Results tagged “matthew macfadyen”

Tolstoy's classic novel of love and infidelity, Anna Karenina has been brought to stage and screen many times, often with mediocre results. It's a complicated story, so pay attention: It's mid-1800's Russia and Anna (Keira Knightly) is married to Karenin (Jude Law), a dull but faithful St. Petersburg public servant. When her brother Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen) has an affair, Anna travels to Moscow to try and prevent her sister-in-law Dolly (Kelly Macdonald) from divorcing Oblonsky. Meanwhile, Dolly's lovely younger sister Kitty (Alicia Vikander) is being courted by two men, Konstantin Levin (Domnhall Gleeson), an awkward and earnest landowner, and Alexei Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a vain, handsome soldier. Kitty much prefers Vronsky, but once he catches a glimpse of Anna, he's smitten, and Anna also finds in her heart a passion for Vronsky that she's never felt with the boring Karenin.

The story proceeds from there, with lots of meaningful glances, many hurtful conversations between Anna and Karenin. He just doesn't understand why she's fallen in love with Vronsky, a strutting, self-impressed peacock bachelor soldier. Russian society is shocked by Anna's scandalous public behavior even as they all become increasingly sympathetic to poor, confused Karenin. To avoid losing his adored Anna entirely, he reluctantly assents to her and Vronsky having an affair if it's in secret. But, of course, it's not.

The film is set in 18th Century Russia and the production is lavish, as are the sets and costumes. This version of Anna Karenina succeeds, however, because it has a delightfully dreamlike quality: the film is set both in Russian high society, and on a stage, a sort of Shakespearean "All the World's a Stage" setting. There's no audience in the theater of Anna's life because that's the role we, the cinematic audience, serve.

This narrative device gives rise to some extraordinary transitions, including one where a train traveling across the frozen steppes dissolves into a toy train going through a model of the icy terrain, and back to the train station where lovers Anna and Vronsky meet. Later, Anna visits her son, from whom she's been exiled, and the camera pulls back and we see that, somehow, the boy's bedroom is on stage and the foreground is framed by the limelights that illuminate the activity.

The performances are generally good, though Keira Knightley again demonstrates her one-note acting ability. Jude Law delivers a notable performance as the confused husband Karenin, and Domhnall Gleeson embodies the humble Levin so well that I felt quite moved by his earnest courting of Kitty, even as he knows he's no match for the dashing, sophisticated Vronsky.

I quite enjoyed writer Tom Stoppard's reimagining of Anna Karenina as a dream-like parable of love, relationships and the challenge between following your heart versus doing what's right or what's expected of you, and director Joe Wright brings it to screen beautifully. Having said that, it's still a costume drama with a rather Masterpiece Theater feel. If that's appealing, this is well worth your time and is lavish on screen.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
the three musketeers one sheetThe Alexander Dumas book The Three Musketeers is one of the most exciting books of its era and still offers a thrilling adventure with the coming-of-age tale of D'Artagnon leaving home to join up with the fabled Musketeers, acting in the service of King Louis XIII against the evil Cardinal Richelieu. Sword fights, treachery, beautiful women, honor, it's a truly epic tale.

Which is why it's been adapter to cinema again and again, with predictably mixed results. In fact, this Paul W.S. Anderson production is the 28th time the Dumas story has made it to the screen, and there are rumors of another adaptation to be released early in 2013.

With a story this familiar, it's necessary for the writers to come up with a new twist, a take that weaves in the three Musketeers -- Athos, Porthos and Aramis -- and the familiar characters of Richelieu, Milady de Winter, the Duke of Buckingham and Rochefort with something new, something that'll capture our modern sensibilities. For this version, it's an airship that the Duke of Buckingham (a completely wasted Orlando Bloom, in a surprisingly minor role on screen) uses to visit King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox). The King must have an airship of his own, but evil Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) instead secretly builds one for his own nefarious purposes, having stolen the plans from the Duke by way of the feminine wiles of the equally evil Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich).

Then there's the acting. While the cast was strong and each has turned in solid performances in films like Lord of the Rings, Inglorious Bastards, Death at a Funeral, Robin Hood, and The Book of Eli, none of them brought much more than minimal effort to The Three Musketeers, and it really hurts the film, ranging from Fox's painfully foppish performance as King Louis XIII to Jovovich's disengaged attempt at one of the great femme fatales of the big screen, Milady de Winter.

This is a completely forgettable version of a tremendously entertaining story and I strongly encourage you to check Netflix or the local video store for one of the many superior productions that preceded it. Yes, there are some nice visual effects, but not enough to justify a $10 ticket. You've been warned.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
robin hood one sheetIf you can get over the fact that this is most assuredly not the story of Robin Hood of Nottingham Forest, eternally battling the evil Sheriff of Nottingham for Maid Marion's hand, you might find that Robin Hood is an interesting and exciting war movie set in medieval times with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) as the central character.

Like director Ridley Scott's last outing with Crowe, Gladiator, Robin Hood is a dirty, gritty movie with so much mud that you'll begin rooting for the invention of washing machines to help brighten up the landscape. Crowe plays the same character he plays in all his films, the troubled, misunderstood rebel who just wants to be loved, with grimaces and tough looks aplenty. Perhaps he needs to extend his range a bit in his next project?

Considering this as a medieval war film leads to the question of whether it actually makes sense, and in many ways Robin Hood feels like it's two movies, the first exploring the experience of a military man returning to a decaying England after a decade pillaging Europe on the Crusades, and the second where the writers suddenly realize that they have an end point less than an hour away and need to have created the entire Robin Hood backstory and mythology. What is Maid Marion's (Cate Blanchett) relationship to Robin? Why is Robin the sworn enemy of the Sheriff (Matthew Macfadyen)? Why does Friar Tuck (a delightful Mark Addy) turn his back on the church and join a rebel band?

It's the second part, with Robin leading the English against a half-hearted invasion by the foppish French King Phillip, where the action gets exciting but the story - and storyline - get left in the ever-present dust. Reminiscent of Guy Ritchie's recent Sherlock Holmes (read my review of Sherlock Holmes), Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is a darn good movie but has almost nothing to do with the story we all know. If that bothers you, skip Robin Hood. If you can look beyond it, you might just find this an exciting knights and serfs film.
| 4 Comments | No TrackBacks
1