Anna Karenina

Last weekend I went to see Anna Karenina, the latest film from director Joe Wright and his "muse," Keira Knightley. I've never read the novel (though I started it this week, and am a whole 7% into this massive tome!), and my only experience with the story were long-ago and barely-remembered viewings of the "classic" versions starring Greta Garbo and Vivien Leigh. With that scant background knowledge, I went into the film expecting to enjoy it based solely on Wright's direction and stars Knightley and Jude Law -- but more than simply liking it, I absolutely fell in love with world of the film, thoroughly swept up in its tragedy and unexpected heart, and yes -- its hope.

In bringing Leo Tolstoy's massive, nearly 1,000 page tome to life, Joe Wright made the unusual -- and some would say, risky -- decision to film the entire story as a stage play. I wasn't sure how this would work and if visually the movie could pull it off. But from the opening scenes I simply abandoned myself to the conceit and lost myself completely within the film's glorious evocation of late nineteenth-century Russia.

I've always been fascinated by the history of Imperial Russia and subsequent revolution that brought an end to the glittering world of the tsars, so much so that I indulged in an entire semester on the subject in college, which remains one of my fondest educational memories. (And admittedly makes it all the weirder that I never tried to tackle a Tolstoy novel!) In this world, the aristocrats were arguably the celebrities of their day -- and as Anna is a highly-public member of that class, married to the well-respected statesman Count Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin, she is a woman who for good or ill lives under the laser-like scrutiny social celebrity. Thus, filming her story as a play elevates the audience into the role of her observer along with every on-screen counterpart she meets. It isn't breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience directly, but to my mind it comes close, enveloping the audience immediately within the world of the film.

The scene transitions are seamlessly done, giving the film the feel of a fluid, rushing river -- probably a most apt comparison, when one considers the dizzying speed of events that Anna finds herself caught up in, propelling her to her ultimate downfall. (Trains are used in a similar respect, suggesting the idea of an individual on a journey leading to a destination they are powerless -- or think they are -- to stop, an outcome they feel -- or choose to accept -- is inevitable, no matter how disastrous the result. Interestingly enough, the week before I watched this film I saw Harriet Craig starring Joan Crawford for the first time. In that film, Crawford's character makes a similar comment about disliking trains because the method of travel makes her  feel "out of control," when in actuality in both cases Crawford an Anna conveniently forget they chose to take their respective journeys...)

The effect of the scene transitions is that the film maintains a sense of tension throughout, a rapid pacing that in my view lends itself brilliantly to the condensing of a 900-plus page novel. While Anna and her compatriots are set up and move on stage like so many glittering jewels, the transition scenes reveal a wholly different side to the story. Those "backstage" moments reveal the peasant side of Russian society, the filth, poverty, and struggle that make up the existence of the "have-nots" -- a marked dichotomy when considering Anna's privileged existence, and a harbinger of the revolution to come.

While Knightley skyrocketed to fame and widespread recognition with the first Pirates of the Caribbean film and Love Actually in 2003, I vastly prefer her turns in literature-inspired costume dramas. Anna Karenina is actually her second turn tackling an iconic fictional character from Russian literature -- her first being Lara in the 2002 Masterpiece adaptation of Doctor Zhivago (which I adore simply on its film-making merits, it is another book I've yet to read). And then there are her turns in Wright's Pride & Prejudice and Atonement, both of which set the groundwork for this their perhaps most visually stunning, ambitious collaboration to date. As Anna, I thought Knightley was pitch-perfect, making the transition from dutiful if quietly restless wife to mistress and social outcast heart-rending and believable. While Anna certainly goes to her doom with her eyes wide open, that does nothing to lessen the tragedy of her choices -- her willful rejection of the security of home, marriage, and son in order to temporarily satiate the lusts of the flesh.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays Count Vronsky, the dashing cavalry officer whose chance encounter with Anna when when goes to meet his mother at the train (played by the inimitable Olivia Williams) launches a dangerously obsessive love affair that threatens to destroy not only their reputations but the lives of everyone it touches. Now I realize this is just a personal preference thing, but I don't see the attraction of Johnson over the likes of Law (receding hairline included!) at all. That said, he does manage to bring a youthful energy (and dare I say petulance?) to the role of Vronsky, a selfishness in his pursuit of Anna that fits the role well.

Jude Law was perfectly cast as Anna's older, politically-minded husband Alexei Karenin. I'm used to seeing him in roles that play off his personable, empathetic demeanor (i.e., Dr. Watson in Sherlock Holmes, the father in Hugo, etc.). Between the make-up and his almost brittle, excessively proper mien, his Alexei was a bit of a shock. He is the very antithesis of Anna's warmth and vibrant personality. The brilliance of Law's performance is in the subtle layers he gives Karenin -- it isn't that he is wholly callous or clueless regarding Anna; rather, he doesn't know how to be emotional, how to exhibit the depth of his feelings until his family stands on the brink of implosion.

I am in no way attempting to excuse Anna's affair -- her relationship with Vronsky is lust, pure and simple -- there is nothing of lasting, meaningful love in their "relationship." But Karenin didn't help -- didn't attempt to meet Anna halfway until she'd sadly crossed the point of no return. A large part of that is certainly the social accepted roles of the sexes in the 19th century, but that aside I'm convinced that no matter the century, one thing about a successful marriage hasn't changed -- it's a two-way street that requires effort on both sides.

Interestingly enough Anna Karenina gives us three romantic relationships to compare -- Anna and Alexei/Vronsky, her brother Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen) and his wife Dolly (Kelly Macdonald), and Konstantin Levin (Domhall Gleeson) and Kitty, Dolly's younger sister (Alicia Vikander - she can also be seen this fall in the Danish film A Royal Affair). Before we can take the measure of Anna's marriage, the film introduces us to the turmoil upsetting Oblonsky and Dolly's relationship. Oblonsky is an inveterate skirt-chaser, recently outed for an affair with his children's governess to the chagrin and embarrassment of his wife. Dolly, in giving her husband a home and children has lost the "bloom" of her youth -- or so that is Oblonsky's excuse. Anna has been summoned to "heal the breach" and convince Dolly to forgive her husband for the sake of their family. Anna succeeds -- and later in the film, while it is implied at the least that Oblonsky hasn't reformed, Dolly seems to have maintained a measure of peace in staying with her husband and loving him in spite of himself.

Macfadyen's Oblonsky was a comic revelation. With his ridiculous moustache, pseudo-pompadour-styled hair, and unflaggingly cheerful good humor (never mind that he is responsible for the problems in his personal life!), Oblonsky is QUITE the departure from Macfadyen's reputation has a romantic lead (Arthur Clennam in Little Dorrit, Mr. Darcy in Pride & Prejudice, etc.). One couldn't imagine a more unlikely on-screen reunion for Knightley and Macfadyen, the couple responsible for putting their own unforgettable spin on Austen's famously sparring lovers. His long-suffering and put-upon wife is played by Kelly Macdonald, most recently the voice of Merida in Disney/Pixar's Brave. I just love her -- she always seems to have such a compassionate and kind on-screen demeanor, which is a perfect fit for Dolly, particularly in the tea room scene late in the film where she shows Anna the kindness of speaking to her in public.

Contrast the uneasy truce formed by Oblonsky and Dolly with Karenin and Anna as her affair becomes grist for the gossip mill. Once Anna chooses a passionate affair with Vronsky over her marriage and family commitments, she begins a long downward spiral into mental and emotional disintegration that is simply gut-wrenching to watch. The heady, early days of her not-so-secret "romance" with the officer comes into the harsh light of day when, unable to contain her emotions at the races (fabulously staged by the way) blurts out her feelings for the wrong Alexei in the most public way imaginable. Initially Karenin demands she honor her vows and maintain the status quo, finally driven to seek divorce. But when Anna gives birth to Vronsky's daughter and contracts a fever, begging for his forgiveness on her deathbed -- he finds himself moved to grant it. And that forgiveness looses something within him, freeing him from a desire for revenge or autocratic control, freeing him to take the first tentative steps towards expressing some feeling, some depth of the emotion that he possesses for his wife and family.

But while Karenin (Law is brilliant here) takes the first steps towards reclaiming his life from the poison of bitterness, Anna lives -- and she outright rejects facing life without her "grand passion." So Alexei lets her go, and cut adrift from the security of her marriage and family, commitments her husband would have gladly honored, she flounders, becoming increasingly possessive of Vronsky's time and attention. For in rejecting her vows, in embracing her feelings of the moment, she is left without any security. And this is where the staging of this film is so brilliant. When she decides to attend the opera with her friend Princess Myagkaya (hello Lady Mary -- I mean Michelle Dockery), she becomes the focus of society's scorn. The fluidity of the sets, the ability to change focus on a dime, is a stark and tragic reminder of the fact that Anna is an acceptable target for foolishly letting her sins become public knowledge -- when really but for the grace of God any audience member (within and without the confines of the film) could just as easily be the next target for their own missteps. That opera scene is to me perhaps the greatest tragedy of this story -- having rejected her husband's offer of a second chance, the increasingly unstable Anna still finds no grace or mercy with the public. Whether or not she would've accepted such, if offered, is of course open for debate -- but that lack of compassion was a convicting moment that broke my heart.

Thankfully Tolstoy doesn't leave his audience without the hope of redemption when it comes to relationships. The relationship between Levin and Kitty is a glorious realization of the possibilities of love, real, sacrificial, life-changing love and commitment. Levin is the complete antithesis of his old friend Oblonsky -- a shy, somewhat awkward young man, he prefers a simple life in the country, working the land, to the delights of city life. Passionately in love with Dolly's younger sister Kitty, he's returned to the city to press his suit, only to discover that in his absence a rival has arisen -- the dashing Vronsky. The youthful, romantic Kitty, sure of Vronsky's affections, turns down Levin's awkward proposal -- sending a heartbroken Levin back to nurse his wounds at his country home. Kitty's youthful, idealistic passion for Levin is subsequently crushed when Vronsky's obsession for Anna leaves her in the dust, humiliated and embarrassed.

Though I'm not yet 10% into the novel, the first few chapters offer some fascinating additional insight into Levin's personality and background, characteristics only hinted at thanks to the constrictions of the film's script and running time. But despite the compression of his story, Gleeson has done a fantastic job of bringing Levin's idealism and love for Kitty -- a love that is almost religious in its fervor -- to life on-screen. (Side note: did anyone recognize Gleeson as Bill Weasley?) Levin has set Kitty upon a pedestal as his perfect specimen of womanhood, his only hope of happiness -- a happiness he isn't quite sure he has the power to claim. Her initial refusal of his proposal is a humbling moment for them both, and it is only after this second separation when each has had time to heal and re-evaluate their feelings and desires that they can realize and claim the future they want -- with each other. His second proposal is so romantic. (Levin's impassioned dinner speech at Oblonsky's is simply beautiful -- and heart-breaking when one sees its effect on Karenin, caught in the throes of a broken marriage.)

While I absolutely ADORE Levin's purity of heart, his love for Kitty, and his ideals, he isn't the perfect answer to Vronsky or Oblonsky's predilection for mistaking lust for love. Speaking strictly from an interpretation of the on-screen action, Levin's obsession with purity, his idealism of Kitty, if left unchecked, would be doomed to fail -- because no human could possibly attain that level of perceived perfection. The turning point comes he and Kitty return to his country home following their marriage to discover his impoverished, dying brother Nikolai (David Wilmot), a known radical, and his common-law wife/former prostitute Masha (Tannistha Chatterjee) in residence. While Levin clearly possesses a sense of familial duty for his brother, he's ready to kick him out solely because he doesn't want Nikolai and Masha's presence to pollute his home, to risk offending his "angelic" bride. But to Levin's surprise its Kitty who shows him the truth of sacrificial love, joining with Masha to wash and tend Nikolai's broken body.

Just reliving that moment to type this makes me want to weep. The grace and mercy and beauty in that scene is overwhelming. My only previous experiences with this story on film focus on the tragedy of Anna and Vronsky's "romance." This film quite frankly shocked me with its moral, subtly Christian worldview, and the way in which it examines -- primarily through contrasting Anna/Vronsky and Levin/Kitty -- love, and encourages sacrificial love, love that doesn't wallow in the filth the world offers, or in the temporary satisfaction that comes from indulging transitory flights of fancy, but a love that extends a hand to the suffering, the fallen, and offers instead of condemnation, grace and mercy. You can have Levin's ideals, but to my mind the story espouses a faith and a worldview that uses those principles to walk out the perfect love we aspire to in a world full of fallen, messed up souls.

That's the hope this story offers, the hope that that love exists and can change one's world. It's an idea that is beautifully illustrated in the final scene of the film, when we see Anna and Karenin's son running through a field with Anna and Vronsky's daughter. Karenin is relaxing nearby reading -- an attitude of repose that would have been unthinkable when he was first introduced. The implication that he has not only taken in the child that resulted from Anna's infidelity, but that he's actually spending time away from work with those children stole my breath. This is a man humbled and battered by tragedy, but who through forgiveness, through releasing the wrongs done to him, has the hope of a fresh future -- and those children have the hope of a better, deeper, meaningful relationship with their papa.

There are just a few quick casting notes that I want to briefly discuss before closing. In addition to the principle players I've discussed at length, this film is packed with wonderful talent in supporting roles. Pip Torrens makes an all-too-brief but warm and humorous appearance as Prince Shcherbatsky, Kitty and Dolly's father. Torrens is a period drama veteran, appearing in films such as Marple, Shackleton, and Lorna Doone, and will be seen in the forthcoming remake of The Lady Vanishes. Holliday Grainger and Ruth Wilson join Michelle Dockery in playing aristocratic acquaintances of Anna's -- the latter playing Vronsky's cousin, Princess Betsy. Grainger appeared in the recent film version of Jane Eyre, and plays Estella in the forthcoming Great Expectations. Wilson was a huge surprise, as her blonde princess with a lisping accent couldn't be farther from the warm-hearted portrayal of Jane Eyre in the 2006 miniseries that launched her career. Emily Watson, most recently seen as Rose in War Horse plays Countess Lydia, the socially-conscious, kind antithesis of the other glittering, but poisonous flowers that populate Anna's social circle. And last but certainly not least, it was terrific seeing Thomas Howes, the sadly now-deceased William from Downton Abbey make a brief appearance as a military acquaintance of Vronsky's, looking so DIFFERENT. :)

Anna Karenina is a gorgeous, beautifully-made, thought-provoking film that I honestly have not been able to stop thinking about since I saw it. The tragedy of Anna's poor choices, the way she trades her precious marriage commitment for a cheap fling broke my heart, especially when contrasted with Levin and Kitty's growing commitment to each other and the sanctity with which that relationship is viewed. This is a gorgeous film, every frame popping with color and detail, the set direction, costumes, and props creating a glittering, snow-capped fantasy world full of all-too-real heartbreak. (Also, the score! Dario Marianelli has outdone himself once again!) But the heartbreak is balanced by the hope that a love exists that, when embraced, extends grace and mercy and offers the chance of renewal.

• Read Rachel's take on the film at A Fair Substitute for Heaven

Ripper Street previews

I was talking to a friend recently about Matthew Macfadyen's upcoming BBC America drama, Ripper Street -- and since she hadn't heard of it yet I thought I'd share the previews I've seen here.

Trailer Playlist (3 videos):



I gotta say, Matthew looks to be on fire in this show. Also, the third trailer set to a Jay-Z/Kanye West song kinda cracks me up. *wink*

Anna Karenina trailer!

Is this not the most gorgeous thing you've ever SEEN?! Anna Karenina opens -- in what will likely be a limited release -- in November. This cast -- this cast is AMAZING! Kiera Knightley, Jude Law, Kelly Macdonald, Matthew Macfadyen, Michelle Dockery, Emily Watson, Olivia Williams, Holliday Grainger, Ruth Wilson -- can we say Oscar bait? AND a score by Dario Marianelli? Can. Not. WAIT.

The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers and I go way, way back. I can still remember discovering Alexandre Dumas's novels in middle school. The adventures of Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan rocked my world. A classic bromance, no? *wink* This afternoon I saw the latest big-screen adaptation of this classic brothers-in-arms saga, and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, I can only shake my head in mystification that Hollywood is apparently unable to produce a straight-forward adaptation of the novel. Why, I have no clue -- it's not like Dumas didn't already liberally douse his fiction with loads of drama.

ANYWAYS -- this version of The Three Musketeers is very much in the mold of Pirates of the Caribbean or the big-screen Sherlock Holmes. The current trend in Hollywood seems to require adding a steampunk-type vibe to any costume drama. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not complaining, I love all of the aforementioned films. If you appreciate the source material and have a healthy appreciation for the ridiculous, this film delivers in spades. The costumes, settings, and the cast -- this is a gloriously rendered slice of eye candy full of glitz, humor, and best of all, hot guys who like to wear cloaks and fight with swords. MEN WITH SWORDS!!! WIN!! :)

I thought it was fascinating how the film chose to remain faithful or wildly deviate from the source material. I was rather surprised that they kept the idea of a relationship between Buckingham and Queen Anne intact, though in this case it is entirely fabricated for the sake of a European power struggle. Also, we're given Matthew Macfadyen as a deliciously angsty, brooding Athos, who apparently rocks seventeenth-century diving gear. He also has a past with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), only in this case they were never married -- and she was never "just" a spy (think Lara Croft -- I think Jovovich was channeling her inner Angelina Jolie for this role). Among the current crop of actors I can't imagine anyone better than Macfadyen as Athos -- he's almost so serious its as if he's parodying his earlier romantic roles (such as Darcy in Pride and Prejudice).

Any adaptation of The Three Musketeers rises or falls on the chemistry between the four male leads -- and Macfadyen's Athos is superbly supported by Ray Stevenson as the gregarious Porthos and Luke Evans (SWOON!!) as the (ex? how exactly does that work?) priest/lover Aramis. Stevenson appeared earlier this year in Thor as Volstagg, Thor's "mighty man" who loves to eat. *wink* He brings such a great sense of humor to these roles -- his Porthos may very well be my favorite on-screen incarnation of the character. As to Luke Evans...oh my word, I want to write the man an ode. He deserves it. Evans's career is, I suspect, on the brink of exploding -- he first came to my attention as Apollo in Clash of the Titans, and looking forward he gets a promotion to Zeus in Immortals, which will be followed by Bard the Bowman in The Hobbit films (I AM SO HAPPY ABOUT THAT!). Evans really knows how to rock wearing black leather (just being honest here), and he brings this great sense of world-weariness and intelligence to the role of Aramis. Look for the scenes where he's wearing wire-rimmed glasses - ADORABLE. FREAKING ADORABLE. I could watch him all day. :)

Mads Mikkelsen as the Musketeers' nemesis Rochefort, head of the Cardinal's guard, also deserves an ode singing his praises. I love Mikkelson, ever since he played Tristram in King Arthur I'm thrilled whenever he shows up on-screen. Mikkelsen looks quite dashing in Rochefort's eyepatch, and I thoroughly enjoyed his final fight with D'Artagnan. Listening to Mikkelsen growl his way through a scene never gets old. *wink*

I was a little concerned about Logan Lerman as D'Artagnan, as the only thing I'd really seen him in prior to this film was the Percy Jackson film (which, inexplicably, is getting a sequel). I don't know how much, if any, of his own stunt work Lerman performed, but the end result on-screen is a ton of fun to watch. He manages to hold his own opposite a slew of seasoned (and frankly, hotter) actors -- I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was hilarious that he seemed to be taking his cues for D'Artagnan's portrayal from co-star Orlando Bloom's appearance in the Pirates franchise. In fact, this whole film owes a RIDICULOUS debt to Pirates of the Caribbean, from D'Artagnan doing his best to mimic Will Turner's heroics, to the flipping AIR SHIP BATTLE OVER PARIS. Yes, really. Pirate ships with hot air balloons in the sails, I never thought I'd see the day. LOL!

Speaking of Orlando Bloom, he was absolutely HILARIOUS as the villainous Duke of Buckingham. Bloom clearly put all the years he had to observe Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow into good use. Every time he appeared on-screen he chewed the scenery with ridiculous gusto. I have to give Bloom credit, he played the megalomaniacal villain role to the hilt, and really seemed to relish the opportunity. Not to mention the fact that he owned the clothes and that crazy pompadour hairstyle. On the other side of the villain equation, Christoph Waltz (seen earlier this year in Water for Elephants) played a wonderful Cardinal Richelieu -- chilling when required, and oh-so-adept at doing whatever is politically expedient in order to survive. I feel like he was a bit under-used, though -- but if this turns into a franchise (as the last scene in the film suggest that is the hope of the filmmakers), hopefully he'll be given the chance to really unleash Richelieu.

Two more quick casting notes -- I thought Louis XIII looked vaguely familiar throughout the entire film. Turns out Louis was played by Freddie Fox, the nephew of none other than James Fox, which makes him Laurence Fox's COUSIN! THERE'S A HATHAWAY CONNECTION!!! Freddie's acting debut was also in the Miss Marple episode Why Didn't They Ask Evans? I have to wonder how much ribbing poor Freddie is going to take for his *ahem* colorful costumes in this flick. Thank goodness my Musketeers didn't have to wear colored tights. *whew* Also, it was fantastic to see James Corden as Planchet, the Musketeers' servant. Corden should be instantly recognizable to fans of Doctor Who as he's appeared in two of Matt Smith's best episodes, The Lodger and Closing Time. Corden was HILARIOUS, the perfect foil for his grouchy masters.

The Three Musketeers is a heck of a lot of fun -- it has a total summer blockbuster vibe, with lots of action and explosions and gorgeous costumes, with the bonus of classic characters to draw in the lit-loving crowd like yours truly. *wink* I was rather suprised that director Paul W. S. Anderson is perhaps best known for directing flicks like Resident Evil prior to this outing. He keeps the action moving at a brisk pace, a really enjoyable mash-up of historical drama and modern flash. Perhaps most shockingly, Anderson has a script to work with that was co-written by Andrew Davies -- yes, the Andrew Davies. I have NO idea what the heck Davies was doing "slumming" with this project (do you think he's depressed about Julian Fellowes's success with Downton Abbey? HA!!!), but perhaps he's to thank for any resemblance to Dumas's novel. And the score was FABULOUS -- written by Paul Haslinger, it had all of the pomp and drama one could wish for as the soundscape to an adventure of this kind.

I have a soft spot in my heart for the 1993 version of The Three Musketeers starring a pre-24 Kiefer Sutherland as Athos and a pre-crazy Charlie Sheen as Aramis -- and I think a part of the reason I liked this new version so much is because it seems to possess the same zany spirit as its predecessor, gleefully tweaking the story to suit its purposes while giving the audience plenty of swordfights and heroics. This movie was a lot of fun -- and while I don't think it *needs* to be franchised, I'm not going to complain if the sequel Buckingham practically begs for at the end of the film pans out -- because this motley crew was a whole lot of fun to spend an afternoon with. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

And because I CAN... :)

The Three Musketeers - New Trailer!

I want to thank Charleybrown at Enchanted Serenity for posting the brand-new trailer for the upcoming The Three Musketeers film, due out this fall. Let's watch, shall we?



Doesn't this look AWESOME?! Little besides the character names resembles Alexandre Dumas's classic novel, but I for one say who the heck cares? This promises to be ridiculously fun. :)

Side note: It appears that this "adaptation" (I use that term very, very loosely) promises to be even more over-the-top, ridiculous, and less like its source material than my much-loved and deliciously cheesy 1993 version. Thoughts?

Now let's take a look at the movie poster:

I don't know about you, but love this. It reminds me of the posters artist Drew Struzan created for Star Wars, Harry Potter and Indiana Jones.

The expression on Orlando Bloom's face just cracks me up. There the Duke of Buckingham is, in all his glory, smirking - "Look at me, I'm hot, I moonlight as an elf and fly hotair balloon warships and chew scenery for a living. Matthew Macfadyen's got NOTHING on me." *wink*

Speaking of Matthew Macfadyen, for all the attention he's getting in the press for this film by having Athos narrate the trailers, why the heck does he look so ridiculous on this poster? "Check this out, I have a sword! I'm not really sure what to do with it but I'm pretty sure I look hot so my fans won't care." :P

I'm a little worried about Logan Lerman as D'Artagnan thanks to this latest trailer and the poster image. It's fearfully apparent that he's going to be squashed by the combined forces of Bloom, Macfadyen, and every other man in this film. But maybe that's just me. Too bad though that the poor guy looks so - um, vacant? - on the poster. "Check me out, I'm so hot - no, literally hot in all this leather. Women will love me and somehow magically overlook my HORRIBLE HAIR."

It's great to see Christoph Waltz as Richelieu, I think he will be suitably imposing and villainous, and Ray Stevenson should turn in an excellent performance as Porthos. I do wish Mads Mikkelson was getting more time in the press materials as Rochefort, I love that guy. And based on the poster alone I am THRILLED with the casting of Luke Evans as Aramis. Evans has got that two-fisted sword thing DOWN.

So, who else is looking forward to this version of The Three Musketeers? I'd love to hear your thoughts! And to fans of the story, what's your favorite film version to date? I alternate between the aforementioned 1993 version and the 1948 version where Gene Kelly played D'Artagnan. Oddly enough now that I think about it, that latter version might just be the most faithful adaptation of the book that I've seen. Thoughts?

The Three Musketeers - coming in October!

Apparently the first trailer for the new Three Musketeers film broke today. I am SO ridiculously excited about this. Orlando Bloom as the Duke of Buckingham, Matthew Macfadyen as Athos, MADS MIKKELSON as Rochefort?! Yes, please. Also...it will be very interesting to see how Logan Lerman does in the role of D'Artagnan, since his last film appearance was as Percy Jackson.

Any Human Heart preview

Tomorrow night Masterpiece Classic resumes with a brand-new drama, Any Human Heart, starring the one-and-only Matthew Macfadyen! Here's a bit about the story:

Don't miss the premiere of Any Human Heart this Sunday, February 13, 2011, on MASTERPIECE Classic. William Boyd adapts his acclaimed 2002 novel about a man making his often precarious way through the 20th century. Matthew Macfadyen (Little Dorrit), Gillian Anderson (Bleak House), Hayley Atwell, Kim Cattrall (My Boy Jack) and Jim Broadbent star.

The cast is packed with Masterpiece veterans, and since this is an adaptation of a relatively new novel I'm quite curious to see how it plays out. It sounds rather epic. :) Here's a short preview:

Watch the full episode. See more Masterpiece.

This Sunday on Masterpiece Mystery...

This Sunday Masterpiece Mystery will be airing an encore presentation of Agatha Christie's A Pocket Full of Rye, starring Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple. Here's a bit about the story:

Revisit a favorite case this Sunday, June 6, 2010, on MASTERPIECE MYSTERY! In an encore presentation of A Pocket Full of Rye, the murders are following the themes of a nursery rhyme, but the case is anything but child's play for Miss Marple. Julia McKenzie (Cranford) stars as Miss Marple with a guest appearance by Matthew Macfadyen (Little Dorrit) in this adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel.

If you missed this film last year, it's worth checking out as it's one of the strongest entries from Julia McKenzie's debut season as Miss Marple (plus it features Matthew Macfadyen, so how can you go wrong?).

Click here to read my review of the film.

Click here to read my review of the novel and a book/film comparison.

Robin Hood

Random observation: I rather feel like the same people who designed the above poster also worked on this one...what do you think?

When I first heard that Ridley Scott was making a Robin Hood film, I was incredibly excited - especially when I heard that it would be somewhat similar - perhaps an unofficial sequel - to Kingdom of Heaven, which is my favorite Scott film. (Please, if you've never seen the director's cut of Kingdom, do so asap!) And then this teaser trailer came out, and my interest in the movie nose-dived. That has to be one of the worst teasers ever cobbled together for a major film. Thankfully for this movie I stumbled upon a much, much better trailer back in April when I was putting together this post - and my interest in the movie revived. :)

This is most definitley not your traditional Robin Hood story. It's a dark, intense origin story where Scott has attempted to place the character of Robin Hood in a very real historical context. Though not a true sequel to Kingdom of Heaven, it makes an excellent companion film (sort of the "homefront" to Kingdom's Crusade-set action). The film opens with Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) leading his weary army back home to England, sacking French castles on the way. If you're expecting a traditional Robin Hood storyline, Scott dispatches that notion pretty quickly as Richard kicks the proverbial bucket and dies enroute. Robin (Russell Crowe) and his men (Little John - Kevin Durand, Will Scarlet - Scott Grimes, and Allan A'Dayle - Alan Doyle) are lowly archers and men-at-arms in Richard's army. With the king dead, the four decide to strike out for home. But their plans change when the come upon Richard's loyal lieutenant, Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge - almost didn't recognize him, he played Dr. Tertius Lydgate in Middlemarch), tasked with returning Richard's crown to England. Loxley and his men were ambushed and massacred, and he tasks a reluctant Robin with returning his sword to his father, Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) in - wait for it - Nottingham. :) Robin & company assume the identity of knights in order to make their way home easier - and of course Robin assumes Loxley's identity.

I'm going to stop with the story recap here (that's probably enough of an introduction, anyway) and delve into the characters and acting for a while. I'll save Robin and Marion for last. :) Back in England Richard left behind a very selfish, immature younger brother - John, played by Oscar Isaac - with serious mommy issues. Eleanor of Acquitaine is played superbly by Eileen Atkins. She's regal and powerful and has a wonderful screen presence - an unexpected jewel of a performance. John is, of course, a disaster in the making, and as soon as the crown settles on his head he goes full steam ahead with his plans to tax, tax, tax. Isaac's performance is interesting and makes you wonder how John would've turned out if he hadn't grown up knowing he was viewed as so obviously the lesser brother. William Hurt makes an interesting appearance as the loyal William Marshal, pushed aside by John for disagreeing with his taxation schemes. Marshal is a rather interesting "bridge" character - thorughly loyal to the crown, he also has a very realistic view of the crown's shortcomings when dealing with its subjects.

It's absolutely tragic that this is the only picture I could find of Mark Strong in character as the villainous Godfrey. It really doesn't do the man justice, just so you know. As I discussed with Lori and then some other friends on Facebook, if this movie couldn't feature Richard Armitage as Sir Guy, there's no one I'd rather see stand in the role of Robin's nemesis than Mark Strong. Ever since appearing as Septimus in Stardust, Strong has become the go-to guy to play villains and you can't turn around without seeing him in a new project - Sir John Conroy in The Young Victoria, Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes, and now upcoming appearances in new sci-fi franchises like the Green Lantern. While he makes a habit of playing evil, morally repulsive characters, can we just take a moment to appreciate this:

The man is gorgeous, no? Look at those soulful eyes. *swoon* Give me a second to scrape myself off the floor and we'll get back to the point of this post....okay, yeah, Godfrey. Excellent villain. Strong quite simply owns the screen every time he appears. Intense, magnetic, evil, and brilliant, Godfrey is a worthy villain in the tradition of all on-screen Gisbornes.

While Strong delivers in spades, I have to admit to being disappointed in Matthew Macfadyen's appearance as the Sheriff. Now I have a long history of loving Matthew's screen appearances (click to read my reviews of his performance in Little Dorrit), but in Robin Hood he appears nearly unrecognizable (the hair was gross people, I just need to say it) and for maybe, maybe all of about five minutes of screentime. REALLY?! It was a bit disappointing to say the least. However, I have got to give Matthew credit for giving this largely thankless role a slyly comic turn. In fact, if Ridley Scott ever decided to make a sequel - and frankly, the end of this movie begs for one - I think Matthew's take on the iconic Sheriff of Nottingham role would be a highlight.

Last but certainly not least, this brings us to Robin and Marion (Cate Blanchett). I had serious reservations about Crowe and Blanchett's casting in such iconic roles, but both performances blew me away. I've always been rather ambivalent about Russell Crowe - while I think he's inarguably talented, and I've enjoyed his performances in movies like Master and Commander, I've never been nuts about him like so many people I know. And I've never, EVER gotten the whole Crowe-is-a-dreamy-heartthrob thing until this movie. Oh my word. Excellent job playing the whole strong, man of few words, incredibly charismatic and intelligent type. Wowzers. :) I will say that I thought Robin's backstory and connection to Sir Walter was just a little too convenient, but all things considered it worked.

Here Robin's lady is no maid, rather the widow of Sir Robert Loxley. Married as a self-described "old maid" for only a week before Robert left for the Crusades, Marion has spent ten years trying to keep her father-in-law's estate going, which is a largely thankless job in the face of crippling taxes and thievery from what I'm going to call the "Lost Boys of Sherwood Forest." Like Marian in the lately lamented Robin Hood television show, Blanchett's Marion is a fighter, but infinitely more mature and seasoned by circumstances. I really loved Blanchett's portrayal of Marion, though I do think her fight scene at the end of the film was rather poorly thought out and generally unnecessary (though it did allow Crowe and Blanchett to enact their own version of the famous water kiss in From Here to Eternity, LOL!). Oh, and before I forget, the "Lost Boys" really, REALLY needed to be explained better. Their appearances felt rather random.

I wasn't expecting such a strong romance to develop in this movie. After all, it is a Ridley Scott film, chock-full of the requisite battle scenes and political intrigue. But Crowe and Blanchett have some crazy on-screen chemistry that I never expected to see and it works really, really well. When one brings together two actors of that caliber sparks are bound to fly, right? :) This film gives us the most mature, grounded, real Robin and Marion love story that I think I've ever seen brought to life. The relationship between these two characters grows as much or more with a look than dialogue, and I just loved that. Watching the two of them get to know each other and appreciate each other's character and strengths is absolutely wonderful to see, and the way Crowe looks at Blanchett can steal your breath - he's so. freaking. HOT. in those scenes.

I love Scott's ability to bring this time period to life. It's gritty and violent (though in keeping with the film's PG-13 rating miraculously bloodless), but there's a wild beauty to the scenery that you just want to lose yourself in. I also thought Marc Streitenfeld did a good job with the score - prior to this, I am not familiar with his work. Ridley Scott and company have crafted a fascinating exploration of Robin Hood's origins, but the last five minutes or so of the film will, if you're like me, leave you desperate for a sequel. That's when the storyline heads into more traditional Robin Hood territory. Given how Ridley Scott has set up this world, and the life Crowe and Blanchett have brought to the iconic Robin and Marion roles, I would love to see how this team would continue their version of the Robin Hood legends. After all, King John has to see sense and sign that pesky Magna Carta... ;-)

Thornton vs. Darcy, that is the question...

Thanks to Charleybrown for posting this video. Richard Armitage as John Thornton in North & South and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy in Pride & Prejudice, all to the soundtrack of Nat King Cole singing "L-O-V-E" - seriously, what more could a girl ask for? ;-)



Go ahead and swoon, you have my permission...

Update - I just went to YouTube and discovered Luciana is responsible for this video! LOVE IT!

Upcoming movies edition, part two

I figure it's been a couple of months since I've spotlighted upcoming films I'm interested in seeing in theaters, so another trailers post is long overdue. :)

First up is The Back-up Plan, starring Jennifer Lopez and Alex O'Loughlin (YUMMY!! Sorry, had to get that out of my system...). I don't mind Lopez in the right movie (she stars in one of my all-time favorite romantic comedies after all, The Wedding Planner), but O'Loughlin - love him. It's all that stupid show Moonlight's fault. This one opens tomorrow.



Coming 5/7 is Iron Man 2, and this one I cannot wait to see people! I love me some Robert Downey Jr. Enough said. :)



The following week brings two very different movies I'm interested in seeing. First up is Robin Hood - now, I was just telling my friend Kaye the other day that I wasn't all that excited about this movie for some reason, but that was before I just discovered this trailer online. Russell Crowe, Matthew Macfadyen, Cate Blanchett, AND Mark Strong?! Now I have to say I'm excited... :)



I posted the trailer for Letters to Juliet a couple of months ago, but I'm so excited about this movie I think it's worth sharing again. It's opening opposite Robin Hood and I'm pretty sure it will get clobbered at the box office opposite a Ridley Scott pic but doesn't it look amazing?! It just doesn't get any classier than Vanessa Redgrave, does it? And oh my do I love Christopher Egan. :) Can't wait!



And finally, and I have to admit I feel a little silly admitting I want to see this, we have Prince of Persia: Sands of Time opening the last Friday in May. Not only does it have a ridiculously long, Pirates of the Caribbean-esque name, but Jake Gyllenhaal plays the title character and never fails to crack me up when I see this preview. This movie also features Brit Gemma Arterton, who has appeared in Lost in Austen, Tess of the D'Urbervilles, and Quantum of Solace (as the rather unfortunately named Strawberry Fields, LOL).



Well, since that takes us through the end of May I think that's enough movie excitement for this installment... :)

Review: A Pocket Full of Rye by Agatha Christie

A Pocket Full of Rye (A Miss Marple Mystery)
By: Agatha Christie
Publisher: Signet/Penguin
ISBN: 978-0-451-19986-7

About the book:
The shocking thing about Rex Fortescue’s murder was that the contemptible tycoon wasn’t knocked off sooner. But when two less-deserving souls fall victim to the killer, Miss Jane Marple is engaged to detect. The only link appears to be buried in a not-so-innocent verse. So what’s the rhyme and reason behind the playful hint? The answer draws the shrewd sleuth into the heart of a family secret – and an increasingly menacing game that’s anything but child’s play.

Review:

No one could create puzzlers like Dame Agatha Christie. A Pocket Full of Rye is so jam-packed with red herrings, Christie could’ve taken the story towards a half dozen or so different resolutions (at least!). The victim, Rex Fortescue, was a thoroughly unlikable man, and the dysfunctional family he leaves behind are, for the most part, equally unpleasant. The incredibly competent Inspector Neele is assigned to investigate the case, and what at first seems like a “routine” poisoning case soon grows into a veritable maze of lies and misdirection – beginning with the curious discovery of rye in Rex’s pockets. When Rex’s much younger widow is subsequently poisoned while taking tea, and the maid is found murdered by the clothesline, Neele struggles to find the connection between these seemingly random crimes.

Miss Jane Marple barely appears in this novel, but her scenes are critical in revealing the killer’s identity. She’s the catalyst that helps Neele connect the threads of these seemingly random killings. I was quite impressed with Neele’s character – for my money he’s one of Christie’s most interesting inspectors. He’s extremely intelligent, intuitive, and knows how to read people. Most importantly, he knows how to use a person's tendency to underestimate him. He’s not one of those investigators who must have every clue handed to him by the “civilian” or “amateur” sleuth. Christie could’ve written more novels featuring Neele’s character and I wouldn’t have complained at all.

Christie incorporated rhymes or famous quotes as clues in her mysteries on more than one occasion (Poirot’s One, Two, Buckle My Shoe or Tommy and Tuppence’s By the Pricking of My Thumbs, to name just a few). Pocket probably isn’t one of my favorites – the pool of suspects is relatively limited after all. But Christie throws so many misdirections and possible motives into the setting of this dysfunctional, very English, household that it’s a delight to spend a few hours with Neele and Marple sorting through the red herrings in order to reveal the culprit.

Book vs. Film:

Possible spoilers…

I was a little shocked, actually, by how faithful the most recent film adaptation of A Pocket Full of Rye is to the original book. Whole sections of dialogue from the novel made it into the script almost verbatim. Matthew Macfadyen absolutely nailed the role of Inspector Neele. He perfectly captures the right balance of Neele’s intelligence and dry, almost awkward sense of humor. The only alterations that immediately come to mind is the omission of Miss Ramsbottom’s character (Rex’s sister-in-law), and increasing the presence of Miss Marple just a bit, since her presence is so minimal in the novel (i.e., in the film Marple discovers the newspaper article about uranium deposits in East Africa, while in the novel Neele is the one who connects that article to Lance’s lies). You can read my review of the film A Pocket Full of Rye here.

Miss Marple: A Pocket Full of Rye

The Miss Marple mysteries are like the equivalent of television “comfort food” for me, so it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to the savvy sleuth’s return to Masterpiece Mystery Sunday night. However, I have to admit that my excitement was somewhat tempered by the knowledge that a new actress was taking up Miss Marple’s ever-present knitting needles – after three series as Miss Marple, Geraldine McEwan retired from the role, and with the fourth series, Julia McKenzie took the reins. I absolutely loved Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple – she’s the reason I now love the character, and have been inspired to really delve into the Agatha Christie novels she brought to life on-screen. I grew up watching the Marple television show that featured Joan Hickson in the title role – and while I certainly get why people love the show, and that it was a faithful adaptation of the stories, Hickson’s take on Marple bored me to tears. McEwan brought life and humor and zest to the role – and if some liberties are taken with scripts, I don’t have enough of an emotional attachment to the stories themselves to really get up in arms about it.

A Pocket Full of Rye is the first film to feature McKenzie, and I am so, so relieved that the basic tone and style of the series isn’t changing. McKenzie effortlessly fills the gap left by McEwan’s departure, and brings her own spark and brand of humor and compassion to the role. I thought it was a little strange that this story didn’t feature Miss Marple as prominently as she has been in other mysteries, especially considering this is a “Marple” book, not a regular mystery where the character is inserted into the action. However, I’ve never read this book and decided to start it yesterday for comparison purposes – and so far, Miss Marple isn’t front & center in the action of the book, either. Go figure. ;-)

A bit about the story (taken from the PBS website):

Businessman Rex Fortescue drops dead after breakfast, apparently poisoned. The only clue is incomprehensible — grain found in his suit pocket. It's obvious that Fortescue isn't exactly missed. Between his estranged and angry children and a wife who seems to not be at a loss for comfort, the Fortescue house is full of secrets. Inspector Neele (Matthew Macfadyen, Little Dorrit) is dispatched to investigate, but makes little progress until the arrival of Miss Marple. For Marple, the case is child's play — the killer seems inspired by the rhyme "Sing a Song of Sixpence." As the murders pile up, Marple discovers a motive as dark as blackbirds. Julia McKenzie makes her debut as Miss Marple along with a strong supporting cast (Rupert Graves, The Forsyte Saga; Hattie Morahan, Sense and Sensibility) in this adaptation of Agatha Christie's A Pocket Full of Rye.

One of the biggest treats in the previous three series of Marple mysteries is identifying and enjoying the wild variety of familiar British acting talent that have taken on guest star roles in the various films. A Pocket Full of Rye continues this tradition, and I have to call out my favorites:

Of course the most important reason to view this episode is the presence of Matthew Macfadyen as Inspector Neele (that little moustache does a surprisingly good job of disguising him, LOL!). This has been an excellent year for Matthew on Masterpiece, as earlier this year he played Arthur Clennam superbly in the out-of-this-world, amazing, fantastic miniseries Little Dorrit. Inspector Neele was a fun role to watch Matthew take on – Neele isn’t a romantic lead, he’s competent, straight-laced, and has a wicked gift for dry understatement (i.e., the "dead as a dodo" line). My favorite moment of the entire show is when Miss Marple looks at Neele rather slyly remarks that he resembles Errol Flynn. Looking extremely pleased with that comparison, Neele smoothes is ‘stache and remarks, quit happily, “you think so?” H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S. The exchange is a wonderful example of how Miss Marple succeeds in winning those who doubt her abilities or her usefulness over. This little old lady may seem quite harmless, but she’s an astute observer and knows exactly when the right word or look needs to be played in order to advance her cause. Well played by Julia McKenzie!

Lucy Cohu plays Pat, the elegant wife of Lancelot Fortescue, the “black sheep” of the family. Two of Cohu’s most recent appearances have been as Jane Austen’s sister-in-law, Eliza, in Becoming Jane and dance teacher Theo Dane in the delightful Ballet Shoes. I really, really like her and look forward to seeing her in new projects – she’s elegant, classy, and not a stick figure like so many actresses out there.

Anna Madeley, playing Adele Fortescue, is a familiar face to Masterpiece viewers. In 2006 she starred as the title character in The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton, and in 2008 she played Lucy Steele in Sense and Sensibility. Though Adele only makes a brief appearance in Pocket, Madeley brings a lot of Lucy Steele-esque humor to the role which is fun to see.

Hattie Morahan is another Sense and Sensibility alum – she played the best version of Elinor Dashwood to date (in my view anyway, LOL!). In Pocket she plays Elaine Fortescue, who’s not at all sorry to have her father out of the way, since that frees her to marry her communist boyfriend. Since she hasn’t been acting all that long, I thought Hattie Morahan was almost unrecognizable as Elaine. However, I thought she fit the period well and enjoyed seeing her take on a more “modern” role, albeit a small one.

I had to look up Ben Miles - he plays the straight-laced eldest son, Percival Fortescue. Miles bears more than a passing resemblance to Primeval star Ben Miller IMO (weird, no?), yet I can’t find any info that they are related. He seems extremely familiar, but the only project I can recall seeing him in is the loverly Under the Greenwood Tree, where he played the thwarted Parson Maybold. Apparently he’s also been in series 1 of Lark Rise to Candleford, a BBC series that looks very Cranford-esque, which finally comes to region one DVD this October.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. It contained everything I love about this mystery series - great pacing, excellent costumes and period detail, topped off with wonderful performances by the cream of British acting talent. Next up in the series is Murder is Easy. Can't wait!

Little Dorrit, Part Five (you thought I'd never get around to it, didn't you?)

I’m shamefully late in posting my thoughts on the final installment of Little Dorrit, but life intervened in a not-so-small way these past few weeks, involving day after day of horrible allergy problems and sinus headaches. Either I’m getting better at long last, or I’m just getting used to a horribly low status quo…not sure which yet. *wink* Then there’s work stress, and on top of all that my grandmother (Dad’s side) has had several health issues accompanying attempts to get her settled into an assisted living facility. Thankfully, her situation took a turn for the better this weekend…but the adjustment is still difficult. Prayers appreciated!

Spoilers ahead…

All that to say, my delay in posting this final write-up happily has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the conclusion – Little Dorrit has proven to be an outstanding production, and hands down is my runaway favorite part of this year’s Masterpiece Classic season. Since it’s been a while, here are links to my reviews of part one, two, three, and four of Little Dorrit, and here’s the brief episode summary from the Masterpiece website:

Broken by reminders of the past in London, Mr. Dorrit returns to be with Amy in Italy. Amy watches as her father continues to fall apart.

Pancks discovers the whereabouts of Miss Wade, and Arthur asks for her help in finding Rigaud. Arthur is convinced that Rigaud's ties to the House of Clennam relate to his father's deathbed secrets.

Meanwhile, an unthinkable revelation about Mr. Merdle sends shockwaves throughout London. The story reaches a climax at the Marshalsea where Amy and Arthur meet once more, and at the House of Clennam, where finally Mrs. Clennam's secrets are brought to light.

Where the pace of episode four dragged a bit for me, I was riveted by the conclusion. Amy (Claire Foy) and Arthur (Matthew Macfadyen) are placed squarely front and center and are the focal point of the action, and it’s a joy after five-plus hours of agony to finally seen their relationship get somewhere! But I’m getting ahead of myself…

I’ve made no secret of my distaste for Mr. Dorrit – he’s been annoying, pompous, overbearing, manipulative, and downright emotionally abusive. He’s dispatched rather quickly at the beginning of episode five, and I have to give particular credit to Claire Foy, James Fleet (Amy’s uncle, Frederick Dorrit), and Tom Courtenay (Mr. Dorrit himself) for the emotional pull they imparted to these scenes. My intense dislike for Mr. Dorrit softened at the end in the face of Amy and Frederick’s love and grief over his loss. And speaking of loss, I totally didn’t expect for Frederick to give up the ghost after his brother’s death!! That was just awful…I loved his interaction with Amy, and I was sort of hoping they could support each other’s efforts to frustrate societal expectations. *wink* Amy and her uncle were a sweet pair – kindred, giving spirits in the midst of a crazy, delusional family. James Fleet’s performance at the end was incredibly moving, very well done indeed (a nice change from Fleet’s flakier, but equally endearing turn in The Vicar of Dibley).

Why not jump right from one death to another? (That sounds really morbid and flippant, doesn’t it? LOL) Mr. Merdle and his banking schemes finally come crashing down, and wipe out the fortunes of pretty much everyone we’ve come to know over the course of the series. Can we say timely & relevant? Anyway, Mr. Merdle (Anton Lesser) is really quite creepy given how we never see him lose his cool. Watching him ask to borrow Fanny’s penknife with what can only be described as a chipper manner was really rather mind-blowing. Merdle had obviously completely disconnected from reality. And I seriously didn’t expect him to off himself in a bathtub!! It was absolutely fascinating to see the panic and widespread effect Merdle’s suicide had on all of London society. The “man of the age” brought down the fortunes of so many, and I appreciated that the film gave us a glimpse at the disastrous ripple effect caused by the collapse of Merdle’s banking empire.

Merdle’s death brings me a final note about Fanny Dorrit, now married to the besotted Edmund Sparkler. She marries to spite Mrs. Merdle, and then the rug is unceremoniously ripped out from under her with the collapse of the Merdle banking empire. I have really gotten a kick out of Emma Pierson’s portrayal of Fanny – she’s not a wholly admirable character by a longshot, but I like her nonetheless. She’s got sass and spunk and outrageous manners, and at the end of the day she loves her sister. Really, when it comes down to brass tacks as the saying goes, Fanny is the best equipped character to deal with the Merdles’ reversal of fortunes. And I love the delicious irony that the pretentious Mrs. Merdle is now dependent on a daughter-in-law she despises – it’s crystal-clear by this point that Mrs. Merdle and Fanny are more alike than either woman would ever dare admit.

JOHN CHIVERY ROCKS! Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I’ll try to talk about why my darling assistant turnkey is so fabulous. Russell Tovey’s acting has consistently exceeded my expectations throughout this entire production. I fell in love with John’s character at the very beginning of the program, but I was completely unprepared for where Tovey took his character in the concluding installment. The first time I watched John confront Arthur about Amy, when Arthur becomes a Marshalsea resident, my jaw dropped. I can remember clearly thinking he’s really going for it, I never expected him to go there. Tovey’s performance is so visceral, so gut-wrenching, that the emotional punch of the scene knocked me flat. And when John delivers his own eulogy (of sorts)…I cannot lie, people, the man made me cry. On top of all this, he continually helps Amy and Arthur, sacrificing his own peace of mind out of love for Amy - the guy is too good for words. John Chivery goes down as one of my all-time favorite characters, and I'm really looking forward to seeing where Russell Tovey's acting career goes from here.

Amy and Arthur’s first reunion during this section of the film is anything but warm and fuzzy. I really never expected Amy to basically tell Arthur off like she does, but a part of me was really quite glad to see it. Arthur is truly a lovely, stand-up guy, but he is so freaking DENSE! I have to admit, when John smacks Arthur upside the head by revealing Amy’s true feelings, I did enjoy his suffering through the realization just a wee bit. His suffering seemed like a smallish price to pay for the flipping MENTAL ANGUISH Amy had put up with for 80% of the show. Anyways…I love, love, LOVE Amy and Arthur’s proper reunion, when he wakes up from his fever to discover she’s been nursing him back to health. Of course then I want to smack him upside the head with a 2x4 when he tries to go all noble – I love you, but now that I’m in debtor’s prison I’m tainted for all time, blah, blah, blah…but good for Amy for basically telling him you can blather on all you want but you’re stuck with me for good.

Regarding the whole Rigaud/Miss Wade/House of Clennam mystery, without going into detail I’m going to say I’m on the whole pretty pleased with how everything is resolved. The first time I watched this portion of the program, I was left confused by Arthur and Amy’s relationship…somehow I ended up thinking they were cousins. Thankfully another commenter came to the rescue with an explanation (bottom line: Arthur and Amy are not related at all - LOL!). As Mrs. Clennam learns, the truth will out. Did anyone actually think the House of Clennam was going to fall down, literally?! That completely shocked me. LOL! Flintwinch's "blimey" as he climbs out of the rubble was priceless. I mean the house actually, physically, fell apart. I still find that rather mind-blowing. A little obvious (LOL), but it makes for interesting television, that's for sure.

Arthur and Amy's final, at long last, boy-I-never-thought-this-day-would-come declaration of love was a sweet, sweet payoff to all of the turmoil and trouble the pair endured throughout the series. Macfadyen and Foy really made a great romantic on-screen couple. There was something incredibly romantic in the way the two looked on-screen - the romantic in me just melted into a puddle of goo (good goo, LOL) at the way Arthur just picked Amy up and swung her around with joy. When Matthew Macfadyen smiles, it's almost like he becomes a completely different person (you can really see that in his turn as Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice). I know this is cheesy, but seeing Arthur finally really, truly joyful, the weight of secrets and mean pseudo-mothers lifted from his shoulders - that just made me happy.

This series was amazing. Kudos to the filmmakers and Andrew Davies in particular for scripting another Dickens miniseries for me to obsess over. *wink* There's so much "meat" to this series, I'm sure I'll be picking up on new details and nuances of performances for some time to come.

Purchase Little Dorrit on DVD (totally worth it people, trust me!).