Hitchcock

I figured if this film was filmed in only 36 days, I can take some time and give it a quick review.

Directed By: Sacha Gervasi 

Released: 2012

Rated: PG-13

Staring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, & Danny Huston 

  Well my dears it's October once again, my favorite time of the year! Horror films shall soon be filling up my schedule but before they do I thought I'd give you all a review of a movie I caught earlier this summer, Hitchcock. Released in 2012 this quick, well acted piece tells the tale of cinema's master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma during the filming and production of his most iconic film Psycho. Labeled a suspense thriller, Psycho has been terrifying audience goers for generations.
  The 60's saw a boom in the psychological horror genre with hits like Rosemary's Baby, Psycho was no exception. Hitchcock revealed the true horror that a brutal killer could be ANYONE. The real monsters are the ones right down the street. Hitchcock reflects this thought and portrays some top notch creepy scenes delving into the psychology of both the story behind the movie and the man brining it to life.

 
  That being said, the movie confuses it's protagonist flitting between Hitchcock, his brief decent into  madness, and his wife Alma; self conscious, dealing with an inattentive husband and her own career. The movie tries to show us what's going on in Hitch's mind, but also tell the story of the woman behind the man and how much she attributed to his success. This is where it becomes muddled and a question of WHO'S movie is this? Hitchcock feels like two films; one about Hitchcock and one about his wife.  On their own they'd be good, but lacking in impact for the silver screen. The story of the director and the story of his wife both seem fit for an HBO movie or mini series. Putting them together made sense for a feature film but not enough for the film to garner any attention from the Academy.

Anthony Hopkins & Michael Wincott have a little chat about murder
as Hitchcock and serial killer Ed Gein. 

The always lovely Helen Mirren, although I don't remember her
smiling this much... 

   All that may give the impression that I didn't care for the movie, but I actually did! Despite it's somewhat confused center, Hitchcock is a charming, witty, and bright film...enough so that some of the more morbid scenes featuring a grizzly Ed Gein popping up in Hitch's subconscious don't bring the film too far south. As a period piece, costumes and hair and make-up especially were spot on! Hitchcock retains a light atmosphere regardless of the unsettling movie that it's characters are producing {referring to Psycho} Hitchcock simply looks clean and features a strong leading, as well as ensemble cast. My concerns expressed above, while valid, didn't produce a negative effect upon my final opinion.  I quite enjoyed this film and I think movie lovers, especially Hitchcock fans will too! 

Jessica Beil reenacts an iconic scene as Vera Miles 

  If you're not a huge film history junky like myself, it's fun to see for the first time just how secretive Hitchcock was during the production and release of Psycho. From buying all copies of the book, to enforcing his rule of no one entering the theater after the movie had started all to preserve the secrecy of the final plot twist!
   
  Pros like Hopkins and Mirren are bound to get the job done and in Hitchcock they did just that, in only 36 days no less! To Hitchcock's benefit, it' running time concludes a few minutes over an hour and a half. Great for a casual watch or popcorn movie marathons, it doesn't depress and it doesn't condescend. Had it been any longer the material would have stretched too thin and turn melodramatic but it ends nicely and with a bit of a humor as well.
 
  There are periods of darkness in the film where we see Hitchcock imagine himself performing grizzly murders accompanied by Ed Gein (the inspiration for Norman Bates for those who didn't know) and dramatic sections featuring Alma wrestling with fidelity to her husband and her own work, but when the two sides come together to produce the final cut of Psycho it's a fun and entertaining insight.
 
Don't let the title fool you, this is Helen Mirren's movie; creating a believable and relatable character. Mirren tops the bill followed closely by Hopkins who's Hitchcock is good (with the help of make-up crew) but never comes to a definitive portrayal of the Master of Suspense. Scarlett Johansson surprised me with her fresh performance of Janet Lee; I feel she, as an actress, is finally coming into her own.

The Remake & Television

  Gus Van Sant, an undeniably talented director, fell short in 1998 when he directed a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock's original. This film is one where we cross ourselves and whisper "God save the Cinema" He produces compelling work, but why would you waste time, money, and talent on such a project? Reason escapes me...

 
  2013 brought us another in a long line of horror movie prequel T.V. shows. Bates Model on paper was a brilliant idea and had so much promise. All the Mommy issues and back story on the characters of Norman Bates and his mother rooted in the book give writers so much to work with...but then, as with almost all made for television prequels, it *excuse me* got it's head stuck too far up it's backside and became ridiculous and outlandish on the verge of a joke. I can honestly say I think Hitchcock would turn over in his grave if he saw what they did with such solid source material. Initially I looked forward to the series but dropped it half way through due to increased head shaking and face palms I implied after every episode. Vera Farmiga's talent alone can't carry this sinking ship.

Life of Pi

...A horror movie in which the ocean is the villain and a 16 year old boy goes 227 days without growing any facial hair.

Directed by: Ang Lee
Released: 2012
Staring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, & Richard Parker via Rhythm & Hues Studios
Rated: PG
Times Viewed: 1

  Perhaps it's because I watched both A Perfect Storm AND Cast Away at far too young of age, but I have always been TERRIFIED of deadly ocean storm and/or stranded in the ocean type films. Life of Pi, while vividly entertaining and beautifully envisioned, was no exception. If there was ever a film that  would convince me to stay away from ship travel this one would be it; forget Titanic, it's Life of Pi all the way. That being said, I'll do my best to cope with my fear of the open ocean/drowning and review the film without shuttering.

"Better than Disney World Mumbai!!!" 

   Everything you've heard about the amazing CGI in this film is absolutely true. Originally I was completely against the idea of  nearly 100% computer generated animals and visuals(set?) JUST USE A REAL TIGER and some clever trick shots is what I kept saying. Humbly, I must admit I was quite wrong about that and the visual team at Rhythm & Hues Studios did an outstanding job!

The detailed process behind making Richard Parker come to life

  I do believe you will always be able to detect CGI from non-CGI, but what the artist's generated was truly amazing. All of the animals, Richard Parker (the tiger for those of you who don't know) especially were created with such detail, vibrance, and movement when one is engaged in the film it's quite easy to forget they're not real. And for that I take my hat off to the designers and engineers at R&H Studios who were unjustly NOT appreciated or mentioned for their fantastic work during director Ang Lee's acceptance of the Best Director Oscar at this year's show...I'll delve deeper into that later.

A fight for dominance in "Life of Pi"

If they used some shots of a real tiger mixed with CGI I will never be able to tell the difference.

  Back to the animals...Animals which can so often appear flat and cartoonish on screen due to the lack of detail, attention to lighting, and depth, come alive in Life of Pi. As you would in a live animal, you can see every hair on the tigers coat move and ever scale on each fish glisten in the sunlight. The saturated colors of the entire movie help the animals really pop and allow the viewer to see how much work was put into creating these creatures.

  The limitless ocean, dream-like sky, and floating island also must be mention as they are all gorgeous and truly unique. I must say, this is a movie I really wish I would have seen in 3-D. I could tell from watching at home, Life of Pi was a film that was developed to be shot in 3-D and utilize it with the depth of the ocean, lashing tiger, and flying fish. Lee even changed the aspect ratio of the film several times to submerge the viewer even deeper into Pi's beautiful and deadly adventure.

  I  reccomend this film for the sole reason of the outstanding work the special effect team did on the whole film. It's vibrant, fun, sometimes scary, and always stunning. Life of Pi is definitely a feast for the visual senses.

I'm sorry Pi, the tribe has voted; You must either leave the boat or be eaten.  

Richard Parker & Pi have a staring contest to kill time...RP is a sore loser. 

  The story and themes behind Life of Pi, I feel could have been a bit stronger than were presented in the film. What themes you ask? Religion is supposedly the driving force of the story; however, at the end of the tale I felt as if religion had been lost rather than found. Religion is mentioned quite a bit at the beginning of the film as the writer and we the viewers are taken back to Pi's childhood and his induction into three (I believe) religions. I found this part of the tale quite intriguing and enjoyable; Pi telling us how he is able to simultaneously be apart of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. At first I thought the back story telling was a bit excessive but now that I think about it, that's what really connected me to the character of Pi.

  The strong appeal of the three different religions acting as one was perhaps why I felt as if they were missing at the end of the film. The character of the writer himself says the whole reason he was sent to Pi was because he had been told that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God...I felt, as Pi concluded his tale, the shock of the two different scenarios detracted from the major theme that was supposed to be represented in his tale.

A young Pi discovers Christianity.

  This is where the story and review get tricky. Pi revels to the writer that his whole magical journey with Richard Parker might not have even happened. It might have just been his mind's compensation for the tremendous amount of mental and physical strain put upon him by the wreak. I'll just leave it there so I don't spoil too much, but when those dual stories are introduced there will forever be conflict embedded in the story. JUST like THE LADY AND THE TIGER. Which one did she choose? Which one was behind the door? Which story was reality? Will we the reader and/or viewer ever know for sure? The writer chooses to believe the tale featuring Richard Parker because obviously it would make a great book to film adaption (har har) I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy this psychological turn of events, on the contrary I found it added a bit of substance to a rather fanciful film; but it was the intrigue of the two stories that seemed to be of greater interest to the writer and audience rather than religion. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, to me it just seemed to diverge from the original intent of the story.
      -I have never read the book although I've been told to by many...just so you know.

Director Ang Lee on set.

Ang Lee...that man is a strange duck...I'd just like to take the time and remind you all that this is the same Ang Lee who directed 2003's horrendous Hulk, which I think SyFy channel has even stopped playing. That being said, he has also directed some great films like Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...everyone gasp as I confess I have never seen Brokeback Mountain.

  Range in directing is good, but I feel his is at either end of extreme levels of quality. After finally seeing Life of Pi, can I say that I agree that he should have won the award for best director...eh...the list of directors this year was odd...I personally think Benh Zeitlin should have won for Beast of the Southern Wild (if you haven't seen it yet go NOW) Spielberg is and always will be fantastic, I've yet to see Amour, but then David O'Russell? I did like Silver Linings Play-Book a lot more than I had anticipated, but I didn't see O'Russell getting an award for it. Odd group...just odd. I was shocked when neither Tom Hopper or Quentin Tarantino were nominated; I would have loved to see Tarantino win for Django, but he go his Oscar for original screenplay so that's just as good if not better.
     
  I don't know...best directing? Really academy? Of the whole 2012 year?
Special Effects for sure...but directing? AND I must admit I lost a bit of respect for Ang Lee when he didn't even mention the special effects team in his thank you speech. I know there was a big lock out/the company was shutting down scandal, but those where the men and women who CREATED THE WHOLE FILM. Perhaps now I'm getting too subjective...don't let any of this deter you from watching because it really is a great film.

Life of Pi is no Cast Away. The gritty realism we as viewers have come to know from many a ship wreck film is replaced with spectacle and fantasy. Life of Pi is beautiful, with an fresh story and unbelievable special effects, this one is a must watch. Viewers of all ages will find something to enjoy in this film even if it is just the vivid scenery, glowing fish, or a tiger named Richard Parker.

Les Miserables

That awkward moment when you and your drunk friends plan a revolution and NO ONE shows up...

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Released: 2012

Staring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Sasha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried Samantha Barks, & Colm Wilkinson

Rated: PG-12

Times Viewed: 3

  Hipster musical Morgan has to say this...I am terrified by the obsession that people have with this film. Yes, It's a pretty good movie but the musical is MUCH better. It's just kinda scary. TUMBLR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, PINTREST, YOUTUBE, people are posting Les Mis non stop everywhere...I mean good, great...if it gets you interested in the music and the book bravo but...ah...so much everywhere. 

  So here's how I've watched this movie. The first time I watched it, I was blown away by the sheer scale and amped up music score. I'm quite used to listening to the original Broadway cast recording from 198(1?) So lots-o synthesizer, but great voices.  Then, as with any movie, you rewatch it and see...well just things you didn't see and aren't necessarily looking for. Things to poke fun at...like an older sibling poking fun at the younger. You do it out of love; not because you wish any hard feelings...it's just too funny not to. 

Honestly, "Honest Trailers" are the best. 

Bah, so I suppose I have to get it out of the way now...The LIVE singing. Duh, duh, Duuuuuhn!

  So the first time I heard about this I was like OH MY GOSH! THAT SOUNDS AWESOME! GREAT IDEA...MORE ACTING INSTEAD OF REHEARSED SINGING! Umm...ya I take that back. Again, a good IDEA but just executed...poorly? In reality this has NOTHING to do with the singing abilities of the actors, except poor Russell Crowe and possibly Amanda Seyfried, but let's think about this. Making a movie and performing in a musical are two very different things. Movies have takes. Take after take after take. And when you do a take multiple times you are going to get tired, your VOICE is going to get tired. This leads to awkward pauses, sing talking, and all over poor quality of singing. Take Anne Hathaway. Yes her performance while singing "I Dreamed a Dream" was heart wrenching and worthy of an Oscar, the actual song itself has some horribly low low notes and terribly troubling high notes. Apologies, but I must speak the truth! Chorus is good. Individuals not on key...just sounds...eh...not sure what to make of it...

I'm just not a fan of it. And really, I see all these people walking around campus listening to the movie soundtrack on their iPods and I'm just like HOW? It's about 45% talk singing. No lie. Not music. Monologue-ing. 

Also, they fudged up my favorite songs "Love Montage/A Heart Full of Love" But that might have been Amanda Sigfasddsfjlkj fault. And that's all I'm going to say to that...

     

   So APART from the live singing/singing EVERYTHING, This was a fantastically made film. Tom Hooper, who you all may know, is the relatively new, Oscar winning director of The Kings Speech and the brilliant yet under-viewed The Damed United. This man is the KING of the period piece. He is the Duke of Detail and the Count of the CGI Crane shot! Ehehe ok not that the later of the two is really that impressive but this man takes everything little thing into account when directing. Even teeth! Genius he is, Tom Hooper had the make up department make caps for the majority of the cast becaauuse if you're singing with you trap wide open (Anne Hathaway has an unbelievably large mouth) the audience WILL see each and every one of your teeth. And in the mid 1800's dentistry wasn't the industry it is today. 

Anne Hathaway sports a less than lovely smile during her performance as Fantaine.

  For the amount of detail Hooper puts in his films he works at polar opposites of shot ratios. The film opens with a huge (cgi :S ) descending crane shot and uses this technique several more times throughout the film; however, when it's not CGI, there are some beautiful cinematographic moments set in the mountains earlier in the film. Wide shots are then contracting by...

   Yes...Tom Hooper loves, looves his extreme close-ups. Not saying they're horrible but can you just back it up like two frames and you'll be good. There are also a couple of odd angles he enjoys shooting at...maybe Hooper is friends with J.J. Abrams...psh Anything is possible. 

  So how's the cast? Obviously there won't be much to talk as far as acting is concerned but there is still quite a bit to be said about this star studded cast. 

  The Good

          Hugh Jackman, Sasha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne/Samantha Barks.

  Casting Hugh Jackman in the leading role was, without a doubt, the best decision that was made in the film. Jackman is not just a movie star, he IS a singer. He's been successful in many a musical. In other words, he is the experienced one. Jackman ages his voice with the character and while his vibrato may be a BIT for me, he is the one who most effectively utilizes the new concept of live singing...Jackman does have some pitch issues at times when he EMOTES ehehe, but so does everyone else.

  Sasha Baron Cohen...I remember I when I thought you were just that nasty Borat man who ran around in string speedos. Thankfully over the past few years, Baron Cohen has proved me wrong. I now LOVE seeing this man. He is a fantastic character actor. He can transform himself into anyone yet still always seems to have such a self aware presence. Take Hugo, a "serious" role for him but with many added humorous attributes. He's just a treat and bumps any film up ten notches.  

Eddie Redmayne...Not only are you completely adorable, but I LOVE YOUR VOICE. Please, Eddie Redmayne, skip hollywood, get a some more lessons and and become an OPERA SINGING! With some training he could be fantastic. 

Eddie Redmayne can creep on me anyday. Anyone else see him in My Week With Marilyn? He was wonderful!

    I really enjoyed the fact that they cast a relatively unknown actress for the part of Eponine. Samatha Barks was perfect for the part. She didn't over act and she didn't under act. She was spot on. 

The Bad

        Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried. 

In interviews Top Hooper said they needed someone who could go toe to toe with Jackman both physically and in acting ability...so they chose...Russell Crowe? Russell, Russell Crowe. YOU TIRED! You tried SO hard and it's sometimes painful to listen to and watch. You were uncomfortable...and so were we...But you tried.

Amanda Seyfrinedajs;kldjfaks FOR THE LIFE OF ME I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TYPE YOUR NAME WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP AT LEAST 10 TIMES!

    I have to hand it to A.S., if you would have told me 5 years ago that she would have a career after Mean Girls, I would have laughed in your face. After playing such a memorable role like Karen in the unforgettable Mean Girls I would have thought it impossible for her to get past the dumb ditzy teen. But SHE DID! So while she is not my favorite, I must say GO GIRL. Really. Good for you.  Yes, some of her movies are stupid (Mama Mia) and some of them are quite bad (Red Riding Hood, a guilty pleasure of mine) but she keeps trekking on and landing roles so...good for you! And I must say, if I had to choose between A.S. and Taylor Swift, I'm ecstatic that they chose A.S. If only she could have gotten a couple more lessons. The role of Cossette is basically the role of Johanna in Sweeney Todd. You're locked inside a house with a considerably older man, (who in the case of Les Mis is sexy, buff and scruff Hugh Jackman in stead of a creepy judge who raped your mother and imprisoned your father) you meet a boy through a window/gate and without a proper conversation fall desperately in love with him before YOU know his name even though HE knows yours. And he says your name...all the time. But seriously, this I think this soprano part must have been written for the same girl or at least is always sung by one that sounds like a song bird gargling lemonade. It's sooo sweet but toooo much weeble-wobble. And RANDOM, but is anyone else creeped out by her overly large eyes? In Les Mis especially...they age her too much. Just looks disturbed. To reconcile this insult, she did look HAWT at the Academy Awards...she made my Best Dressed list.

Perhaps it's just me, but she's not looking too good here...

mid 30's I'd say...Step away Marius!

  As much as I pick at her for singing, guess what? SHE ADMITS that she's not the best and needs more work. I read an article in which she expressed her interest in joining a show like Wicked on Broadway but came right out and said she wasn't (vocally) ready. Again, GOOD FOR HER! This is not sarcasm, I am truthfully happy for her. Unlike most young actresses, she recognizes he weaknesses and wants to get better. 

...Know what? GOOD LUCK! 

Elegant and lovely, Amanda SEYFRIED at the 2013 Academy Awards.

Overall, I like this movie. The singing is not singing and some times is can be laughable, but Tom Hooper knows how to MAKE beautiful, moving films and it's a fantastic musical by itself. Musical are never intended to be taken too seriously and that's why sometimes you just need to let things go and flow.

       Random thoughts while watching the last hour of the movie

-THERE IS A barricade boy WHO LOOKS LIKE CONAN!  

Coco. Found.

-Hugh Jackman is too sexy to be anyone's father. Open billowy white shirt, manly man chest. This is inappropriate. 

-CGI Crane shots

-SBCOHEN killin' it

-so many freckles...

-Tennant Hair.

-Hugh Jackman basically wills himself to die. It's ok. 

-Valjean and Fontine are going to have ghost sex. ANGST! ANGST! ANGST!

-WHENEVER I SEE COLM WILKISON I JUST FEEL LIKE CRYING BECAUSE HE WAAS JEAN VALJEAN!!! 

-OK that last song is overly impressive and moving. Nice job.

-CAMERON dUCKIN MACKINTOSH! If you ever want to kiss a Broadway producer, he's the one. (He and Andrew Lloyd Webber are buds)

-That "Suddenly" song ya I don't like that stuff...ick.

Anna Karenina (2012)

  A revolutionary vision that stops mid revolution. 

Directed by: Joe Wright
Released: 2012
Staring: Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Matthew Macfadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Michelle Dockery, Kelly Macdonald, & Emily Watson.
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 1

  If you know me, you know THIS is my kind of film. Victorian bustles, lace, taffeta and tool. Hats and feathers. Jewels and dramatic silouhettes. Yes, I'll admit I'm a costume whore. Periodical costume whore. Victorian periodical costume whore to be specific. I love theater and fireworks, magic and romance. Needless to say, when this trailer was released I was a tad bit excited. Not only did it star the lovely and talented Keira Knightly along with Jude Law, but was being directed by Joe Wright; master of the modern day romantic period piece. This makes sense yes? Yes. For those of my readers who are not up on the know who of directors, Joe Wright directed Atonement and Pride & Prejudice.  With an academy acclaimed director and killer ensemble of actors, check out that list above, I had this one pegged to beg a big contender at this year's academy awards. Come awards season though, the film seemed to be all but forgotten about in every category save Costume Design, Art Direction, and Cinematography & Score. This leaves the viewer believing this was solely a visually accomplished film and nothing else. So what happened? After FINALLY tracking down a copy of the film I think I have an idea.

While visually striking, the vast scale and grandeur of Joe Wright's Anna Karenina sometimes engulfs the actors; swallowing performances and the well developed production.

Now, I'm not going to lie, I've never read the entire novel. It was one of those HUGE pieces of classic literature I picked up in 8th grade thinking I could finish it and soon discovered it was not meant to be. From 8th grade, I felt I simply didn't have the time to finish the lengthy book, so Anna Karenina has never made it's way from my "Want to read" to "Read." shelf....I tell you all this to reiterate that this review will not be a comparison of book and film (screen play) adaptation. I will be reviewing visual aspects of the film along with acting/character progression in relation to THIS FILM.

Set, cinematography, and an unique approach to a classic

  The visual/cinematographic aspects without a doubt, are what drive this film to existing apart from other period, costume dramas. The revolutionary idea behind the spectacle is setting all scenes in St. Petersburg on (a) stage and transitioning the scenes as a play transitions sets. I wish I could find a clip of the opening scene because it's that scene that establishes to the audience the new and unique road that Wright has chosen to take. The bustling, "fake", acting, world of city life in St. Petersburg is contrasted by natural, organic, sweat and blood "reality" of life in the country. The transformation between the staged city and the natural city, while absolutely brilliant, lost me at times In various shots it seemed as though there should be even MORE over exaggeration or at least transitional method from stage to field. On several occasions I wondered if the actors really had left the set of the city or whether it was just an abrupt stop of the set changing motif the film carried. I honestly thought the revolutionary vision had stopped mid revolution. This was until I realized that the stage was the city and the large, open fields were the "real world" of the country...but this realization didn't happen until the film was almost over! As the film progressed, I though they had just forgotten the set changes; using them simply as a lure to gain the audiences attention for the first hour and a quarter...but that would be an amateur mistake. While the set metamorphosis IS used LESS as the film advances, it's not completely abandoned.

At work in the fields 

  This being said, I truly loved the concept of the set transitions and wish they would have used it to the extent they did in the opening and establishing scenes. The form is so unique to film, the viewer CAN NOT stop watching. It's an engaging technique that reminded me quite a bit of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet from 1996. *One of my favorite films* While Branagh used cuts in his film, in many scenes servants are seen moving certain set pieces and working in the back, transitioning the scene from one location to another. 

The films even bare similar posters as well as several artistic shots and set design.

As Jude Law throws torn pieces of a letter into the air, the shreds turn into falling snow. Beautiful

This action is reminiscent of the wedding scene at the beginning of Ken Branagh's Hamlet (1996)

The "Play" of Anna Karenina's life in St. Petersburg is set within the "Play" of the stage.

"The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!"

Hamlet also deals with plays inside plays, who's acting, who's catching who, what is real and what is for show ect. ect. Branagh's adaptation deals heartily with the young Prince putting on a show for his Uncle the King. The film features an abundance of rich gold tassels and fringe along with velvety red curtains. Anna Karenina utilized many of the same decorations.

Anna Karenina

Hamlet

   The sets designs were amazing and it's a shame Sarah Greenwood & Katie Spencer didn't win the Oscar for Production Design or Seamus McGarvey for Cinematography. Sadly though, I feel like the design and over designed approach out weighed the story and performances. This film went from a beautiful retelling of classic in a unique way, to a film who's main focus is it's design and distinct staging. I believe Branagh's Hamlet could handle the lush furnishings because the performances were just as bold. Not say the acting in Anna Karenina isn't fantastic, because it is, I just feel the story was told more through visuals and less through acting/performances/words.
       Now for me this wasn't a horrible thing, I enjoy spectacle/pomp/avant-garde, it's just a fact to keep in mind if you're wondering why you the viewer didn't see more of Anna Karenina during awards season.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One member of the crew who DID receive an Oscar for her work on Anna Karenina was the impecable Jaquline Durran. 

To the costumes....the costumes the costumes the costumes. Honestly I cannot begin to describe how GORGEOUS and detailed every character's costume is in this film...I can try my best and show you every screen shot, but it wouldn't begin to describe how wonderfully Jaquline Durran's pieces move and work on screen.  She is a beautifully gifted designer that believes in collaboration with the actors to help develop the character's they've created from the film...an invaluable characteristic to have while working in film.
  In interviews, Durran has stated that Joe Wright's original concept was to mix 50's couture with 1870's silhouettes. In an unimaginable way, these two time periods mesh together almost seamlessly. Many of the fabirics used in the late 1800s (taffeta, brocades, silks of course) were hugely popular in couture houses of the 1950s...specifically Dior and Balenciaga. Not only are similar fabrics and necklines used, but  the majority of hair accessories are HUGE nods to fashionable, rich women of the 50's....when I say hair accessories I mean feathers. The use of feathers ares dramatic and unique. Instead of featuring a single plume as many films of the late 1800's or Victorian era did, Durran bends, clips, and position the feathers into new and fascinating shapes that seem both old and new. She remains true to the respective period, alludes to the 50s, but keeps the whole film relevant without loosing the characters in heaps of fur, feathers, and tool.  Here's a great behind the scenes short with  interviews from Jaquline Durran and some of the main cast...

There is a reason she won the Oscar people....

Jaquline Durran with some costumes from Anna Karenina

A very 50's pill box hat.

Another pill box hat as well as swooping 50's neck line.

Touch ups and a gorgeous feather hair piece. 

FUR!

Breath taking!

~~~~~~

Acting

  Now I'm not going to touch much on the quality of the acting in the film because when you have Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Matthew Macfayden, and Michelle Dockery you can assume, quite correctly, that the performances are great. Not to contradict myself though, sometimes the lavish epicness of the film does swallow the actors a bit leaving the story telling up the visuals and "wow factor" versus the the pure talent of it's main cast.

Keira Knightly- As the leading lady she does fantastic as always, but in this role Knightly did something that I don't believe she's ever done before. She made me hate her character...this doesn't pop up till the very end, but after hours of her not making up her mind, going crazy and ultimately killing herself I didn't feel much pity for the character in the last 20 minutes or so. I feel this is a strong quality though...it shows the audience developing with the character. I went from liking this young, fashionable  lady, to feeling bad for her, and ultimately not shedding a tear when she dies...cold hearted am I? Perhaps, but any actor that can make me feel a strong emotion one way or the other towards a character  has already done their job.

Jude Law- I felt the same way towards his character as I did towards Knightly's only in reverse. Frist hate, then pity...an interesting character.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson- I can't really say much for the young, somewhat unknown who played Anna's lover Vronsky. He was fine, neither a nuisance nor an asset...simply a pretty face who delivers lines in an obsessed, gentlemanly like fashion.

Matthew Macfadyen- Oh my gosh MR. DARCY I LOVE YOU'RE MUSTACHE! I say this in all honestly that I bore the most ridiculous grin whenever Matthew Macfadyen's character Oblansky was on screen...and NOT just because he IS Mr. Darcy...it was because he was so NOT Mr. Darcy. Oblansky is a total social deviant; loud, smiling, having affairs and not really apologizing for any of it. I. loved. it. A great performance that shows Macfadyen's true range as an actor.

Reunited and it feels SO GOOD! 

Michelle Dockery- Although her role is somewhat small, Michelle Dockery leaves her stamp on the character to the point where you're not sure if it's Princess Myagkaya (uh...Russian names) or Lady Mary Crawley. So yes, she does play somewhat of the same crass yet truthful character, but she just does it so well! Dockery's character is one of the only one's to remain a true friend to Anna through out her adulterous troubles. Now come on, who WOULDN'T want to have Michelle Dockery as their best bitch friend ready to slash any haters down with her sassy wit and sharp tongue? Plus I really loved her dress...

Michelle Dockery is judging you and it is NOT a secret...

Watching out for her friends and looking lovely in lavender.

Alright and finally if you're not sold on the whole "epic love tragedy affair" nonsense, you can watch for the real love story and the character that I enjoyed most in the film, LEVIN! Freakin' most adorable man in this film. His love for Anna's friend Kitty represents a sincere pure love that Anna and her brother Oblansky will never know.

 

Thomas Hacker I give you exhibit B to our "No Male Gingers Are Attractive" discussion.

I want a rugged ginger, Russian Farmer!!!

So in loooove!

Find me that ginger, get me that ginger, I will MARRY that ginger.

Yeay for the tragic, love sick ginger! In a plum suits no less!

Uh...AND I just discovered that he played BILL WEASLEY in the HP films. It's done.