family on a “grand tour” of Europe – and while abroad the Dorrits meet the Gowans. Here is where the Rigaud mystery gets even murkier – Rigaud knows the seriously whacked-out Miss Wade (Maxine Peake), a.k.a. the corrupter of Tattycoram. She sent him after the Gowans, encouraging him to ingratiate himself with the easily swayed Henry, and to take advantage, if he can, of any encounter with Amy Dorrit. Some of the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. Perhaps Rigaud’s targeting of Mrs. Clennam isn’t a mere “lucky chance” - I think there’ s a history that’s yet to be revealed, involving more players than I’d ever dreamed (i.e. Miss Wade).

One of my favorite aspects of episode three was how Amy & Arthur’s relationship developed through letters during the latter half of this episode. There’s something so incredibly romantic about a relationship forged through the written word, isn’t there? There’s a couple of things going on here, but perhaps the most important being Amy’s subtle defiance of her father by refusing to disown Arthur. Amy is blossoming into a true lady, developing a backbone, and proving again and again that she’s the most genuine, honorable member of her rag-tag family. She even shows admirable compassion towards her rival for Arthur's affections, Pet. Claire Foy adds depth to her portrayal of Amy with each succeeding episode. Primarily she has achieved the delicate feat of being a perfectly sweet heroine who’s not annoying - and that is quite a feat in my book. LOL!

Needless to say, I cannot WAIT for part four this coming Sunday!

If you need to catch up on episodes of Little Dorrit, you can watch online at the PBS website.