Pride and Prejudice (2005)

 Surprisingly, with all of my Austen inspired reviews on my blog over the past six years, the only movie/mini-series version of Pride and Prejudice that I have reviewed is the series from 1980. I need to rectify that situation, and the Pride and Prejudice Bicentenary Challenge is the perfect opportunity to do it!

I recently DVR’d Pride and Prejudice 2005 and thought it was high time for me to rewatch a movie that I love. I own in on DVD, but I have gotten lazy in this digital age and prefer to watch movies on the DVR (or Netflix) where I can pause and keep the movies for later. This especially is useful as most of my movie watching time these days is while I’m folding laundry at night. As a side note, I am much saddened that only the 1980 version of Pride and Prejudice is available on Netflix. I hope the other editions become available soon. This review is of the movie as it compares to other Pride and Prejudice features and does not include a summary of the movie. Check out one of my many reviews of Pride and Prejudice over the years for a more detailed review and summary of the plot.

Whenever I was watching this version of Pride and Prejudice, my kids enjoyed it as well. I was especially amused that my five-year old son and two-year old daughter took such a shine to it. I told my husband Ben and that this will help Daniel win over the ladies when he is older and can talk about Jane Austen. By the end of the movie, I had convinced Ben that after all of these years of being married that he needs to watch Pride and Prejudice. This occurred after he argued with me for a few minutes that Elizabeth and Darcy DO NOT get married. I’m not sure how he got it so wrong, except that I can never convince him to watch it.

The Pride and Prejudice motion picture in 2005 is a beautiful movie, but it seems like Pride and Prejudice on fast forward. Many key items are so rushed, but it was necessary to make this a 2 hour movie. I much prefer one of the mini-series formats that keep the entire wonderful novel intact.

The visuals are for this version much grittier and more realistic than previous versions. There is much more of a difference between Longborn and Netherfield Park. I don’t really like this version of Longborn with pigs in the kitchen and all. It is a little too gritty to my taste and doesn’t seem the house of a gentleman to me.

I know I will get butchered here by Matthew McFadyen fans, but he seems way too cold and can I say, awkward. Colin Firth (aka the perfect Mr. Darcy), had Mr. Darcy down pat. He was austere, but yet had a certain look in his eye that promised much more.

I like how the actors portraying the characters appear to be the correct age in this movie and not far too old as they often area.

Mr. Collins as played by (Tom Hollander) is actually kind of cute and cuddly. Sure he spouts off his annoying lines, but I like him. He is not the slimy unlikeable Mr. Collins (David Bamber) in the 1995 production. He was perfect.

(Rupert Friend) as Mr. Wickham is beautiful. With such a specimen of a man, you can easily see why Lizzie and her sisters would be enchanted and willing to believe the best of him. The only downfall is that he is on the screen so little. He is introduced, gives his sad story about Mr. Darcy, and then is married to Lydia. The suspense for this part of the plot was not given enough time to develop

I love the music with this movie. Listening to it again made me realize I need to put the soundtrack on my wish list!

Overall, Pride and Prejudice from 2005 is a lush and wonderful adaptation of the classic novel. While it can’t beat a mini-series to me, it is the best movie adaptation.

Dickens Masterpiece Spring 2012 Preview

As we wrap up our month long celebration of Charles Dickens, we still have much to look forward to in 2012, the bicentennial year of Dickens’ birth.  Masterpiece is bringing out two new adaptations of Dickens’ work, Great Expectations on April 1^st and 8^th and The Mystery of Edwin Drood on April 15^th.  I’ve really enjoyed the Masterpiece Dickens over the past few years, especially Bleak House and Little Dorrit. Let’s take a quick look at these new adaptations . . .

Great Expectations

The description of the mini-series on Masterpiece’s website is as follows:

“An orphan boy meets an escaped convict, a crazed rich woman, a bewitching girl, and grows up to have great expectations of wealth from a mysterious patron, on Great Expectations, Charles Dickens' remarkable tale of rags to riches to self-knowledge, starring Gillian Anderson (The X-Files, Bleak House), David Suchet (Hercule Poirot), Ray Winstone, and Douglas Booth.

Anderson appears as one of Dickens' most haunting creations: Miss Havisham, a bride-to-be who was jilted at the altar years before. Newcomer Booth stars as Pip, the promising young man who is snared in Miss Havisham's lair.


Great Expectations airs during the bicentennial of Dickens' birth and marks the fifteenth Masterpiece adaptation of the great novelist's works."

 

Watch Great Expectations Preview on PBS. See more from Masterpiece.

Whenever I think of Great Expectations in cinema, I think of the rather sad modern day adaptation in the 1990’s starring Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow.  Luckily, from the preview on Masterpiece’s website (above) , it looks like this adaptation will be much more faithful to the novel.  What do you think of the preview?  I am officially intrigued although I think the music doesn’t really go with the preview at all and I think that Gillian Anderson makes a much younger and much more beautiful Miss Havisham than I ever envisioned while reading the novel.  She was an excellent Lady Dedlock in Bleak House and I am intrigued to see what new depths she brings to Miss Havisham.

Great Expectation already premiered on BBC in Great Britain in December.  I’ve read some of the reviews, and it appears that it was a critical success.  The only negative point I kept reading was that Douglas Booth, the actor who plays a grown up Pip, is too beautiful to be Pip.  Pip in the novel is always pining after Estelle and the reviewers think this this version, it should be the other way around.  I don’t have a problem having a handsome hero to gaze at . . . what about you?  I am excited to see this new version!

The Mystery of Edwin Drood

The Mystery of Edwin Drood was Charles Dickens’ last unfinished novel, with only half being completed before his death.  I haven’t read it or ever watched a version of it so it will be all new to me.  Unfortunately Masterpiece does not have a summary or preview up of this movie yet.  It did air on BBC in Great Britain in January with an original ending written by Gwyneth Hughes (see a great interview here about her writing process ).  I did find a preview trailer from the BBC on YouTube. ).

What are your thoughts?  I thought the trailer was very exciting and can’t wait to watch it.  Dickens knows how to go dark, but this looks like Dickens was going in a much darker direction in his last novel. Opium addiction, murder, mystery, and love – it all sounds like a very intriguing story.

Reviews call it a “thriller (and a) story of human passions and fatal weaknesses,” “not to be missed,” and “thrilling!”  It sounds like another must see Masterpiece movie and I can’t wait to watch it. 

I will post full reviews after watching both of these adaptations in April.  Which one are you more excited to see?  What are your thoughts?  What Dickens novel do you think deserves a new adaptation?

Wuthering Heights (1939)

1939 was an epic year of filmmaking with Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach, and Wuthering Heights. Wuthering Heights is based on the novel by Emily Bronte and starred Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff, Merle Oberon as Catherine, and David Niven as Edgar. For a summary and review of the novel Wuthering Heights, please see this link.

This movie overall makes Heathcliff and Catherine into much more romantic leads than what was originally in Emily Bronte’s novel. They are painted solely as star-crossed lovers that are just never able to get together because of various misunderstandings. The movie leaves out the entire second half of the novel, which shows how Heathcliff carefully plotted his revenge onto the second generation. In this movie, there are no children born.

Heathcliff first of all is portrayed by the very handsome Laurence Olivier. While I love Laurence Olivier and think he is a spectacular actor, he is not the dark personage described in Wuthering Heights. He is viewed in much more a sympathetic light because of the lack of showing his revenge on the second generation. His wife Isabella is shown to be miserable solely because of his continued love for Catherine. His abuse of her and the knowledge that he only married her to be able to inherit the Linton estate, Thrushcross Grange, is not mentioned. I believe that this movie may be one reason that people think of Heathcliff as a romantic character, when he is really not a very likeable character.

Merle Oberon is a good Catherine, although her selfish motives do not take center stage. I found her to be a much more unlikeable character in the book than in this production. David Niven is a good Edgar, although if I were Catherine and had to choose between a Laurence Olivier Heathcliff and a David Niven Edgar, I would be hard pressed to pick Edgar. You have a passionate love for Heathcliff who shares your passion and he is also hot as sin. Why are you picking the boring neighbor again? I feel kind of sorry for David Niven. I know him from being the Bishop in The Bishop’s Wife. In that movie, he is afraid his wife, Loretta Young, is developing feelings for an angel played by Cary Grant. Niven always seems to be the second fiddle.

The deathbed scene seemed strange to me. There is a very passionate speech from Heathcliff, while Catherine’s husband Edgar kneels by the bed in a prayerful poise saying nothing. This is very different than the death scene in the book. Catherine and Heathcliff have a passionate speech to each other when Edgar is away at church. There is suspense when he returns and he “flies at” Heathcliff enraged to see him there, but Catherine faints. Edgar has a bit more edge to him in the novel.

I did not like the omission of Hindley’s wife, Frances. Hindley is not a good man, but you can understand him better in the novel. First he has to see his father love Heathcliff rather than himself, and then his beloved wife Frances dies. It is easier to see why he became an alcoholic when Frances is in the picture and it humanizes Hindley.

Overall, I enjoyed the romance of the 1939 film version of Wuthering Heights, but I think it did a poor job of bringing Emily Bronte’s classic to life. The romance actually took away from Bronte’s original intent, and the omission of the younger generation made it so the viewers were unable to see the masterful plotting of revenge by Heathcliff.

This if my first item for the Victorian Challenge 2012.



Jane Eyre (2011)

As readers of this blog know, I am more than slightly obsessed with all things Bronte. One of my particular obsessions is watching all movie and TV versions of Jane Eyre. One of my fondest memories is watching the 1983 TV version of Jane Eyre starring Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester with my best friend Jenn while we were in high school. Even to us teenagers in the 1990’s the 1983 version was dated with poor background scenery and some rather bad dialogue. Even now, if one of us says, “She is a strapper, a REAL strapper,” it’s enough to send me into a fit of laughter.

It is always interesting to me how Jane Eyre is adapted from a beloved novel to the big (or small) screen. Some versions are excellent (2006 mini-series), while others are rather lacking (1983 mini-series). I am happy to say that I thought the 2011 version of Jane Eyre was one of the better productions – I loved it!

 

This version of Jane Eyre starred Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. I have never seen the movies they are famed for (Alice in Wonderland and Inglourious Basterds respectively), but their superb acting in this movie makes me want to go and watch all of the other movies that they have been in. Wasikowska and Fassbender were both excellent leads with superb chemistry. You could almost feel it cackling off of the screen, particularly during a snowstorm scene where Mr. Rochester swooped into the room and swept Jane into his arms. This may have only been a figment of Jane’s imagination and not in the original novel, but it was highly romantic and a great addition. Is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

Judi Dench was also fantastic as Mrs. Fairfax. It was the best portrayal of that character that I’ve seen. I thought she really humanized the character into more than a cliche.

I thought the screenplay had an interesting framing of the story. It started at the middle of the novel with Jane’s flight from Thornfield and subsequent refuge at the Rivers’ home. I’m glad the Rivers were included as the second half of the novel has been left out of a lot of productions. This framing makes the story rather dramatic and mysterious if you don’t know the story of Jane’s flight. One negative though is that it makes the story seem as a romance between St. John and Jane as we know them together with some spark between them (at least on St. John’s end) before Mr. Rochester is introduced.

I particularly loved the lighting of this movie. It was eerie with the lights going dim at night with just the small light from a candle. It seemed more like the lighting would have been at the time and I loved the gothic feel. I also loved the sweeping music, it was beautiful. I need to look for the soundtrack!

The Lowood School scenes in this movie made me sad as they always do. I find that part of the novel heart wrenching, particularly because Charlotte Bronte and her poor sisters lived through a similarly dreary school experience that ended with the deaths of her older sisters Elizabeth and Maria.

I thought the romance between Jane and Mr. Rochester seemed sudden in the movie. This is probably due to the lack of time for build-up (it is a rather large novel). I enjoy the build-up of love in a longer mini-series. Some of my favorite scenes also didn’t make it into the movie (also probably due to time constraints) including Rochester’s turn as a gypsy, Jane’s torn wedding veil, and the very end of the novel “Reader, I married him.”

Overall though, the filmmakers succeeded in making a gothic, romantic version of Jane Eyre in the time constraints of a movie. I loved the leads and need to purchase this movie so I can watch it again . . . and again!

Have you seen this version of Jane Eyre yet? What did you think? Make sure to let me know in your comments. I loved Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester, but there have been many good Rochesters over the years. Vote on your favorite Mr. Rochester in my poll on the sidebar. We’ll have a Mr. Rochester discussion about the results next month – but you can also voice your opinion in the comments on this post.

Speaking of polls, I’ve also added one about the “All About the Brontes” Challenge. I hosted it in 2010 and I’m thinking about bringing it back for 2012. Would you be interested in joining it again? What can be done to improve it? Or should I try something different, but related such as a “Gothic” challenge, women of suspense challenge, Victorian Literature, or 19th century authors challenge? Vote on the poll and let me know your thoughts in the comments on this post!

DVD Source: The Kewaunee Public Library

2011 Movie Update

 I love to watch movies. When I first started this blog, I would post about each movie that I watched. Now if you look at my blog, you would think the only movies I watch are to fulfill Jane Austen challenges. Back in my single, dating, and newly married days, there was nothing I loved better than going out friends or Ben to the movie theatre. My movie watching has decreased with time and more kids, but I still watch movies. Ben and I don’t get to the movie theatre too much anymore. When you have three kids and the movie theatre is 30 to 45 minutes away, the babysitter fees are too much to get out that often. Most of the movies I watch are DVDs from the library, on Turner Classic Movies, or are on Starz (we get Starz “free” this year because of an increase in our monthly bill from Dish). I mostly watch movies in pieces during times I’m nursing Penelope . . . my movie time is going away now that she is getting weaned.

The following are movies I’ve watched this summer that I enjoyed. What movies have you watched and enjoyed lately? When do you watch movies?

Oscar Contenders:

The King’s Speech – Wow, sometimes I watch best picture contenders and I find myself wondering what the fuss is about and vowing to never watch that movie again (I’m looking at you No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood). The King’s Speech was a positive movie that I loved and would enjoy watching again and again. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are spectacular as King “Bertie” George VI and Lionel Logue. I love how the movie is not only a tale of an unlikely friendship, but how a great tale of working to overcome a disability.

True Grit – I also loved True Grit. It was a great story also with brilliant performances. I have never seen the original or read the book so I can’t compare. Hailee Steinfield steals the show as Mattie Ross, a young teenage girl trying to avenge her father’s murder. She hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help her track down the killer. They are joined by a Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who is tracking the same guy. I thought the cinematography, music, script, and acting were all superb. I loved this movie. Ben only saw pieces of it, but he was stopped in his tracks each time and had a few laughs at some of the witty dialogue. I did the The King’s Speech better, but True Grit was a very close second best film of 2010 in my opinion.

Period Movies

Bright Star – I really enjoyed this tragic love story of the poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne. I didn’t know anything about this story at all and I enjoyed learning about the love affair. I also thought the cinematography was very beautiful and I loved the costumes. I also loved to hate poet Charles Brown, the arrogant friend of Keats that had a declared hatred for Fanny.

The Last Station – I always love learning something new about writers and historical figures. The Last Station gave me an education about Leo Tolstoy and his very unconventional end of life. The end of the movie had me want to burst through the TV and strangle Paul Giamatti as the sinister Chertkov. Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer gave powerhouse performances as Tolstoy and his wife Sofya. I also enjoyed James McAvoy as the young Bulgakov, but Mirren and Plummer really stole the show.

The Young Victoria – As you can tell from the books I read, I may be slightly obsessed with British royalty. I loved this movie starring Emily Blunt as the young Victoria before and shortly after becoming queen of England. The romance between Print Albert, Rupert Friend, and Victoria was beautiful.

Chick Flicks

Easy A – Another movie I absolutely adored. I love chick flicks, rom-coms, whatever you like to call them – but I’ve felt that recent fair the past few years has been not the greatest. I was pleasantly surprised to discover Easy A. Emma Stone has a fantastic performance in this movie, which is a modern take on The Scarlet Letter. It is an original take on a classic, in the same vein as Clueless was to Emma.

(500) Days of Summer – Another non-traditional rom-com that I really enjoyed. I loved that it was from a man’s point of view of the 500 days he spent falling in love, in relationship with, and trying to get over a perfect girl named Summer.

Classics

Letter to Three Wives – This was a rather saucy tale of a letter a “friend” sends on her way out of town to three wives saying she has run off with one of their husbands. All three wives flash back to how they got together with their husbands and current relationship problems that may be the cause of their husband leaving them. A great early performance of Kirk Douglas.

I know I watched other great movies this summer, but these are the ones that I really enjoyed and am still thinking about. I really like sci-fi and action movies, but didn’t really watch any this summer for whatever reason.

What have you been watching lately? Any great movies you would recommend?

The Duchess

Warning - spoilers ahead in this review!

The Duchess is a period movie staring Keira Knightly as Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire. Georgiana is a Spencer who marries the most eligible bachelor in England, William, the Duke of Devonshire. As the new Duchess of Devonshire, Georgiana becomes a trend setter and the most popular woman in England. For all of her wealth and popularity, Georgiana finds that her husband is "the one man in England not in love with his wife." She befriends Lady Charlotte, only to have her husband cheat on her with Charlotte in her own home. Georgiana tries to find true love with Charles Grey, but is unable to break free from her marriage and strange living situation with William and Charlotte.

Overall, I thought the movie was mediocre. It did have one heart wrenching moment when Geogiana is forced to give up her love child. It also had some good points on how inequality among sexes as William is allowed to have a live in mistress, but Georgiana is not allowed to have her passion to the side. Overall it was inconsistent (Georgiana can't leave her husband because she doesn't want to abandon her children yet she can abandon her love child. What??) and mearly brushed the surface of Georgiana's life without going into details. It would have been a better movie if it would have really shown the interesting things Georgiana did in her political life and really played up the love between her and Charles. I found myself not really caring about the characters.

I think if you are really interested in the subject, skip the movie and instead read the book, Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire by Amanda Foreman. It is a fantastic book and really gives you the depth about Georgiana that is missing from the movie.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

I watched Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day about a week and a half ago. It was a cute movie. I am a great fan of 1930's romantic comedies. This movie reminded me of the old movies I love, especially because of it's 1930's London setting. It was interesting to watch the documentary on the DVD and discover that it was a novel written in the 1930's and sold for film rights at that time, but put off because of WWII.

Miss Pettigrew (Frances McDormand) is a governess who has just lost her job. In desperate straights, she steals the business card of a woman from the employment office that needs a governess. Much to her surprise, Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams) does not need a governess, but a social secretary to juggle her many men. Miss Pettigrew puts away her misgivings and goes with the whirlwind for the day.

I loved both women in these roles. I liked Miss Pettigrew's makeover and the fact that she also had a romance with the excellent Ciaran Hinds as Joe Blomfeld. I loved the 1930's music and the foreshadowing of WWII. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It's a light and sweet movie.

The Other Bolyen Girl

Yes - I actually went to a movie, in a theatre! Quite exciting for me. My best friend Jenn was up to visit for the weekend last weekend and we went to Green Bay to watch The Other Bolyen Girl on sunday. My favorite part of the movie experience was on leaving the theatre, Jenn said, "That didn't end the way I thought it would." Jenn you crack me up sometimes!! Any historical fiction movie about Anne Boleyn is bound to end one way (off with her head!!) as much as we wish Henry VIII was a little more compassionate towards his wifes! So in other words, if you are looking for a happy movie, this is not for you! Also if you are looking for a historically accurate portrayal of Anne and Mary Boleyn, there are a lot of plot holes and obvious inaccuracies that will make you angry. I was willing to overlook these for the sake of the story!

I have read the novel that this is based on, but it has been quite a few years so I can't complain on how well it did or didn't follow the novel. It did make some changes that I approved of, although I noticed other things were off, I was willing to go with it.

The overall plot of the movie was about the rise and fall of the Boleyns. Uncle Norfolk and Thomas Boleyn decide that Thomas' eldest daughter Anne should try to capture the eye of King Henry now that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon has soured. During a trip to visit the Boleyns, Anne inadvertently leads to the King being in an accident. The King is attended by Anne's sister Mary, a tender hearted young girl who has only recently married. He is interested in her and has her and Anne sent to court. There Mary becomes his mistress and falls in love with Henry. Meanwhile Anne runs off with young Henry Percy. He is not allowed to marry without council and the King's permission because he is a noblemen so the Boleyns separate the two and send Anne to France. Anne is angry at Mary for telling her father of the marriage. Mary becomes pregnant with the King's child and Anne returns to England to keep Henry's attention. She refuses to sleep with him and he finds himself smitten with her. Although Mary bears him a son, he sends her away and chases after Anne, breaking Mary's heart. Henry then tries to annul his marriage to Catherine so he can be with Anne . . . and the course of history takes over!!

I loved the performances of Scarlett Johnason as Mary, Natalie Portman as Anne, Kirsten Scott Thomas as their mother Lady Boleyn, and Eric Bana as Henry VIII. They were fantastic performances. I especially liked Scott Thomas as a suffering woman who does not like her daughters being used as pawns. Eric Bana was HOT as Henry the VIII. I don't think Henry VIII has ever looked so sexy. The movie did a good job as showing how Anne turned him from a "faithful" husband and Catholic into someone who no longer has respect for his wife and was dismayed at his loss of religion. It's easy to see how what Anne turned him into lead him down the road to having six wives. The costumes and scenary were also fantastic.

The only complaints I had about the movie were that I wish it had focused more on Mary. It was supposed to be Mary's story, but Anne's is so compelling she sort of runs away with the movie. One giant gape in the script is - what happened to Mary's 1st husband. He is around looking sad and then he's gone. They could have at least mentioned that he died!

Otherwise I thought the movie was a great tale of greed, corruption, and lust. I liked it - although I'm glad that I don't live in those times!!

The website for the movie has the great trailer on it and some good pictures. Click here!

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Elizabeth: The Golden Age was a beautiful movie (great costumes and cinematography) with fantastic acting (Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen, Geoffrey Rush), but sufferered from a poor script.

The story line was set during an exciting time of Elizabeth's reign, the Mary Queen of Scots fiasco, the Spanish Armada - it should have been great! Instead the movie seemed rather forced to me. I didn't like the anti-Catholic sentiments. Religion was a very important part of the politics of the day, but both Protestant and Catholics alike were causing trouble. Phillip II of Spain was Catholic, but was also a power hungry individual, being Catholic was not his full reason for sending the Armada to England.

In this movie, Elizabeth is getting older and still being shown heads of states around the world to marry. She is interested in none, but is interested in Walter Raleigh, a manly man, who has just returned from America. She of course can not marry him. He falls in love with one of her ladies-in-waiting, and meets Elizabeth's angry when they secretly marry. The "evil" Catholics are plotting Elizabeth's downfall and using her cousin Mary Queen of Scots (a Catholic) as part of their plot. (What was up with all of the died red clothes whenever they showed the plotters. I was confused). The plot is discovered after a failed assasination attempt and Mary is executed, much to Elizabeth's dismay. The Armada comes to attack England, but the English are victorious. The movie ends with Elizabeth holding Raleigh's baby with the epilogue that she may never have a child of her own, but she is the mother of all of England.

The plot sounds good, but I thought the execution of it in the movie didn't flow so well. First of all, I really like Samantha Morton, but she was miscast as Mary Queen of Scots. Mary should have been a beautiful, fiery woman with red hair of her own and a match for Elizabeth. She was not. As I noted above, the second problem with the movie was using the "evil" catholics as a plot device instead of giving the entire picture. Thirdly I think they tried to do too much. Focusing on just Mary or the Armada would have allowed for a fuller plot development.

Overall it was an okay movie, but I liked Elizabeth (the first movie) much better.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Ben and I watched the Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford over the weekend. Or rather we watched half of it and I finished it up on Tuesday while I was dusting. It seems by all of the reviews that I've read of the movie that most people love it, but others absolutely hated it. I found myself in between and consider it a mediocre movie that could have been great with better editing.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford tells the story of the end of Jesse James' life. From his introduction to Bob Ford, to his last train robbery, to his paranoia, it is a great portrait of Jesse James and Brad Pitt did a fantastic job. Casey Affleck also did a great job playing Robert Ford as a very young man who has hero worship for Jesse James, but yet fears for his own life through Jesse's paranoia.

The acting was fantastic, the cinematography was beautiful, and I loved the voice over story telling. What I didn't like was that the movie seemed to drag on endlessly. I found myself just wanting Jesse to be shot! The movie was 2.5 hours long and really should have been two hours or less. I think they really should have taken out a lot of the material from the first half of the movie. There were a lot of pointless scenes that didn't help much with character development or scenes that went too long.

If you only have time for one of the westerns that came out last fall, I recommend 3:10 to Yuma rather than this movie.