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.

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...

Eastern Promises-Micro Review

  "You play with a Prince to do business with the King" 

Directed by: David Cronenberg
Released: 2007
Staring: Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen, Armin Mueller-Stahl, & Vincent Cassel
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 3

  It's David Cronenberg's birthday today and coincidentally I watched his film "Eastern Promises" last weekend. A film many say was in contention with Scorsese's "The Departed" for best mobster film of the past decade. Both released within a year of each other, Eastern Promises was produced on a much smaller scale but packs just as hard a punch.

  Where The Departed is a loud and brash game of cat and mouse, Eastern Promises has a quiet kind of suspense about it. Not to say this movie doesn't have it's fair share of violence because let's face it, it's Cronenberg. The man's middle name IS violence. *cough* History of Violence *cough* The trailer is a bit misleading from the actual plot of the film but the basic story is communicated quite well.
     
       p.s. I love The Departed just was much as Eastern Promises. I am not bashing it in anyway...just comparing the two.

 Viggo Mortensen is a knock out and I'm not just saying that because he has a nude fight scene in a bath house...but come on, that was pretty bad ass. There is a bit of a surprise tacked on to Mortensen's character at the end that really defines his actions and elevates the story to a whole new level. His Oscar nod was well deserved and I really wish he would take on more parts...more parts like this one. Check out his flawless performance in this scene with Armin Mueller-Stahl, another silent, yet hurricane like force that drives the film.

  If you like mafia flicks, great acting, and a touch of violence, I highly suggest you watch Eastern Promises. It's a film that takes you out of the hunt and inside the mob, the family, and the consequences. Beautifully directed by David Cornenberg who today turns 70.

David Cornenberg on the set of "Eastern Promises"

 

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.