Moves in Curves

Or have been watching.

“Sherlock”, the new BBC series. It was good, I enjoyed it very much. Sherlock portrayed as a sociopath with entertaining eccentricities was fun – I particularly loved when he was watching daytime tv. Watson was well-cast. Overall the move to the 21st century worked quite well.

“The Young Victoria”, the movie about young Queen Victoria. I’ve been wanting to see this for ages, so I almost leaped for joy when I saw it at Redbox. The costumes are beautiful, the actors playing Victoria and Albert both well-cast and talented, and the story was lovely. Highly enjoyable movie. Squee-worthy love scenes, in that corsets and petticoats kind of way, which I love. Lots of lovely actors: Paul Bettany (who I often recognize by his voice first, because hair and makeup often make him look so very different), Jim Broadbent, Mark Strong, Miranda Richardson, Harriet Walter. They do gloss over historical events, in the way film and tv always does, and invent one in particular, but I still really enjoyed it.

“Warehouse 13″ on the SciFi channel (I’m sorry, I refuse to use their ridiculous new misspelled name). Quite like this show. My mother is really into it, and I’ve caught a few episodes now. May have to go back and watch from the beginning.

Zahi Hawass’s “reality” show. This one cracks me up. He’s a well-known dickhead among archaeologists, and it’s hilarious to see him faking archaeology (seriously, no one believes you popped that out of the ground so easily, and by the way, you’d be wearing gloves if that were real) and yelling at fake grad students (who all have acting credits on IMDb) such gems as “You will never work for me again!” The fake grad students ask the dumbest-ass questions. The whole thing is just so very stupid that I think it’s awesome. The sheer weight of epic fail tips over into win, much like the Black Pearl righting itself to emerge from Davy Jones’ Locker.

The other thing that’s been on our tv (constantly) is the original Star Wars trilogy, which my kids are currently obsessed with, especially the AT-ATs, AT-STs, the Battle for Hoth, the Battle for Endor, exploding Death Stars, exploding AT-ATs/AT-STs, exploding X-wings, exploding speeders, and the Ewoks. They lay in their tauntaun sleeping bag (Husband’s bestie gave it to him) and watch. Over and over and over. I’m so tired of hearing about AT-ATs, y’all. And so tired of being lectured about Darth Vader. “He Luke’s dad, but now he a bad guy. He used to be a good guy, but then he was angry and did bad things, and now he on the Dark side of the Force.” There are Lego Jedi dying in my kitchen (Hoth) as we speak. Someone please make it stop.

“I have no sympathy for any of you feculent maggots and no more patience to pretend otherwise. Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness.”

Having just re-read the book and re-watched the 1995 film, I watched the 2008 miniseries version. And since I can’t tweet everything (or I’ll overflow my allowed updates per day), I recorded my thoughts in a notepad for sharing here. Enjoy.

• People have their hair down WAAAY more often than his proper (Lady Middleton? Hello!).
• Willoughby, while certainly a bigger bastard than as portrayed in the 1995 film version, is not handsome and dashing enough for the character. The ’95 film Willoughby was hotter, but more sympathetically portrayed.
• Mrs. Dashwood is far too calm. Really. Way too calm.
• I prefer the Margaret in the 1995 film, though this one is certainly cute.
• Marianne, while quite pretty (I want her hair), is also too calm. She barely cried at all. Kate Winslet’s hysterics and wild emotions were much more accurate to the character. And if she’s going to be out and about in society as an adult, for God’s sake put her hair UP. She doesn’t say enough rude things to people either – in the books she’s always spouting off inappropriately.
• Edward Ferrars is SO HOT in this one. His eyes are gorgeous. I totally loved him. I don’t mind Hugh Grant in the role, he was all right – but I love this guy. Although this version of Edward is a bit too animated for the way the character was written in the original book.
• Colonel Brandon is like a poor man’s Liam Neeson, but I did like him.
• Barton Cottage is the cutest house ever. And right on the beach. I want to live there!
• Elinor was quite good – the right age – though it’s hard to top Emma Thompson in any role, she’s just so damn wonderful).
• The Dashwood daughters always seem far more poor in the movie versions than they did in the book.
• The “money/happiness” discussion was a bit odd, I thought. It made Elinor seem a little too focused on riches. Edward’s response, I don’t know, the way they did that seemed to have little to do with either character in the book?
• All the men seem to be too old for their parts – Sir John and Mr. Palmer are both supposed to be about 26, but Mark Williams (much as I love him) is far too old.
• Lady Middleton’s hairdo is bothering the hell out of me. Put your hair up, for crying out loud!
• Anne Steele looks like Lily Tomlin. And she’s just as annoying as she’s characterized in the book.
• Lucy Steele always seems to be made out so sweet and innocent onscreen, when she’s very blatantly sly and bitchy in the books, especially toward Elinor.
• I didn’t think Mrs. Jennings was boisterous enough in this version – the 1995 movie Mrs. Jennings is so perfect though, it’s hard to top her.
• Elinor’s voice is so lovely. Very rich and cultured, just perfect for her character I think.
• Kind of sad that they left out the Robert Ferrars toothpick case scene, since that so well characterizes him – but, it’s hard to screw up that character. He’s a weaselly little jerk. No redeeming qualities.
• Miss Grey’s feather headdress is friggin’ sweet.
• Brandon is far more romantic in this version than in the 95 (though obviously, who doesn’t love Alan Rickman? Still, this is better). When he catches Marianne in her ballroom faint, that’s kind of hot. She’s too young for him, though. He needs a more mature woman. The duel scene? Hot. Kick Willoughby’s ass.
• Marianne’s crying scene after being snubbed by Willoughby in London is close to the book but not as well done as Kate Winslet’s performance.
• Brandon revealing Willoughby’s seduction of Miss Williams is a little too overwrought. And too indelicately put.
• I know, I’m a purist about movie versions of books.
• Margaret Dashwood is a far more interesting character onscreen than she is in the book. She has very little to her in the book, and they make her a proto-feminist or adventurer onscreen. It does make her more interesting, but less accurate.
• Fanny and John Dashwood are assholes. So are the Steele sisters.
• Marianne giving Mrs. Ferrars a set-down was freakin’ hilarious.
• Edward’s “oh… shit” look when he sees Lucy Steele with Elinor cracks me up. He could not more obviously want nothing to do with her.
• The little boy playing Harry Dashwood (the little boy of John and Fanny) reminds me of young Lex Luthor on Smallville. Pre-Kryptonite loss of his hair, that is.
• The under-the-blanket conversation between Marianne and Elinor – WTF?
• Mr. Palmer wasn’t nearly so amusing in this version. Hugh Laurie was quite possibly the perfect person for that role, however, so whoever this guy was could hardly compare.
• Oooh. Brandon rescuing Marianne (um, why was she just laying down in the rain?) was pretty romantic. Him visiting her alone in her room, however – wildly inappropriate for the time period.
• I am very glad the Elinor-Willougby conversation was included, even though it was altered pretty hugely. That was a big part of him showing what a bastard he really is in the book. I do think they should have included the bit when he wishes his wife would die so he could marry Marianne (ass!). Though of course, Marianne overhearing was an unnecessary departure.
• Colonel Brandon’s carriage is pretty awesome. I want a carriage like that. Wouldn’t say no to his house, either.
• Marianne’s dress in the Delaford library scene is really pretty. Very nice cut. I love Regency fashion.
• Elinor’s happy tears when Edward doesn’t marry Lucy are much better in this version. And of course, actual kisses are very satisfying. Not to say that Emma Thompson isn’t a great actress, but her bursting into tears was pretty fake. This seemed quite real.
• Very sweet. Excellent version.

Looks like some good stuff will be coming out this year. Obviously, Deathly Hallows part 1 will be released, so that’s fabulous. I just saw the trailer for Russell Crowe’s “Robin Hood“, I’m all over that one. He’s a wee bit old for the part, but he’s Russell Crowe, who cares? And Cate Blanchett is Marian. Also Kevin Durand and Scott Grimes, minor actors who I always enjoy watching. Garb looks bad, but I’ll endure. (May 14)

“Clash of the Titans“: I’ve always loved Greek mythology. Don’t even care who’s in this one, I’ll be seeing it. (March 26)

“Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief“: Kevin McKidd and Sean Bean as Greek gods. Enough said. (February 12)

“Legion“: Okay, I’m not into apocalypse movies. I get wigged out by them. But Paul Bettany is playing the archangel Michael and Kevin Durand (is it me or is he having a break these days? He’s been in a lot lately. Love it.) as Gabriel, and I just might have to see that. Besides, this isn’t a natural-disaster apocalypse, it’s a real one. Maybe I can bear it. (January 22)

One I’ll be taking my kids to: “How to train your dragon” (March 26). Looks cute, and they’ll probably like it.

“Iron Man 2“: Obvious, yes, but I enjoyed the first one, and I never miss superhero movies. And hell, Robert Downey Jr’s looking hot these days. Amazing what laying off the sauce will do for you. (May 7)

“Prince of Persia“: Meh, I kind of want to see this. J.Gyl sure does a lot of backflips in the trailer, doesn’t he? I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve found him attractive (it’s amazing what seeing an actor with a sword will do for me). Costuming looks bad though. Will probably just rent this one or go to the dollar movies. (May 28)

“Jonah Hex”: I’m slightly tempted by this one, as it’s based on comic books and that generally makes for a good story, but the cast – blergh. When it hits Red Box, maybe. (June 18)

Hopefully more interesting fare will start being previewed soon. After all, it’s only January.

Is it odd that I can forgive historical inaccuracies in the plot more easily than I can in the clothes? Seriously, I’m totally willing to suspend my disbelief and pretend Henry VIII looked like Jonathan Rhys Meyers, for example, or that Lord Bothwell Duke of Orkney was a good guy, but damn, put the right shoes on them!

I love a good period film, I really do, and I love bitching about inaccuracies in the timeline or perceived characterizations of historical figures, and I even love giggling over who Hollywood casts to play those figures (that’s who you think Achilles looked like? Really?), but I really need them to wear the correct clothing to the time period. Inaccuracies in jewelry are a pet peeve of mine to a lesser degree, I don’t get nearly as worked up over using modern faceted gems in a time period hundreds of years before gems were faceted as I do about, for example, Richard III wearing a motorcycle jacket and pretending it’s a doublet.

This is why I love Rome right now. I got one look at their shoes and went into transports of archaeological delight. Yay HBO! Maybe you should show Showtime how to do garb research before they start filming the next season of the Tudors, eh? It gets progressively worse every year, despite plenty of archaeological evidence from the time period for the cut, construction, fabric, stitching, accessories, etc.