Mar
28
2007
Dir: Julian Jarrold
Writ: Kevin Hood & Sarah Williams
- Anne Hathaway - Jane Austen
- James McAvoy - Tom Lefroy
- Julie Walters - Mrs. Austen
- James Cromwell - Rev Austen
- Maggie Smith - Lady Gresham
- Joe Anderson - Henry Austen
- Laurence Fox - Mr. Wisley
- Ian Richardson - Judge Langlois

There really isn’t all that much to this film, which is loosely based on the life of Jane Austen, it is watchable but not memorable. The film amps up the real-life flirtation between Austen and Tom Lefroy to turn it into a full blown romance, with elopement and other such excitements thrown in. There may be some who are annoyed by the historical inaccuracies, I didn’t really care. However, knowing it was based on Jane Austen’s life means that there really was no point in the whole “will they won’t they” drama. You can’t keep an audience guessing when they know the ending.
Apart from that I found the first half of this film quite slow. Hathaway didn’t have the personality or screen presence to engage, and McAvoy was far too believable as the rogue to ever repent. And then there is the fact that Lefroy is Irish, and so obviously one of the “evil English invaders” oppressing Ireland, so he was never going to be in my good books
Watching a romance between two characters that you don’t really like, and when you know the ending, isn’t really all that great. I did enjoy Fox’s Mr Wisley though, Jane should’ve chosen him from the beginning. Would have made far more sense.
I also had a bit of a problem with the whole love story. Once Lefroy tells Jane that Show Spoilers ▼
he is entirely dependent on his uncle for cash then there is no way he can marry her. After all we already knew he had a large family back home, and that they would be dependent on him. Money, as Mrs. Austen tell us, is “absolutely indispensable!”
The second half was an improvement, but it didn’t blend properly with the beginning. The whole film felt unbalanced, as though they weren’t sure whether this was to be a light-hearted romance or a sad tale of unrequited love. But on the plus side the costumes were pretty, and every thing looked nice.
IMDb | Wikipedia on Lefroy | Austen-tatious | Monomania Diaries
Tags:
6 Stars,
Anne Hathaway,
Becoming Jane,
Britain - Regency,
fictional bio,
historical inaccuracies,
Ian Richardson,
James Cromwell,
James McAvoy,
Jane Austen,
Joe Anderson,
Julian Jarrold,
Julie Walters,
Kevin Hood,
Laurence Fox,
Maggie Smith,
romance,
Sarah Williams,
unbalanced
Related posts
Mar
23
2007
Dir: Zack Snyder
Writ: Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnston, Michael Gordon and based on the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller & Lynn Varley
- Gerard Butler - King Leonidas
- Lena Headey - Queen Gorgo
- Dominic West - Theron
- David Wenham - Dilios
- Vincent Regan - Captain
- Michael Fassbender - Stelios
- Tom Wisdom - Astinos
- Rodrigo Santoro - Xerxes

I have a feeling that how you feel at the end of seeing this film will be hugely coloured by your mindset before the film began. Personally I loved it. Wonderful visuals and a great story. Wasn’t overly impressed with the characterisation, but you can’t have everything.
The film begins with a voice-over, and this narrator pipes up throughout the film, sometimes describing the action that we are watching on screen. I have no doubt that some will find this redundant, but, given the ending and who the narrator is I think this device actually works really well. Plus he does add to the melodramatic, over the top atmosphere that make this such a good film.
Overblown and over the top, almost pompous in its grand vision. And yet it just works. Somehow they’ve managed to draw the viewer in, using dialogue and visuals that could so easily have done nothing but remind you that this is a highly stylised film. The visuals are often lacking in realism. The characters are larger than life, the action is brutal, the culture hugely strange. And it is great.
There were one or two instances when I did find myself thinking that the constant references to freedom and the evil tyrant were overdone and not a little incorrect given the fact that if you were a slave in Spartan society then life back then was pretty far from easy. But this isn’t really historical fiction, it is an action film, and as such it is almost perfect. I also loved the soundtrack. So much so that I did just try and buy it online, but the official website wants you to use iTunes, I don’t, so I was forced into borrowing it.
Top marks all around for a violent, visceral, blood-splattered film, and I can’t finish my review without saying, my god, did you see those abs?
IMDb | Wikipedia on the Battle of Thermopylae | Dark Horse | I am the Lizard Queen | Villagers with Torches | Stainless Steel Droppings
Tags:
10 Stars,
300,
action,
Ancient Greece - Sparta,
based on comic,
bloody,
brilliant,
David Wenham,
death,
Dominic West,
Frank Miller,
Gerard Butler,
great story,
historical fiction,
historical inaccuracies,
Kurt Johnston,
Lena Headey,
loved it,
Lynn Varley,
melodramatic,
Michael Fassbender,
Michael Gordon,
poor characterisation,
Rodrigo Santoro,
soldier,
Tom Wisdom,
Vincent Regan,
visually stunning,
War,
Zack Snyder
Related posts
Jan
24
2007
Dir: Mel Gibson
Writ: Mel Gibson, Farhad Safina
- Rudy Youngblood - Jaguar Paw
- Dalia Hernandez - Seven
- Jonathan Brewer - Blunted
I’m not really too sure what to say about this film, because I came out of it thinking “what was the point?”
The story is a fairly simple one; Jaguar Paw is captured by an evil tribe who want to rip his heart out in sacrifice to the gods. He on the other hand doesn’t want this to happen, especially as he has left his heavily pregnant wife and young son hiding, and now trapped, back near his village.
Yes it looks great, and yes it keeps you interested, but it really isn’t anything more than that. If this had been shot in English I’m guessing that it would have had no more comment than any other action flick. Instead, because it of its setting and the language used it has had all this media hype. But in the end, it is nothing more than an action/adventure film with plenty of blood splattered about the shop. There are no real characters to the film. Jaguar Paw is the hero; okay so at the beginning his father warns him not to have fear, but that is essentially his character, to be the hero. Other characters are similarly lacking in depth. There is the evil sadistic bad-guy, the evil just-doing-his-job bad guy. The comic relief guy, blah, blah, blah.
There are good things about the film, the actors do well in the roles they are given, but they are never overly stretched. The action is gripping, and you’ll be entertained. But in the end I was left with a sense of “and your point is?”
And as for this whole notion that the film is about the downfall of the Mayan empire, it isn’t. Yes, it shows the Mayan’s and their great city, and their cutting the still beating hearts out of their enemies’ bodies, but that is just to provide something for Jaguar Paw to fear and run from. The Mayans here are simply the generic bad guys of any action film.
R.e.y.m.o.v.i.e.s | Is Apocalypto Pornography? [archaeology.org] | Critic After Dark | Confessions of a Film Critic
Image source
Tags:
4 Stars,
action,
Apocalypto,
Bored Now!,
chase movie,
Dalia Hernandez,
Farhad Safina,
historical fiction,
historical inaccuracies,
Jonathan Brewer,
Mayan,
Mel Gibson,
Rudy Youngblood,
subtitled,
violence
Related posts
Aug
10
2005
Do you remember when Braveheart came out, and everyone was going on about how great it was? Were they simpler times do you reckon, or were we just blinded by the gore?
I ask the question because now I really can’t watch that film at all without thinking how shite it is. I can still enjoy it on some level[1], but I don’t think I’ve sat through the entire film in quite a while. Even when it was the telly a short while ago and there was nothing else on at all, I still spent most of my time station hopping.
So when The Community at Large had an entry entitled Braveheart ripped apart, well I couldn’t resist now could I?
And so I found the history-film sporkers, and their wonderful take on how really wrong almost everything and anything that appeared in Braveheart was.
Wallace senior: Let’s fight the English!
Fellow Scots: Umh, ah… you know, we’re farmers… all the noblemen were killed at the meeting!
fourth_rose: Then who’s Robert the Bruce, pray?
cutecoati: And since when are the Wallaces farmers? Lower gentry, okay, but farmers?
Wallace senior: We don’t have to beat them, just fight them.
cutecoati: Now that’s what I call a strategist!
fourth_rose: And look, they got their swords hidden under the roofs of their cottages!
cutecoati: Thank God it never rains in Scotland
…
cutecoati:: Wait, let me at least get the timelines straight (no, that was not intended as a pun). William Wallace was born in the 1270s and died in 1305. Edward II was born in 1284 and married Isabelle in 1308 when he was already king and Wallace was dead!
[1] - mainly the “all Sasanach are bastard’s” level, but that’s only good for 5 minutes before it gets old. Cause everyone knows that you English peoples are evil and love nothing more than gore and blood and torture. What do you mean that’s only true in Mel Gibon films? (back)
Tags:
Braveheart,
historical inaccuracies,
spork
Related posts