5 little known costume dramas you're bound to love

Do you have your guilty pleasure movie, dear reader? You know, that one movie you shut your door to watch, you hide under all your other DVDs hoping no one sees it, that one movie that you would NEVER say is your all time favorite, even though you've seen it more times than you've seen the sun set. Now while these five films are not the guiltiest of my guilty pleasures, they are some wonderfully creative and entertaining costume dramas not many have heard of, or--more likely--feel like unabashedly discussing. Join me, as we journey through the 18th Century centered costume drama and five movies you're bound to love (hopefully).

Triumph of Love
I start with the obvious. Mira Sorvino's acting (and normally she's a great actress) is AWFUL, pull out your teeth because sugar hurts them awful. But once you get past this, unfortunately pronounced, fact the movie is sweet and ironically funny. Base upon the Marivaux play Triomphe de l'amour first performed in 1732, Triumph of Love is a "classic French comedy" (ie - historically classic, not a film made in France and reflecting the allure of the culture) which bases itself in masked identities and witty dialogue. The short version: a usurper Princess falls in love with the rightful heir to the throne, Agis, who lives with the philosopher Hermocrates and his sister Leontine, from afar. Wishing to have Agis fall in love with her and humiliate those who have kept him from her, she disguises herself as a man of nobility and tries to infiltrate Agis's heart. However, while trying to win Agis's love, she makes both Hermocrates and Leontine fall in love as well. Anchored by Sir Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw, and lightened by a strong supporting cast, Triumph of Love is an 18th century period piece at its intellectual best and worst at the same time.

The Abduction Club
My dears, please don't berate me and go into the sordid and cruel real history of the Abduction Club. Trust me, I've been "schooled" on it before and believe when I say that this movie is still adorable. Most people, actually I feel safe in saying practically everyone who hasn't taken 18th century upper class Irish social history, has never heard of the historical Abduction Club. The film, on the other hand, is a movie so lovely I can't believe costume drama lovers have never heard of it! Picture it -- roguish men who are second or third sons, never set to inherit any of their father's fortune, abducting young rich ladies and asking for their hand in marriage, all based upon the highest premise of honor and duty and the fact that this girl already loves the abductor. This is the plot, and then you throw in Daniel Lapaine and Matthew Rhys and well what girl wouldn't want to be abducted? Of course one should have a fortune if they wish to be abducted, most of the time. When I found The Abduction Club it was like finding a best kept secret. Its adorable and goofy and the actors have wonderful chemistry. This movie is one of my favorites, and SO not a guilty pleasure.

The Clandestine Marriage 
We're going with a theme here dear reader, I think. You see The Clandestine Marriage is set in basically the same period as our last two movies. There is just something about 18th century period pieces that MUST be guilty. The Clandestine Marriage--as stated in the title--starts with a marriage that must be kept secret. Filled to the brim with some of our favorite character actors: Emma Chambers, Tom Hollander, and Timothy Spall, the film centers upon a marriage of convenience that suffers all the inconveniences imaginable, including the groom falling in love with the bride's secretly married sister. And then there's the very silly and very foolish father of the groom who just wants to marry a lovely, young anything and will work his dashing whiles as hard as it takes to get it.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
Ben Whishaw is masterful as Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, and orphan rat of the streets who has an exceptional nose. Tutored by a famous perfumer (who uses him more to create scents than to learn the trade) Jean-Baptiste discovers the foundation of creating perfumes. And then Jean-Baptiste decides to make the perfect perfume, and it will take the illuminating scents of 13 specific women to make it. When finished, the smell creates unimaginable euphoria and lust. This dark and haunting movie is a remarkable twist in costume dramas and brings us the first leading role for our dear Ben Whishaw. He's a murderer who doesn't fully understand that he's committing murder; he's a young boy driven to make something of perfect beauty no matter the cost. Perfume was shocking when I first saw it, and even more interesting the second time around.

Brotherhood of the Wolf
Like Perfume, its more of a murder-mystery movie that just happens to be centered in a past century. I prefer --especially since this is certainly one of my top guilty pleasure movies-- to watch this one in the middle of the night with the subtitles on. Based on the 18th century study of the beast of Gevaudan, The Brotherhood of the Wolf follows Gregoire DeFronsac and his trusted friend Mani as they try to discover just who is killing in the forests of France. I think I enjoy this movie basically for Vincient Cassel's Jean-Francois de Morangians who is one seriously dark and creepy character. There is never a better way to spend a Thursday night than watching this foreign film.

And there you have it! 5 costume dramas to add to your queue to watch. Most can be found on youtube, and many are playing currently on directTV. But just remember, like all surprisingly delightful costume dramas --and guilty pleasures-- these can be best enjoyed with a little chocolate and a nice cold glass of wine. (At least, that's my way.)

Jane Eyre, the Rusty review

Dear readers, yesterday a miracle happened: the stars aligned, the box office was bored, or someone at the Penn Cinema has a serious love of period drama. Jane Eyre was playing. Playing more than once. Like, for serious. And when I found out the theatre was only 30 minutes away (which is WAY closer than one would imagine), I roped my mother into taking me to the matinee. (Click here to see if its playing in your town.) There were only 11 people in the theatre, of whom I was the youngest, and half were forced into seeing the movies with their girlfriends or wives. Now that I've set the scene, lets discuss the movie.

I'll warn you now, if you thought this would be a glowing review, put your big girl corest on, you might not like me much at the end. That being said, somethings were done REALLY well, but if I was only 4 years younger, this adaptation would be called the bane of my existence. Bronte purists stay away. There. I've warned you.

First off, I want to give credit where credit it completely due: if you haven't read this Jane Eyre Review by Jean and Vic, posted at Jane Austen Today, you must. It describes the foundational plot issues in the new Jane Eyre, which I agree with fully. Even I, who has seen -- and you know I'm not joking -- practically every adaptation, was confused by the first seconds of the movie. Had I not be warned by the above article, I wouldn't have been able to coach my mother through the first 15 minutes with the proper back story. And she's seen a few Jane Eyres too. The short version - post Rochester meltdown, wandering on the Moors. Likewise, the use of flashbacks as a central plot device changes the tone of the story in very interesting ways.

Condensing events and scenes chomps at the plot and dizzies the viewer. This adaption plays more like a highlight reel for Jane Eyre fans, more than a cohesive, understandable story that can stand on its own. For instance, Adele and her mother's story is never told; Rochester's bed one night, just shows up lit on fire; There is no gypsy scene period and the proposal has no strong build up and falls pathetically flat. Bertha -- wait for it -- is characterized as a ghost-vampire that haunts the halls at night, but the suspense and fear she could invoke is never capitalized on.

Clearly Fukunaga could not commit to making either a romance or a suspense, and both story lines suffer for it. I would have been happy to see either road taken; however, this washy, middle of the road muddiness plays out as a symptom of the whole film's mediocrity. His characters suffer from a strange flatness I didn't expect and the stark locations only seem to heighten how flat everything is. I wasn't sure what to commit to, wasn't sure who to be afraid of: the intensity to stand behind a character simply wasn't there.

Its not that this Jane Eyre is awful. Its not. But neither is it brilliant, neither is it passionate, neither is it intense. Instead of getting the sense that Fukunaga strove for something and it just didn't work, like that hideous Ciran Hinds version, this film just ambles along. Its content to be just another adaptation in a long line of adaptations.

Michael Fassbender's Rochester is not excluded from the above critique. I shall try to be diplomatic, I know I need to see the film again, and I know I WAS HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTER FOR THIS ROLE. I know. Trust me, I know. Fassbender plays Rochester with a tortured subtly. His performance does not reflect Rochester's changeability, depressions, or fierce longing for Jane. Overall, he reminds me of Michael Jayston Rochester. (And you all know I like my Rochesters broody, but I respect the interpretation of the character.) Personally, I was expecting a touch of his character from HEX to show up: the cockiness, the latent danger, the recklessness. Not getting that was a let down; chalk this one up to completely personal preference, but I was disappointed. It wasn't bad, but it was good. And with only 1 real moment of brilliance, it just doesn't stack up for me. 

That moment? What I call the "Jane don't leave me scene." Fassbender struck something there that was breathtaking. Its beautiful, its painful, its not really hampered by wordiness, and the emotion is overwhelming. This is the only scene where I think Fassbender and Mia Wasikawska have powerful chemistry. Any chemistry at all, actually.

If Jane doesn't have chemistry with Rochester, who does she then? Go figure...St.John. Yep. Mista St.John Rivers has more chemistry with Jane than MR. ROCHESTER. I know, I die a little too just writing it. His reaction to Jane's refusal later in the film is just as powerful as Rochester's and striking. I honestly think his reaction in those 3 minutes are my favorite part of the movie. (At least 1 of my reasons to watch Jane Eyre panned out right.)

You meet Jane around the same time as St.John at the beginning of the film, and Jamie Bell is brilliant. Actually, I will openly argue with anyone that he's the standout performance of this adaption. Meeting him when we do, seeing him with his sisters, before we meet Rochester and without Jane's colored perspective, we see a St.John who is kind and sweet, and a very normal young man. He is neither overly cold, nor is he austere; he is simply a man. It is refreshing to think of him finally in a different way.

While St.John is a fully fleshed character for the first time, characters such as Grace Pool and Bertha, yes even Bertha, are practically non-existent. Others like Mason and Helen are quick plot devices in relation. And Jane? Well Wasikawska isn't Ruth Wilson. I'm sorry, she was better than most Janes, but without any of her own conviction, or any chemistry with Rochester, what else can I say? She shines, as do all the characters, in the scenes with the Rivers. There she has chemistry, there she has unreserved conviction, there we have a little but more life in our character.

And then, there's the fan service moment. What is fan service? Its normally in fanfiction and its a moment created JUST for fans to make them scream or giggle or forgive all injustices anywhere else in a story.This Jane Eyre has one. Fukunaga doesn't even try to hide it. Its just there. More like, BAM, o! hi! If you've seen the movie, you know the moment I'm talking about. If you haven't I'll set the scene: snow. door. Rochester. Kiss. YOU WISH THIS WAS REAL. Yep. A total fan service moment meant to make us Jane Eyre fans forget all the things we weren't sure of in this adaptation. While I applaud the effort, a little more finesse would have been nice. Even my mom knew exactly what I meant when I whispered "fan service?!" to her in the theater.

Overall, what does this reviewer think? Well, I think I think what I always was nervous about happened: the new, shiny, 2011 version is just an okay Jane Eyre adaptation. My hopes weren't particularly high; how could they be after Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson basically changed how the game is played? I'm still very glad I saw it. And I will still buy when it comes out. And will I still post pictures from it? Heck yes. But I am most glad I only had to spend $7.50 plus gas instead of +$60 to see it.

THE SECRET OF MOONACRE

It has officially been LONG over a year since I posted this (I was trying to be funny, please note. Yep rusty even then; I'm just surprised I'm secure enough to post the link to it...) about The Secret of Moonacre. And up till a week ago, that was all I knew. (Can you see there's a running theme in these blog posts of late?) As I've matured (oh God, I used that word), I've become less and less interested in the actual plot of movies and novels. I get more pleasure out of a watch or read when I don't know what's coming. Its then that the plot and suspense intrigue and excite me.

And so Secret of Moonacre just was; It was that beautiful, artful, looking movie I knew nothing about and couldn't seem to get my hands on. And then a blockbuster when out of business, and I picked it up for 7 bucks. Even though my previous storyline is, well, basically -- okay, half -- wrong, the actual movie is pretty fantasy fantastic. It has black lions, unicorns that live in the sea, and a set of sea pearls that could make any girl jealous.

There isn't much depth to Moonacre, and the use of actors in double roles can just be confusing, but there is no lack of acting or lack of fantastic costumes. Which really, isn't that what most fantasy movies are anyway? The Summary follows:

When 13 year old Maria Merryweather's father dies, leaving her orphaned and homeless, she is forced to leave her London life to go and live with Sir Benjamin, her eccentric uncle, at the mysterious Moonacre Manor. Soon Maria finds herself in a crumbling world torn apart by the hatred of an ancient feud with the dark and sinister De Noir family. Maria, guided by an unlikely mix of allies, must unearth the secrets of the past before the 5000th moon rises and Moonacre disappears into the sea forever.

Movies like Moonacre I judge on four points: star power/acting, visuals and costumes, plot creativity, and overall success in storytelling. Moonacre scores high in acting (primarily for Dakota Blue Richards and Ioan Gruffudd) and visuals, however, the plot had unneeded complexities in places it should have been simple and failed to capitalize on places that needed some complexity. Overall the movie was enjoyable and had a fitting hero/princess success story.  While its a movie I'm glad I waited to find, instead of spending $30 to have it shipped, I'm very glad its now in my library.

NEVER LET ME GO

After the fantastic 2 hours that was #resuasion I still felt like I had my whole night left. That's one of my only dislikes about Persuasion actually, the adaptations are always so short! And so, since I did have a large chuck of my evening left, I decided to watch Never Let Me Go: a movie I'd heard fabulous things about, but never actually heard what it was about. And trust me its so much better that way.

I was going to link to the trailer, but that trailer--for lack of a more graceful excuse on my part--basically gives the whole story away. So don't watch it. Instead, just pop the DVD in the player and hit play. Do you trust me?

 Never Let Me Go is one of those movies you can't put your finger on as it starts: is it a love triangle movie? is it a coming of age movie? a dystopic thriller? For me, the best part of the movie was figuring this out, and realizing that the setting wasn't just a time and place, but a whole other character, a whole other villain you quickly come to hate.

The acting is brilliant. I've always enjoyed Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield: well I can now say I know why everyone is in love with him. They play their characters with such frankness and frailty that you feel their open hearts as you watch. And I won't lie, there's a good chance you'll be crying by the end of the movie.

Never Let Me Go is a film I'm so glad I found and certainly one I'd wish I'd known about sooner. It was a WWI vibe with a post-modern question, and wait until you find out the secret. It will make you watch it all over again. From one costume drama fan to another, pick this one up to watch. And from one bookie to another, let's read the book together too.