angel-131

...Baz Lurhmann is surely a master chef. I have seen three of his films now, he has proven over and over that he knows the power of music in a film. "Moulin Rouge" is a prime example of this, being a musical by genre. And it is a film with so much potential it nearly hurts to see it thrown aside for editing and manic insanity.

The sets/costumes were wonderful. The music was amazing. There was so much potential in the cast...but there was too much "wackiness" and too little raw emotional power.

The film begins too quickly. I loved the flashback structure, but once the story, itself, began, it moved far too quickly. I have no quarrel with "love at first sight," but here it seemed a bit out of place, especially with someone in Satine's profession. If Lurhmann had lengthened the time between Satine and Christian's first meeting and the development of their love, I think I might have found it more believable. Also, I thought Satine seemed a bit overly nervous and...well...manic. Her character is reminiscent of Violetta Valery, but Violetta seemed more poised even outside the public eye.

The musical numbers were wonderful. "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" was fantastic. Peter Travers claimed Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor's voices were "barely serviceable," but I beg to differ. McGregor has a gorgeous warm tenor well-suited to any romantic lead in a musical theatre production and, while Kidman pales in comparison, she sounds pretty damn good for an untrained singer. Plus, it also must be taken into account that her character was not *supposed* to sound like La Divina. She was a courtesan by trade, who just happened to have a half-decent voice.

The Moulin, itself, was a fantasyland. Sets and costumes throughout this film were phenomenal - I felt as though I had been literally catapulted into an absinthe-dream of 1900 rather than 1900, itself. Which, I believe, was Lurhmann's intention, and it worked wonderfully.

The middle portions of the film were easily the best. The "Elephant Love Medley" was just plain cute, sweet, and funny, and Kidman's rendition of "One Day I'll Fly Away" was exquisitely poignant, especially with the glittering lights of the Moulin in the background. The camera seemed to zip through their affair, however, and that took away from the emotional effect.

Out of the entire film, there were two scenes that were carved into my mind as brilliant. One was the "Tango de Roxanne" - absolutely positively riveting. Gorgeous editing job, intercutting between the incredibly sexy tango and the scene with the Duke and Satine. The entire sequence, ending with Satine's attempted departure from the Moulin immediately elevated the film from the "rather good" status it had prior to those scenes.

The other was the entire production of "Spectacular Spectacular" - aptly named. I was stunned by the sheer visual beauty of the show, and the scene with Satine and Christian (that Lurhmann obviously pulled almost verbatim from "La Traviata") had me literally in tears. *That* was the chemistry between Kidman and McGregor. *That* was what this film should and could have been!! "Come What May" was equally gorgeous, and Lurhmann could have easily just ended the film there.

S P O I L E R

Satine's death scene was overdone. It would have been so much more effective if she had died offscreen, rather than resorting to the rather cliched "I will always be with you" that seems to haunt every death scene of every film.

In all, "Moulin Rouge" was a film with the potential to be a masterpiece. I will be seeing it again, definitely, for those scenes I loved, but it was not the film I anticipated for five months. Perhaps I expected too much from the photographs and the music. Perhaps I expected the original version before it fell through the shredding machine known as editing.

I daresay I will wait until it comes out on DVD and maybe those scenes I wanted will appear in the "Deleted Scenes" section.

Now, perhaps I'm out of my element writing a review for "Anna Karenina" without having read the book, but I shall do so regardless. Many criticised this film because it did not follow the book, or omitted one thing or another. That is all well and good, but what feature-length film *can* capture the entire scope of a novel the size of "Anna Karenina"? I watched the older version with Greta Garbo and--though I cannot imagine why--it never truly caught my attention. This version, however, captured me from the start. And I am usually the first one to complain about what is wrong with a remake in comparison to the old version. A paradox, indeed.

This film first caught my eye because of Sophie Marceau. I admire her immensely as an actress, having seen her in several films, both French and English. Then, I recognised Bernard Rose as the director of "Immortal Beloved", a film I had enjoyed some months before, mostly due to a magnificent performance by Gary Oldman, some of the most glorious music caught on film.

The music, I can probably cite as one of the main reasons I loved this film. I can think of no better love theme for a doomed romance like that of Anna and Vronsky, than the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. The use of "Swan Lake" at various points was also wonderful, and the interplay during the scene at the ballet held me mesmerised. Vronsky speaks of Anna being trapped in her marriage as the Prince seeks to capture the Swan Queen. Perhaps I'm just rambling, but somehow that connected.

On the whole, the performances were good. Sophie Marceau was perfectly believable as Anna, and some of her scenes sent chills down my spine, though my favourite performance of hers still has to be "Firelight". Sean Bean had me worried for a few seconds, with a mannered reading or two, but improved quickly as the film progressed. Another reviewer pointed out that Vronsky was meant to be a shallower character than Anna, and now that I think back on it, I believe that is very true, and that Sean Bean's performance reflected this superficiality. Mia Kirshner was adequate--I didn't particularly care for her--but Alfred Molina and James Fox both gave fine performances (a standout for me was when Anna wrote Karenin from Italy and Karenin wavered before refusing to let her see Sergei).

However, equally on par with the actors, was the setting. Very few films, I have to admit, can look *so* beautiful. Especially the ballroom scene, with the seemingly neverending hallway of gilded doors, the location photography was spectacular. The costumes were stunning, and the cinematography made even snow seem alive. Even if you do not care for the story or the acting, this is a film to watch for visuals.

Thus, I believe that this film deserves far more credit than it received. I, personally, loved it for varied reasons, but I have to admit that what truly captured me was the way Bernard Rose can take an average script and transform it into a beautiful film using visuals and music. Very few directors take the time to put music and image together if they use classical scores (my favourites would be David Lean and John Boorman), and I believe Bernard Rose should be watched in the future. I should love to see what he would do with a film set in late 19th century Italy, when opera was at its height!

***1/2 out of ****

So many people have criticised this film for winning Best Picture of 1998 over "Saving Private Ryan". I saw both films and the latter was *extremely* good, but when I think about it, how long has it been since a 'comedy' won Best Picture?

True, not all of "Shakespeare in Love" is comedy--the last scenes had me in tears--but the structure of the story provides room for both comedy and drama. I enjoyed this film thoroughly because it was multilayered. You did not have to be a Shakespeare fanatic (as I am) to understand the story, but if you were, it provided many a laugh with specific bits of dialogue or visuals.

There are some rather glaring innacuracies, especially regarding Virginia, which was not colonised until 1607 (the film takes place in 1593).

Performances, on the whole, were extremely charming. Standouts included Colin Firth as Wessex, Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth and, oddly enough, Simon Callow as Master Tilney. Joseph Fiennes was very good as the Bard, himself, though I still believe Cate Blanchett should have won the Oscar for "Elizabeth" rather than Gwyneth Paltrow for her performance here.

When I first saw a preview of this film, I imagined "oh, just another remake of Jane Eyre". But, because of my liking for Sophie Marceau and my love of "Jane Eyre", I rented it...and I loved it.

This film takes a unique perspective, concentrating more upon the relationship between mother and daughter, rather than the romance between mother and father. Though the story is an oft-told one, this is a film whose magic will grasp you, just as the mentioned firelight within.

Sophie Marceau gives a wonderful performance as Elisabeth, combining her lovely face with the warmth of any mother towards her child. Stephen Dillane is also very good, but I was entirely *riveted* by Dominique Belcourt as little Louisa. Her performance had no artifice---she had no problem acting like the little brat, then slowly beginning to soften as she discovered what a life could be without hating everyone other than her father.

The costumes were as good as any other recent period film and the sets were *gorgeous*, especially the famous "lake house".

Therefore, despite a plot everyone knows, "Firelight" utterly charmed me and held me spellbound even after its conclusion.

I had not heard about this mini-series until I read about it in TV Guide. To say the least, I was intrigued. "The Count of Monte Cristo" is one of my favorite books and I had yet to see a film that encompassed the entire story as opposed to stripping it down to the main plot. I had very high hopes when I read that it was to be a mini-series rather than a single film. Most of those hopes were very well achieved.

Gerard Depardieu was not the man I had envisioned as Edmond Dantes but his performance was realistic and passionate, easily one of his best (along with Germinal and Cyrano de Bergerac). I truly enjoyed his interpretation of the character; the performance had me enthralled.

The rest of the cast was fantastic. I was pleasantly surprised to see family members in the cast, which made it all the more realistic, especially with Gerard and Guillaume Depardieu playing the elder and younger Edmond Dantes. Ornella Muti was utterly heartbreaking as Mercedes, as was Florence Darel, who played Camille de la Richardais, a character not in the book but wonderfully cast nonetheless. Christopher Thompson stole many a scene as Maximilien Morrel, a character too often left out of film versions.

The only complaint I had (which was a small one) was the beginning of the mini-series. Rather than setting the stage and foreshadowing Edmond's fate, the film began in the Chateau d'If. Everything became clear through flashbacks but somehow that is not the same as seeing it firsthand. Also, the Abbe Faria was underused; his effect on Edmond's life is so important. I think he deserved more than fifteen minutes of screen time.

Other than that, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a marvelous film. The acting was superb, the direction excellent and the story . ..classic.

Unfortunately for me, I did not get to see the first two "Hornblower" episodes but I did get to see this one. It was certainly wonderful. Ioan Gruffudd was absolutely phenomenal; not only talented but exceedingly handsome to boot! I can't wait till next week when I can enjoy this wonderful miniseries yet again!