MovieChat Forums > LocusNOLA
LocusNOLA (26)
Posts
Replies
Houseman. And Misheel.
I'm aware. And yes, he was. Also very good in "2:22," believable American accent in both. Great in "Treme," "Nashville," "Orphan Black." Pronounced Italian well in "Age of Adaline." But British English speech seems quite beyond him.
She is at that point being spun round and round by Willoughby, so . . .
The film was not made on Guernsey for a number of reasons, including the fact that the roads are insufficiently wide to accommodate filming equipment, or so I have read.
Dawsey Adams is not and was not in love with Elizabeth.
She's adorable, as I said. I do think she is outshone a little, but it all works for me. I can even handwave Huisman's accent. I'll be watching again.
Yes, and I've watched it with pleasure twice. It's adorable, and the performances are quite good, though Michiel Huisman hasn't much to do other than look gorgeous and be nice, both of which he does quite well. His British accent isn't good. But he does have an almost inhuman ability to generate screen chemistry with quite a variety of actresses, and does so here.
Performances of the film, for me, are Penelope Wilton as Amelia Maugery and Katherine Parkinson, even better as Isola Pribbey. Wilton is so sharply moving in her role, and the sheer delicacy of Parkinson's performance is exquisite - I loved her character in the book, rejoiced at the casting, and expected to love Parkinson. She blew me away. Tom Courtney is marvelous as Eben Ramsey.
As Elizabeth McKenna, Jessica Findlay Brown is sharp and spot on. Lily James is adorable and believable as Juliet, Matthew Goode is charming and effective as her publisher / best friend.
Well. that is exactly what I am hoping it will be like, when it's available here in the US. I love the book. Thank you.
Good, point. I believe, however, that tithes were responsible for structural maintenance of the church as well as for the maintenance of the Vicar, Rector, or Parson and his domicile.
I'm with you on this. Here are some of the reasons Whedon's version works better than Branagh's:
1. Whedon's characters occupy a consistent and cohesive universe - Branagh's "family" members seem unrelated, there is such a polyglot of accents, colors, differing abilities with the language, while the "family" aspect of Whedon's setting is clear and intimate.
2. In Whedon's film, I saw for the first time Boracchio made a human being, rather than a plot device. Having him be in love with Hero himself makes sense of actions which, in every other production I've seen, live or filmed (and there have been quite a number), have to be handwaved.
3. Nathan Fillion versus Michael Keaton. I would be the last person to assert that Fillion is a more accomplished actor than Keaton, but there is no contest as to which makes a better Dogberry. We shouldn't sympathize with the (in Branagh's version) injured and humiliated Conrade when he calls Dogberry an ass. I blame Branagh, not Keaton.
4. "Sigh No More," which Branagh makes the theme song. Why use it three times? Why, at the end, do the engaged couples romp merrily to the musical assurance that faithlessness is the inevitable outcome?
5. Sean Maher versus Keanu Reeves. Here, again, there is no contest as to the better Don John, villainous brother to Don Pedro (how are we to believe that Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington are related?). Reeves' truncated dialogue still shows his glaring inability to handle the language, while Maher's smooth snake is compelling and masterful. I love Maher's filching of a cupcake as he leaves the wedding he's despoiled - that was Maher's own touch.
6. Alexis Denisof versus Kenneth Branagh. Denisof is, for once, clearly a soldier - watch him check out the security and perimeters from his window as he and Claudio discuss Hero and marriage. Branagh's Benedick is all pyrotechnics - I admire, but remain uninvolved, while I do care what happens to Denisof's character.
For a few.
View all replies >