The Great Gatsby

Because no one ever accused Baz Luhrmann of being subtle....

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Released: 2013

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, & Elizabeth Debicki

Rated: PG-13

Times Viewed: 1

  We have been awaiting this film for quite some time, oh yes we have. It seemed every time we were teased with the promise that it was near it's release date, Gatsby would get pushed back even farther. With all the drama surrounding the nearly six month delay I can say old spot, it was worth the wait.

Baz Luhrmann's adaption of The Great Gatsby not only stays true to the book, but infuses the energy and spirit of the jazz age through out every frame, costume, and song. 

One of the first stills released, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, Carrey Mulligan, & Joel Edgerton in "The Great Gatsby"

  So far Gatsby hasn't been the hit with critics as many thought it would be. But why? Majority of reactions can be summed up in this quote from a review by David Denby 

    

     "Luhrmann’s vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he’s less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste."

         

    Ouch, David, Ouch. 

  

First of all I'd like to ask...Have any of these reviewers seen Moulin Rouge? A fabulous feast for the senses and successful with a wide range of audiences, I can not only see, but feel Baz Luhrmann's presence in Gatsby just as strongly as in Moulin Rouge! Over the top, lavish musical productions is what Baz Luhrmann DOES. That's his creative style. As with any great director, Chris Nolan to Woody Allen, there is a definite style and creative choices that are made that make that director one of notoriety. When I see words like "vulgarity" and "absence of taste" associated with Baz I truly question wether these critics knew what they were getting in to when they entered Gatsby. 

  

  Now, had Baz deviated far from the original source material, THAT would garner scrutiny and scorn. But when a film stays so true to the novel, and clearly expresses F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the Jazz Age I see nothing wrong. I find his over the top production enjoyable because through it he uses Fitzgerald's own words to tell this tale. I mean this quite literally, most of the movie is word for word from the book. And there is a reason The Great Gatsby is THE great American novel. 

Statue of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Rice Park in St. Paul)- taken by yours truly.

  The Great Gatsby is not a love story, I mean it is but  let's put on our freshman high school caps and analyze what this story is about. The Great Gatsby is MINNESOTA author F. Scott Fitzgerald's critique of his own generation. On the outside it seems all about the glitz and glamour. Cheap booze and fast women. Soaring stalks and underground parties. Deep down though, Fitzgerald see a generation decomposing from within. No new thoughts. No progression. No hope. The Great Gatsby is a commentary on basically everything Fitzgerald thought was wrong with the 20's. Old money vs. New money, corruption of young bright minds and so one. Fitzgerald focus' on the positives through the character of Gatsby who represents hope and the American Dream. I can honestly say since I read it in eighth grade, The Great Gatsby has been one of my favorite books. If you haven't read it, buck up and do it....it's only 218 pages.

  Back to the film. Everything that Fitzgerald so passionately put in his novel, Baz puts into the film and illustrates with vivid imagery and narration. The few changes Baz incorporates only aid the ORIGINAL story and justifies the narration throughout the film. 

Now that I'm done boring you with my obsessive analysis (even though I love analysis) I'll get to the pretty parts. 

  This movie is visually intoxicating. The pristine colors, sparkle and shine of each and every frame envelope the audience in the world of Gatsby. I said before, some critics are calling it vulgar and tasteless but it's the excitement, the expensiveness, and the lavish lives lived in the 20's that Luhrmann is trying so hard to communicate with the audiences. And for me it worked! By using such saturated colors, shining diamond accessories and rich materials there was not a dull moment therefore no time for me to become distracted from the story. In my opinion, the more I have to look at in a film, the more entranced and focused I'll be. Perhaps for some critics it's the exact opposite, perhaps it's my theatrical background, but I loved the design production on this film.

Director Baz Luhrmann on the set of "The Great Gatsby"

  Now you all know I have a long standing love hate relationship with CGI/3D. When it's needed USE it, when it's not, GET IT THE HECK AWAY. In Gatsby, the 3D and CGI work MADE this film. You're not just watching party goers bustled through a corridor straining to join the festivities, you ARE one of those party goers. These party scenes are where the 3D is truly justified; with flying confetti and popping champagne bottles the effect was mesmerizing and exciting!  

"I thought you knew old sport! I'm afraid I'm not a very good host...I'm Gatsby"
And the entire theater internally screamed.

The Music

  I, as many did, reacted rather hesitantly when I discover hip-hop star Jay-Z would be producing the music for Gatsby. Don't get me wrong, over the years I've expanded my musical tastes and Jay-Z is actually now a favorite of mine as far as hip-hop goes, but it was just the idea of him working with the iconic music of the 20's that concerned me. However, when I finally heard a sample from the film all my reserves were blown away. I am a huge fan of post juke box swing and jazz that has been popping up from the likes of Parov Stelar ect. and the music of Gatsby seemed to follow the same lines. By blending classics like "Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Go That Swing" "Ain't Misbehaving" "Bang, Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" with modern club beats, Jay-Z creates a sound that shows the younger audiences the energy felt by the people of the Jazz Age. I know that energy because the 1920's is one of my favorite time periods musically, but in today's generation, there are so few young people who are aware of how amazing and vivacious the music was in the 20's.  Craig Armstrong also contributes a BEAUTIFUL original score that I'll look forward to purchasing as well. Armstrong is a clever devil utilizing not only modern, but classical tunes into the score. The use of "Toccata and Fudge in D minor" as the party goers enter Gatsby's house and George Gershwin's, who I might add is the original fuser of classical music and modern jazz, "Rhapsody in Blue" to reveal our hero were definite high points that I looved.  Here's a sampler of some of the music used in the film. I highly suggest that you purchase it for yourself. It'll have to dancing like it's 1922 for sure.

The Costumes

  Costumes, uh Costumes were BEAUTIFUL! As with many period pieces, designers choose to incorporate either a later or earlier decade along with the one they're working in i.e. my review of Anna Karenina. Catherine Martin (Baz Luhrmann's wife) was not only the costume designer, but head of the production design. This, I believe, is why the film had such a great continuity to it. Costumes, in my opinion are second players to all the actors; dress one character incorrectly and it can throw off not only the character, but the whole show. The costumes of Gatsby, like the music, has a taste of modern edge. The reason? Catherine Martin collaborated with Miuccia Prada!

   The colors as I mentioned before are brilliant, and also the use of accessories and make-up; it's almost like all the 1920's themed shoots Vogue as ever done have exploded in mansion. And I loved it. The amount of time and effort to creating, producing and clothing that many extras must have been colossal. Not to mention hair and make-up as well...and there were no half-assed jobs. I look for that a lot in period piece films, especially during large party or ball scenes. Gatsby's costume and make-up department went all out, didn't miss a fingernail flawless. I wish beyond wish I could get a Polaroid of each extra in full blow costume and hair because there were soo many and they were all soo good I want to see each one in detail. 

  Look how cute! I want to married to an overly theatric (and actually quite attractive) director and make costumes for his lavish films!

The continuity in the Production Design for The Great Gatsby is incredible and I really do hope it's enough to gain it an Academy Award for Costume and Production Design...Or a nomination at least!

The Ensemble

Everyone (with the exception of Tobey Maguire) did how I expected them to do! Quite brilliantly. 

  Leo is, of course, spot on. He brings not only the pomp to Gatsby, but also the humanity that is so desperately important to his character. For those saying he's going to get an Oscar nom...sorry I don't foresee that happening. If it didn't get one for THE BEST SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE of the year in Django, I highly doubt he'll be recognized for Gatsby. Trust me, I want Leo to win an Oscar probably more than most, but it won't be with this role. 

  Carrey Mulligan...good, solid. She doesn't make Daisy as much of a ditz as Mia Farrow did in the 1974 production, which is such a relief, but she doesn't make her over likable either. Which is also good. We are NOT suppose to LIKE Daisy. I see all this "Channel you're inner Daisy" online and I just keep thinking NO! She is the rotted core of the corrupted, decomposing apple that is the 1920's Jazz Age. So no, you do not want to be like Daisy....just saying...I'd rather be like Jordan...she's not much better, but I always connected with her in the book. 

Super sassy, somewhat detached and a little bit sneaky

  Joel Edgerton where do you hide? I mean really, I love you in pretty much everthing (WARRIOR!) then you hide away and reappear to my delight a year later! So odd...Edgerton is physical and chose the perfect disposition for the character. He is exactly how I envisioned him in the book. 

Secret brothers. Jason Clake & Joel Edgerton

Then we have discount Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke who is ALSO almost always brilliant. You and Joel Edgerton need to stop doing films together (Zero Dark Thirty) I always get you two confused! 

But on a seriously, everyone in this film was EXACTLY how I envisioned them in the book. Even Tobey Maguire character. When I heard Maguire was cast as leading man Nick Caraway I thought 'NOOOOOO!' Because, well solely because of Spiderman. I didn't want Spiderman as the most important character in the film! Thankfully, as he did in Seabiscuit, Tobey surprised me! Character was spot on. There was an innocence but also enough of a devil in him to go along with the party, but make it believable. In the end I really enjoyed his performance. 

Final Thoughts 

  For once, I'm have to arduously disagree with many critics on their harsh treatment of The Great Gatsby. This film is a treat for the senses and an experience that really must be enjoyed in a large theater in 3D Trust me old sport, it'll be well worth your money. Baz Luhrmann returns to the theatrically arousing style of film making that made him such a great success. He uses the source material expertly and blends the magic of the old world with the technology of the new. I hope to soon see The Great Gatsby a second time and relish in it's splendor and innovation. They say it's a film that only young audiences will enjoy? Good. Because maybe, just maybe that love for the movie will spark a love for the original novel and the more young people reading classic literature the better. I see nothing wrong with a film that has a wider appeal to the younger audiences, especially if it's one like The Great Gatsby. 

Oz: The Great and Powerful

You know James Franco was high on set when he repeatedly called Glinda "Wanda" for a good 30 minutes of the film.

Directed By: Sam Raimi

Released: 2013

Starting: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, voice talents of Zach Braff & Joey King

Rated: PG

Times viewed: 1

   The fantasy genre has always been a favorite of mine and I'm always open to a new, exciting revisit of the classics; however, the original trailer for Oz: The Great and Powerful left me feeling anxious for several reasons. First, James Franco. I know he is a huge darling of many a young hollywood fan but in all honesty I find him as dry as the blunts he probably smoked during the filming of this movie. Are blunts dry? I don't really know...we'll say yes for simile's sake. Second was the visuals...As I've mentioned in previous post, I am not a huge fan of 3-D dependent films...but I figured since it is a FANTASY film along the lines of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it could be forgiven and James Franco ignored.
 Months pass and eventually my excitement to see Oz grew, so last tuesday night (it was a slow week) my friends and I made the journey to our local AMC. We bought our outrageously expensive tickets, popped on our hermetically sealed 3-D Ray Bans, and were prepared to be wowed by the spectacle of the Land of Oz!

     Overall Impression  
Oz: The Great and Powerful, while high on visual splendor proves to be lacking in script and quality acting.

  The biggest disappointment from this film was my expectation for it to be MORE than a children's movie. From the trailer it seems darker, scarier...just what Hollywood has been doing with recent remakes of classic children's stories, fairytales and fables (Red Ridding, Alice in Wonderland, and Hansel and Gretel) While there are definitely some very scary creatures including the Bad Witches flying baboons and the Green Witch herself, Oz is without a doubt a children's movie. I honestly had no clue going in to the film that it was rated PG and after seeing the flying baboons I was almost positive that it was PG-13...but then the last hour commenced and the sap started to flow.  

Would your 10 yr. old child be ok with this crazy creature reaching out of the silver screen? I don't think I could have handled it! 

  Once the audience scrapes past the intricate and impressive land of Oz filled with high chroma characters and iridescent fog and bubbles, they'll find the film itself is another watered down attempted to teach children that GOOD ALWAYS WINS...even if the man who get's you there is a total con artist.  The script is just sooo dumbed down filled with question, answer, question answer conversationa and lot's of "Look out! This way! Oh my goodness! There're behind us!" The whole film (concerning the script) verges on the edge of too literal to enjoy for an older audience. At least in a film like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Burton effectively utilizes some mature jokes and characters to engage his older audience and fan base.  Burton is the master at incorporating the morals of a children's film with the maturity of adult fantasy without catering too heavily to one or the other. Biggest examples Alice in Wonderland (which I'll compare to Oz a bit later in a visual aspect) Frankenweenie, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

  Now WHO was it that directed this film? SAM RAIMI. Sam, father of gore n' horror, RAIMI. How he convinced Disney to let him direct this movie I'll never know, but I feel like there could have been so much more from him. I feel, since he knew he would be dealing with a well known children's story, he had to dumb it down to avoid any type of backlash from the company and  parents alike. I suppose it's a bit unfair to compare Raimi to Burton..I mean let's be honest...Sam Raimi and Tim Burton operate on opposite ends of the horror scale. Tim creates the quirky, creepy characters, but never anything in the gore end of horror (save Sweeney Todd)...that's Sam's territory. The man creates whole movies around the concept of dismemberment and chainsaws. i.e. The Evil Dead. Perhaps they two should have a meeting and exchange notes...I love Tim Burton and after watching The Evil Dead 2 I've decided I kinda, sorta do like Sam Raimi and his cats in a box style of directing and creating. 

James Franco with Director Sam Raimi  on the set of "Oz: The Great and Powerful."
Is that the book of the dead you're reading Sam? 

So now I have you completely confused by my self contradictions "Oh it's too scary for children, but the story line is too dumbed down to be taken seriously by an older audience." I have to apologize, but honestly, I'm not sure WHO to recommend this movie to...The movie was easy to follow, not confusing, definitely fun to look at but THIS SCRIPT IS SO BAD! So I guess I'll start by giving you some of my positive reactions to the film first...

Visuals concepts, 3-D, & the first 45 minutes.

  As I've written before, this movie is gorgeous to look at. The opening credits are fantastic featuring optical illusions and such, all in mind bending black and white.  I really LOVED that when the film started in Kansas they used the same black and white color palette as well as the smaller screen ratio. The film didn't HAVE to be made this way...the creators could have assumed everyone knows the classic Wizard of Oz and will connect the Kansas in that film to the Kansas in this film but they used the same techniques anyway and I really appreciated that. What I also almost passed out over was (*small spoiler*) the girl who Oz was in love with in Kansas (also played by Michelle Williams) said that she was going to marry Frank(?) GALE. AS IN DORTHY GALE'S FATHER! 

And Disney was kind enough to put the beautiful opening credits on youtube! Even more impressive on the big screen in 3-D

A magical score by Danny Elfman makes me think if this really WAS a project intended for Tim Burton...

As stated numerous times, I am not a fan of 3-D being put in to films when it is NOT needed or movies that are primarily visual effects, HOWEVER for Oz it all works because this is set in a fantasy land that couldn't exist without the help of 3-D and CGI. Apart from several locations that look more like Wonderland than Wonderland did in Tim Burton's adaption, the set design behind this world is brilliant. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

  The humor in the first 45 minutes or so of this film is actually quite good. Franco (whom I don't care for) is overly theatrical, charming and a total con artist. Exactly who he should be. But then...after the Balloon has landed in Oz and Mila Kunis' character get's involved...it's all (apart from the visuals) down hill from there.

The Bad

The Acting

  Apart from James Franco, I had high hope for the cast of OZ. I mean, Michelle Williams? She's brilliant! And Mila Kunis proved in Black Swan that she is more than just Jackie. And Rachel Weisz is consistently engaging and believable. Sadly ALL fell apart due to a TERRIBLE script. Proof that bad writing and a bad story can lead to an over all bad movie and the impression of bad acting. I must say...Mila Kunis without a doubt is the WORST. I can't even describe how terrible she was...It was rage and pain but rage and pain that a high school student does in their sophomore one act play. It didn't help when she did turn truly evil and transformed into the wicked witch she looked like THIS...

LET'S MAKE HER AS LITERAL AS POSSIBLE!

I mean this LOOKS awesome right? Right...until she appears and opens her mouth.

Costuming

  This is my territory people and let me put on my Tim Gunn face and say this...EDIT PEOPLE EDIT!! There was just so much random crap thrown on EVERYONE, especially Rachel Weisz's character. Gorgeous, green sequin dress? Lets add feathers on your back AND shoulders AND a huge slit so you can wear leather leggings AND knee high boots! Just WHY!?

So the top I love...then as we go down it's a dress with leggings underneath and just WHY!? I can't explain.

  I feel like there was no turn direction or concept behind these costumes. No connecting thread...Glinda is dressed in half 1930s evening gowns and half Galadriel armor...Mila Kunis was an Equestrian Rider(I actually would have loved that in a different movie), then a 1950's debutant, then THEE most literal translation of "WITCH" If I ever saw one. Individually there are parts of each costume that were impressive but when brought together they just confuse the audience and don't give any inspiration to the true feeling of the land of Oz. Costuming is SO important to the overall feeling and continuity of a film...I feel Oz just assembled 3 different costumers, had them all make separate collections, then picked at random interesting pieces from each. If you read my review of Anna Karenina, you'll understand the importance of connection, continuity, and a solid concept in costuming.

I cringe because this ensemble has NO place in the film! It doesn't fit....

PLUS!!! #1 irritation, the people of Oz didn't where a spec of green!? Anger and sadness.

           GARY JONES...I'm coming after you...

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.