The Namesake movie

The Namesake
Dir.: Mira Nair
Cast: Kal Penn (Gogol/Nikhil), Tabu (Ashima), Irrfan Khan (Ashoke), Jacinda Berret (Maxine), Sahira Nair (Sonia)
Script: Sooni Taraporevala
Year: 2007
Length: 2hrs. 2 min
Verdict: SEE IT
Rating: PG-13 (Hmmm... A borderline PG-13. There's some stuff, but not too much)
Faithfulness Scale: 68% (Not too much missing, but not completely faithful)


Really good adaptation! Like the scale shows, not INCREDIBLY faithful text-wise, but spirit-wise, it's a completely faithful adaptation. Plus, all the important scenes are there, which is a plus! :)
First of all, the movie is GORGEOUS. All those sweeping shots of Calcutta and New York just completely took me by surprise. So, I do give Mira Nair credit for that. It might look like the scenes from a travel documentary, but they are better than that. And I'm sorry everybody who thought Girl With a Pearl Earring was great, but the movie actually makes Calcutta an attractive place to visit! 
Besides that, everyone did great in their roles. Kal Penn was amazing as Gogol/Nikhil (he's not as good as you can't imagine anyone else in the role, but he's still really good). MY only problem with him, is that he's not really good to play a teenager. He sort of plays it off as dumb (Maybe he missed playing Harold in Harold and Kumar or something.) But other than that, when he played Gogol age 20-25, he did give Gogol a great emotional range. Irrfran Kahn and Tabu are wonderful playing the parents, and the supporting roles were good too. What's most important in the acting is that they stayed true to the spirit of the book, which is really important if you're not going to make it completely faithful. All the actors are very touching in these roles which what made them all work for me. 
I acutally preferred the way the movie started out; with the parents in India, meeting each other for the first time, the accident, and the aftermath of moviing to America. The book was told in flashbacks, which I really enjoyed, but sometimes seemed too long and take up too much room. With the flashbacks told first, it started off on the right pace in chronological order, without the need to replay them througouht the movie. Which is a good thing, because, this movie is WAAAY too long at 2hrs and 2min. It had to shave off at least 30 minutes. It's nice to see Indian lifestyles vrs. the American lifestyle, but the scenes just go on too long. However, this is a really faithful adaptation, it will please fans, it will touch people, and it's a good-hearted adaptation. I LOVED it!


 

Alice in Wonderland (late... :/) movie review

Alice In Wonderland
Dir: Tim Burton
Cast: Mia Wasikowska (Alice), Johnny Depp (Mad Hatter), Helena Boham Carter (Red Queen), Anne Hathaway (White Queen), Crispin Glover (Knave of Hearts), Micheal Sheen (White Rabbit), Alan Rickman (Caterpillar), Steven Frye (Cheshire Cat)
Script: Linda Woolverton
Length: 1 hr. 49 min.
Verdict: SEE
Rating: PG (Agree with this one. There is a battle scene and a few scary scenes here and there.)

I'm a big Alice fan. I own I own countless of Alice books and movies, and I'm really intrigued by the whole story of how Alice was written and all. And I do know that this version of Alice In Wonderland is worth it. First of all, the movie looks amazing. The whole set captures Wonderland just right with a mix of danger and creepiness but still keeping it fun and playful and, most of all, curious.
The movie basically begins when Alice Kingsley the now-grownup cute Alice, (?Mia Waskikowska? is perfect for Alice if not a little too pale, though that's probably thanks to make-up) is just deciding on a fiancee until she sees the white rabbit and then: well, you know what happens. Once she's in Wonderland the people and creatures have eagerly awaited her return. For the evil Red Queen, Iracebeth (played deliciously with a rather enormous head by Helena Boham Carter) has taken over Wonderland and has become the female version of Stalin. So it's Alice's job to go to the White Queen, Iracebeth's younger sister (Anne Hathaway is adorable here!) and ultimately fight the dreaded Jabberwocky with the help of the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp is perfectly cast here), a bloodhound (Timothy Spall), Blue the caterpillar (Alan Rickman also perfectly cast) among others.
WHAT??? This isn't the normal Alice in Wonderland storyline? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO??? While it's true I didn't care much for the "good-vrs.-evil" story-line we've seen so many times in movies that's been better executed, I didn't mind much. In fact, for a movie like this, why the hell does story matter? Burton remains faithful to the world, to the characters, to the mood and to the theme and that's all what matters. And he truly does succeed.
I LOVED Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. He IS the Mad Hatter. I don't see how they would have casted anyone else. Depp captures the creepy wierd aspect while still maintaining a level of sweetness and fun. Helena Boham Carter again is pefect for her role as the evil Red Queen (which I guess is a combination of the Queen of Hearts AND the Red Queen.) She's evil, but she also has a sense of humor, contrasting her sister, the White Queen who cannot hurt a single thing, not even waving away a butterfly (???) and who's kind of light headed, but she's still smart and certainly a lot nicer than her sister. I liked Anne Hathaway, she put her own stamp on the part, which I really enjoyed quite a bit.
Only problem, and I did mention this before, I wished the movie had some other plot line we've seen before. Not the "it's Alice's destiny to fight the Red Queen and save Aaaaall of Wonderland!!!" Really Tim Burton? You're so creative, can't you be even MORE creative with the plot of this movie? It did kind of ruined the movie for me, I wished Burton could come up with a more original plot and ending.
But, you know what saved it? That's right folks, can't believe I'm saying this, but the special effects, the costumes, and Wonderland itself is what saved the whole thing. This Wonderland is just beautifully done and recreated. I think out of all the Wonderlands that I've seen in movie history, this one's the best BY FAR! Not only does it look incredibly beautiful and colorful, it was faithful to the book, so the world looks daunting, charming and magical, but it also had quite a bit of darkness in it, which I appreciated as an Alice fan. And adding this great cast in this setting, I got into this world, and it never let me go, until Alice ultimately leaves Wonderland.
Overall, a bit underwhelming (curse you hype!) but it's still very enjoyable, I seriously recomend SEEing it!

Kiddie-tron: Well, it IS PG. It deserves its rating. Like I said, nothing too shabby, but there is a major battle scene, in which something's head gets cut off, and it might be a bit too scary for really young kids. But overall, it is a kid's movie, so you should be A-OK if you have kids. 

Alice in Wonderland is now out on Blu-Ray and DVD
 
The Red Queen: I need a pig here!
[Live pig is slid under her feet]
The Red Queen: I love a warm pig belly for my aching feet.

The Mad Hatter: What a regrettably large head you have. I would very much like to hat it. I used to hat The White Queen, you know. Her head was so small.
The Red Queen: It's tiny. It's a pimple of a head.

The Mad Hatter: Have I gone mad?
[Alice checks Hatter's temperature]
Alice Kingsley: I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are.

The Informant!

The Informant! (Based on the book of the same name by Kurt Eichenwald)

Cast: Matt Damon (Mark Whitacre), Scott Bakula (Agent Brian Shepard), Joel McHale (Agent Bob Herndon), Tom Papa (Mick Andreas), Rick Overton (Terry Wilson),  Melanie Lyskey (Ginger Whitacre)
Script: Scott Z. Burns
Length: 1 hr. 48 min.
Verdict: SEE
Rating: R (There's swearing. As in, normal swearing. That's pretty much it.)
Faithfulness Scale: TBA

 So, I finally saw the movie I always wanted to see for a while this weekend. And, I have to say, it's worth the wait even though some people don't seem to agree with me. Lies! All lies these reviews! Speaking of lies, if you don't know what this movie's about, it's basically the story about the ADM price-fixing case way back in 1995 (my dates correct?) when a particular employer Mark Whitacre (played brilliantly by Matt Damon) noticed something fishy going on behind small grey cubicles. So, what to do except cooperate with the FBI! Ironic that Whitacre is not the most cooperative being on the planet. It turns out that he lied, stole, and schemed his way around the FBI, so that when his two bosses are out of the way, he can be the next person to run ADM. By the time he reached the two year wire-wearing mark with the FBI, Mark had made up all sorts of lies, including that he was adopted by rich parents. Of course he never lied about the price-fixing, but can we even believe that story? 
Matt Damon is brilliant as Whitacre, he made me laugh and moreover, he made me uneasy while watching this. It's especially fun watching Matt Damon put on 30 pounds plus a moustache and act like he's the nicest, but strangest guy on the planet! I don't know if hiring stand-up comics as the FBI agents and the supporting cast worked, the script is not comic enough for them to do comic things. But they were all believable in their roles so I didn't mind. 
Sometimes I did get lost in all the buisness and FBI lingo though, so it's not for anyone who knows nothing at all about buisness or how the FBI does stuff. It will only get you ridiculously confused. Continuing with the dialogue, I know some people were saying it wasn't funny enough. They're really mis-selling this movie, it's not the laugh out loud ha ha ha type of movie you would expect. It has it's moments and it is a light movie (you'll love the springy silly music used in this film. So precious!), but overall, it's not what I would call a serious 'black comedy'.
I was kind of bored during some moments, looking at ADM employees and foreign buisnessmen conduct office affairs isn't exactly interesting to watch, and it does seem to strectch out for too long. But it did teach me certain things about how buisness and the FBI works. It's also shows you how someone who seems like a completely honest, nice family man can even do the shadiest and most illegeal things like taking 11 mill. out of people's bank accounts. So, I say SEE IT, it's definately not for everyone, but it's mainly for older audience members.   

Kiddie-tron: Ehh, pretty harmless. I mean there's swearing, characters drop the F-bomb and the S-bomb a few times, so I wouldn't reccomend it for younger kids (Please stop listening to that stupid, ridiuclous R-rating). Frankly, I wouldn't recomend it for kids period, they'd get bored.

The Informant is out on DVD and Blu-Ray


Mark Whitacre's Mother: Mark's been telling people that you and I were killed in a car accident and he was adopted by rich people? What do you make of that?
Mark Whitacre's Father: Hm. That's kind of weird.

Mark Whitacre: Mark Whitacre, secret agent 0014.
Rusty Williams: Why 0014?
Mark Whitacre: Cause I'm twice as smart as 007.

Girl with a Pearl Earring movie

Girl With a Pearl Earring
Director: Peter Webber
Cast: Scarlett Johansson (Griet), Colin Firth (Vermeer) Tom Wilkinson (Pieter Van Ruivjen), Judy Parfitt (Maria Thins), Cillian Murphy (Pieter), Essie Davis (Catarina), Joanna Scanlan (Tanneke)
Script: Olivia Heetreed
Length: 1 hr. 40 min
Verdict: SKIP
Rated: PG-13 (For a rape scene and a sex scene in the alley)
Faithful Scale: 43%

Question to critics: Why did this movie get good reviews? Because, the only thing I liked about this movie, is the cinematography and Scarlett Johansson. I mean, I'm giving these people who made this movie kudos for casting the person that look exactly like the model does in the painting. Plus, she has such an expressive face, that gives the dull story a boost and makes the movie bearable. You look at her on screen and you immediately know what she's thinking, it takes a real actress to do that. She's perfect for this role, that's for sure. And it's also worth to see it just for the cinematography. It's a beautifully shot film, every shot looks like a painting. But here, it's just dull, dull stuff, like the book. 
To start off, I was annoyed by Colin Firth (Vermeer.) He's basically reduced to a series of reation shots (which are wooden.) Come on dude! Are you sad? Are you happy? Are you what? During the whole movie he never cracked a smile, never showed anything unless if you count akwardness as an emotion. I understand that you're supposed to be mysterious but there are better ways to BE mysterious than just sitting there with a frown on your face. Such a shame, Colin Firth is usually a great actor. 
It was also pretty ridiculous how freakishly panicked Catarina was. Which leads me to this point: I understand that she's supposed to be hysterical, but Judy Parfitt REALLY over did it. In the book, she actually seemed quiet compared to the Catarina in the movie. Parfitt's performance quite bothered me, she didn't scary or intimidating, she just plays it like someone who was just TRYING to be scary and intimidating. 
And this script. Okay, I had the same problem like this in the novel. Vermeer painted Tanneke, right? So, why is Griet supposed to hide the fact that she's being painted? After all, Van Ruijven knows (Tom Wilkinson does an excellent job as a villain) and that's even more scary, no one seems to be making a big deal about it. I mean, am I an idiot? There are scenes filled with lines like this:


Griet: [enters the room, where Maria Thins and Catharina sit quietly by the fireplace, and curtsies]
Catharina: Yes?
Griet: Madam, shall I wash the windows?
Catharina: [Scoffs] You don't need to ask me about such matters.
Griet: It's just...it may change the light.

Those same stuffy lines of dialogue goes on for most of the movie. Plus, I felt that Pieter was almost an afterthought, which seems to me, one of the most important moments in the book. Sadly, you can SKIP IT. Even though the film had so much potential, it just went sliding down-hill after a few minutes. 


 

A short review: Lord of the Flies in 1990

Lord of the Flies

Director: Harry Hook
Cast: Balthazar Getty (Ralph), Chris Furrh (Jack), Danuel Pipoly (Piggy), James Badge Dale (Simon), Andrew and Edward Taft (Sam and Eric), Gary Rule (Roger)
Screenplay: Sara Schiff
Length: 1 hr. 30 min
Verdict: SKIP
Rated: R (Obviously not for children either)
Rating Scale: 30%  (Faithfulness is really missing)

This one is the Americanized/ modernized version of the infamous LOF. Now, seriously, what's the point in doing that? Sir William Golding, who wrote the book, had a point when he made these school children British, NOT American millitary school kids. That took out the whole pleasure of watching this trash. Maybe if it was better made I would have given it an OK, but it's not.
One improvement made on the '63 version (which I liked a lot better even though I had given it a mild RENT) was that Jack was so much scary than that other guy was. The Furrh guy knows scary. Mr. Getty, the Taft guys and Dale are "good" as their roles, and Simon actually looks like a 14 or 13 year old, so that's nice.  The only problem with the acting of the character (more of a screenplay choice than anything) WHY DO YOU GUYS CUSS? There is incessant cussing, 20 or more times they say Sh**, and four times they use the F*** word. I mean, even the little guys cuss! That's not really professional to me, I was giggling every time Jack or someone cusses. Not Hook's point, so not a great choice there either.
Since the beginning, you can really tell that this movie is going to be different from the book which is a real no-no. That might not be so much of a big deal: if they hadn't brought up the almost dead captain of the plane out of the water and make the kids go on wild goose-chases to find him or what not, that was just so ridiculous and unnecessary. Speaking of unnsecesary, there were a lot of thing in this book that was unnecesary, and more important plot points from the book that are so important. We don't need endless conversation between boys saying "I wonder what's on TV right now!" Excuse me, what? Why is that so important?
The savages weren't as scary as they were in the '63 version, they just looked like a bunch of brats face painting themselves and killing people. Plus, with all that hillarious cussing, it took a lot of the scary out of savages.
Overall, a trashy remake, which is incredibly long and stupid. It just goes to show you how sometimes, adaptations that take that many liberties from the book don't always work. So, SKIP IT. You're not missing the gold here.

This version is available on DVD

Quotes:
Steve: Sir, are you the leader?
Peter: Jack is the oldest, but Ralph is the colonel.
[group voices votes for Ralph]
Jack Merridew: I guess you just won the election.
Ralph: It doesn't matter who's in charge. We've just got to work together. First, we build a camp.

Tony: What are we gonna do with thieves when we catch them?
Ralph: We can't have kids stealing and just running wild. We're going to have to have stricter rules and hand out demerits... I guess.

Up in the Air movie

Up In The Air

Director: Jason Reitman
Cast: George Clooney (Ryan Bingham), Vera Farmiga (Alex Goran), Anna Kendrick (Natalie Keener), Jason Batemen (Craig Gregory), Melanie Lynskey (Julie Bingham), Amy Morton (Kara Bingham), J.K Simmons (Bob), Sam Elliott (Maynard Finch)
Screenplay: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
Length: 1 hr. 45 min
Verdict: SEE
Rated: R (This is another case of movies being mis-rated. This one deserves PG-13. Still has a mention of sex and cuss words being thrown left and right.)
Faithful Scale: 2% (Faithfulness really went out the window)



This is a rare time when I get to see movies before I read the book. Usually, I hate doing that, I have the characters looks messed up in my head. But my family loves Jason Reitman (he did Juno, which I LOVED!), we couldn't help ourselves. So, here we go:
I went in this movie with an open mind. The good: It's Jason Reitman! He makes fantastic movies!  Plus, it got amazing, glowing reviews (well, for the most part at least), and it's based on a book, which is an automatic given. The bad: My friend went to see this and had said that it wasn't that good, and a few of my fellow bloggers gave it mixed reviews. So I came in with an open mind about this one. And I was not disappointed to say the least. 
The premise: A man who's job is to go around the US firing people for a living, Ryan Bingham (Clooney) leads a very secluded and isolated life. That all changes when a young woman named Natalie Keener, (Anna Kendrick, a.k.a Jessica from the Twilight movies) proposes a plan in which employees stay grounded, to Ryan's outrage. His boss then proposes him to take her around the US to show her how it's better to travel, than to stay grounded. Along the way, he falls in love with another frequent traveler (Vera Farmiga), grows closer to Natalie, comes to terms with his family, and gets his heart broken.
One of the things why I love this movie, is because the plot is unpredictable. You think it's going to go one way, but it totally goes another. Yes, the plot can be uneven at times but when you have three amazing leads, what's not to love? And Anna Kendrick is a doll in this movie I love her! There are two ways to represent her character: stereotypically and annoying or sweet and funny, and she chooses to go sweet and funny, which made me relate to her a lot more than I thought I would. George Clooney is amazing as always, nobody could be better for this role than he is. I found his relationship with Farmiga's character believable. Speaking of her character, she plays the role as if she's seductive and sexy but she's far from annoying. Up In The Air is relatable, not only because it's about the economic crisis in America, but when I watched this movie, I felt a connection to these characters. I could connect with them and that's one of the best things a character can ever do to you.
Now let's admit, it wasn't all glorious and amazing. To me, this movie seemed and felt a little too long and it tried my patience sometimes. This movie could work well as either a road trip or a love story, but not both. Plus I felt that some plot points didn't tie in together quite nicely. However if you're looking for something out of the ordinary, you should definitely SEE IT. It's an amazing movie.

Up In the Air is now on DVD or Blu-Ray




Memorable quotes:


Alex Goran: What a weasly prick.
Natalie Keener: Yeah, but what does that make me? Someone who falls for a prick.
Alex Goran: We all fall for the prick. Pricks are spontaneous, they're unpredictable and they're fun. And then we're surprised when they turn out to be pricks. 

Flight Attendant: Would you like the cancer?
Ryan Bingham: What?
Flight Attendant: Would you like the can, sir? 

 

Lord of the Flies in 1963

Lord of the Flies  

Director : Peter Brook 

Cast: James Aubrey (Ralph), Tom Chapin (Jack), Hugh Edwards (Piggy), Tom Gaman (Simon), Roger Elwin (Roger), Nicholas Hammond (Robert)

Screenplay: Peter Brook

Distributor: The Criterion Collection

Length: 1 hr. 30 min

Verdict: RENT

Rated: PG-13 (Obviously not advised for children. You know what that means)
Faithful Scale: 95%

I'm giving this one a mild RENT. I'm still a bit conflicted about this version, because there are some pretty bad things, and some pretty good things in there. Problem is I still can't figure out if they over powered each other.  On one hand there are some beautiful moments. On the other, like the book, I still didn't know what was going on at times. One one hand, the savagrey in this adaptation is freaky and scary and well handled. On the other, some kids looked too young to be their characters (especially Ralph and Simon). And the guy who plays Jack, he isn't Jack. Jack is supposed to be scary and freaky and imposing. This Tom Chapin guy looks too... I don't know... soft I guess. I didn't feel scared when he was on screen. The rest did a good job, but what the hell is up with Simon? He looks like he could be eight! Plus I was so confused about who was who, besides Ralph, Piggy (Hugh Edwards is the best thing here) and Samneric of course. 
There were some times when I was watching this and being confused, how the movie jumps from one scene to another is disorganized. The camera work is also messy here, I guess he's trying to make a point or something but it didn't really work for me.The whole time I thought that the guy didn't know how to shoot certain scenes, all that running around with camera going everywhere not focusing on one thing in particular. I understand when somebody gets killed, you don't want to scar the kids for life but there's a point when that's appropriate and other points where it's just plain annoying.
However, it's not totally awful. There are some beautiful and haunting scenes in here and I loved the times where Jack's tribe gets together with the face paint. That's done so beautifully and it shows a definate change within these kids with their chanting and wild faces looking they're ready to kill you, *shudders* Those parts are amazing. The opening montage too is fantastic and brilliant, I don't know why, but it is. I guess this is a take it or leave it type of movie, it IS a classic after all and it's well made. It just dosen't hold up together that well.

The Duchess movie

The Duchess (Based on Amanda Foreman's Biorgraphy Georgina Duchess of Devonshire)
Director: Saul Dibb
Cast: Keira Knightly (Georgina The Duchess of Devonshire), Ralph Finnes (The Duke of Devonshire), Charlotte Rampling (Lady Spencer), Dominic Cooper (Charles Grey), Hayley Attwell (Elizabeth Foster)
Screenplay: Jeffrey Hatcher and Anders Thomas Jensen
Distributor: Pathe
Length: 1 hr. 45 min.
Verdict: RENT
Rated: PG-13 (Lots of Period componets here, mostly sex. You know what I'm talking about.)

This biopic is based on the cliche, based-on-a-true-story-about-a-rich-aristocratic-woman-who-falls-in-a-loveless-marriage type story. Sounds familliar? Sure. We've heard that story all before. Not to say it's a total cliche it is a Keira Knightly period drama after all. Now I know some of you must be groaning but this is better than those period movies. Does that mean it's something original and fresh? Absolutely not. It's  striking to look at, but sometimes, it feels really tiresome and long.
Now grant you Keira Knightly is amazing. The only thing really original about this movie is the fact that the movie looks at the life of a celebrity as her character was known back in  eighteenth century England. And Keira just pulls it off so well and Ralph Finnes, who plays her cold-hearted devil of a husband (uh oh yes the movie goes in THAT territory) gives his character a heart, which is kind of hard to do it right. But he does, and the acting is one of the reasons that I'm recomending this movie. It's nice to look at somebody that not a lot of people know outside of England, looking at the world of celebrity. I don't know how historically accurate this movie is, Hollywood tends to play around with historical accuracy but the clothing and whatnot don't seem out of place so I don't see any problem there.
My main problem here, was with plot. First, it drags for long, long periods of time. At the end of the movie I thought I had wasted my whole afternoon watching a fluffy period drama. There were some characters at the end that I wanted to see more of, including Dominic Cooper's character as her lover. And yes, I had a problem with the rape scene (imagine that...) in this movie. Directors want to make us feel so sympathetic to the main character, that they go out of their way and make a rape scene to feel sorry for the poor woman because that's how women were treated back then yay! Complete failure. Also a complete failure? The sex scenes. Now I know, there were only two and one wasn't even all that graphic, but the same thing with Dominc Cooper and Keira Knightly, they do not have chemistry. We have to make graphic sex scenes when we don't need them, and what's worse, they're badly mishandled. Ugh, I wish every movie was like Bright Star...
So, should you run out and immediately put this DVD in your Que at Netflix or run out to Blockbuster or wherever and see this movie? Not really. However, it is one of the better period films beating The Other Boleyn Girl by a longshot. This isn't anything HUGELY special though, so if you have a few minutes and happened to pass by Blockbuster on your way home sure, it's a nice pick me up if you're feeling bored and sorry for yourself.

Bright Star

Bright Star (based on Andrew Motion's Biography Keats)
Director: Jane Campion
Cast: Abbie Cornish (Fannie Brawne), Ben Whishaw (John Keats), Paul Schneider (Charles Brown), Kerry Fox (Mrs. Brawne), Edie Martin (Toots), Thomas Sangster (Sammuel)
Screenplay: Jane Campion
Distributor: Pathe
Year: 2009
Length: 1 hr. 59 min
Verdict: SEE
Rated: G (Don't pay any mind to the silly PG rating. The only riske things about it are a pregnancy, minor swear words, and some kissing. The movie's completely harmless)

Before I start, let me get this out of the way: FINALLY! A GOOD ROMANTIC DRAMA!!

According to RottenTomatoes.com, the movie is certified FRESH. And oh wow is it fresh. This is by far, one of my favorite period drama. It's not THAT beautiful to look at (although there is absolutely gorgeous scenery made for gorgeous shots) but I didn't mind. This movie should take the example of romantic dramas that have absolutely useless sex scenes to fill in for bad chemistry between actors, and costume dramas which has constantly boring, and useless shots to fill in the movie. This is high class.
I love Ben Whishaw (although the real Keats is way more handsome) and Abbie Cornish is amazing. They both have such great chemistry, you don't even need a sex scene. In fact, there is none, and yet the sexual tension between them is there. And of course their love is so beautiful and clean if you add them beneath the trees and in meadows, with such absolutely exquisite shots. Okay, yes it might be mannered and proper, but that's what their love was so I really didn't mind.
As with any movie, it's not perfect. For one, sometimes it can get boring although it's not really enough to completely lose you. And Fanny is such a Juliet sometimes when she says to Keats: "I hate you!" when he's going away and wants to commit suicide upon hearing he's going to London. Needless to say though, it's a sweet, beautiful movie about young clean love that can last a lifetime. And if you're worried about your kids seeing this, it's a completely harmless movie.So, I say SEE IT. Definately see it.

For those of you who are wondering, this is Keat's poem which named the movie

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art--
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
No--yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever--or else swoon to death.

The Virgin Suicides movie

The Virgin Suicides

Director: Sophia Coppola

Cast: Kathleen Turner (Mrs. Lisbon), James Woods (Mr. Lisbon),  Leslie Hayman (Therese Lisbon), A.J Cook (Mary Lisbon), Chelsea Swain (Bonnie Lisbon), Kirsten Dunst (Lux Lisbon), Hanna Hall (Cecillia Lisbon), Josh Harnett (Trip Fontaine)

Screenplay: Sofia Coppola

Year: 2000

Length:  1 hr. 37 min

Distributor: Paramount Classics

Verdict: SEE

Rated: R (It's really more like PG-13. Gah! See book review rating.)

Faithfulness: 98% faithful 

UNLIKE The Other Boleyn Girl I was shocked at how faithful this adaptation is in comparison to the book. There were only two scenes that were dropped from the book. Anyway, on to the review. The movie can be boring at times, but other than that I appreciated the way the film was shot, making us care for the Lisbon girls. The girls were absolutely brilliant, Kirsten Dunst is so sensual as Lux and Hanna Hall, who plays Cecillia has a mysterious aura about her which makes her perfect for the role. The rest of the girls don't have big speaking parts but they make great teens who just want to live. I loved the way Kathleen Turner portrayed her character, vulnerable but also caring. 
The movie as I said can be boring since there is not much dialogue but that really brings out the girl's feelings of being bored and trapped so I didn't mind that too much. The pace was much faster when Trip Fontaine (Josh Harnett is so cute!) starts his relationship with Lux then boring again when the house arrest starts. But it's not dreadfully boring as in you really want it to turn the damn TV off and go to sleep. This movie has beautiful shots that is not quite shy and not quite big, it has just the right pace, the right material the right setting, everything is so well presented, you can't help but feel haunted by the end of it.
Like the book the movie dosen't try to explain what's happening, but like the book brings out the gruesome reality of suicide. Sofia Coppola did an amazing job bringing in all the emotions you feel while reading the book and brought in dialogue and monologues her narrator says from out of the novel, so that sense of poetry not only from the writing but the tone comes forward. There's nothing fancy, nothing to impress you, just real life shown on screen in front of your own eyes.
Again, this movie tends to get boring so I guess I could give it a RENT. But fans of the novel will be absolutely thrilled, and the acting is high class. It's beautiful and haunting and even if you know nothing of the book, this movie will still really impress you. Well Sophia, you really are talented after all.

The Other Boleyn Girl movie

The Other Boleyn Girl
Director: Justin Chadwick
Cast: Natalie Portman (Anne Boleyn), Scarlett Johanson (Mary Boleyn), Eric Bana (King Henry VIII), Jim Sturgess (George Boleyn), Mark Rylance (Sir Thomas Boleyn), Kristen Scott Thomas (Lady Elizabeth Boleyn). David Morrissy (The Duke of Norfolk), Ana Torrent (Katherine of Aragon)
Screenplay: Peter Morgan
Year: 2008
Length:  1 hr, 55 min.
Verdict: SKIP
Rated: PG-13 A little sex, (not a whole lot) and two pretty frightening executions
Faithfulness: 2%

BE FOREWARNED BEFORE WATCHING THIS MOVIE: The movie is NOTHING like the book. Nothing in this is similar in any way to the book except for one scene, and the overall plot of the book and ending, which is obvious. That aside, the acting in this movie is great. Natalie Portman steals the show, although Scarlett Johanson is quite close. Everybody from Jim Sturgess who portrays George just as I imagined he would be, and David Morrissy, who plays her uncle, the real antagonist, has such a presence when he's on screen that I was scared of him during the whole movie. The only person who doesn't quite make it is Eric Bana, not a poor choice, but they could have chosen someone better. Bana just doesn't have that presence, I found him quite weak compared to what I imagined Henry in the book.
But of course even when you have good actors, even when you have delectably GORGEOUS sets and costumes, even when the script isn't that bad, the movie just skips over the major scenes in the book. Instead, unnessecary scenes were added in, or tinkered with (Jim Stugess goes to the scaffold like a coward). A lot of the characters were cut out of the whole movie (Cardinal Wolsey the king's adviser, and a major player in the book went missing). And as good as Portman and Johanson are, a lot of the actors murmur their lines than speak them normally, which gets annoying after a while.
The whole movie desperately wants to rush to a conclusion , because of that it leaves out many important character motives and events including George's homosexuality. I know that most movies aren't completely faithful to the book, but this one just didn't make it. It's great eye-candy, but there's nothing containing substance. Readers of the book will notice the rush the movie decides to take, (and a few historical innacuracies concerning several plot points) so this is not for them. In fact, only a Tudor fanatic that has the brain to not take this movie seriously will enjoy it.