Finally watched the flick "Jane Austen Book Club" this past weekend. I've never read the book and I had kind of avoided the movie, but it was recommended by a work colleague whose wife is a confirmed Janeite as worth watching, so I checked it out and brought it home. A decent storyline, interesting characters, good players. Intrigued me that 5 women and 1 man would form a book club to discuss only the 6 books that Jane Austen wrote, and that each book related to their personal lives in some way. All of them had personal issues, and reading and discussing Austen's novels as a group became a form of therapy for them. Kathy Baker was entertaining as the mothering figure, and Amy Brenneman and Maria Bello were good as best friends; but Hugh Dancy was definitely a winsome soul--he's invited to join by Bello as a distraction for Brenneman, but he's really interested in Bello. He's never read Austen but is willing to, and his insights and comments are thoughtful, which surprises the women. His attempts to connect with Bello are very heartfelt and sincere, and indeed are helped along by Austen's works (and his sister, Nancy Travis). The characters that Emily Blunt and Maggie Grace played were less interesting to me, but still watchable. Cool that the group wins others over as Austen fans, too. A good way to spend some time, and you don't have to have read Jane Austen to appreciate the story.

So I've now watched all of the first season's episodes of "The Tudors" on DVD, and while I found many errors and inaccuracies in the whole thing, I was still entertained by it and felt compelled to keep watching. I don't know why, as I was so frustrated over many things. SPOILERS HERE
It didn't seem as though much time passed in the story, although historically YEARS went by during the King's Great Matter. The make-up people didn't have Henry VIII age much, nor Anne Boleyn, nor many of the other characters, except poor Katharine of Aragon. The whole deal with combining Henry's sisters Mary and Margaret into one character, Princess Margaret, having her marry the old King of Portugal, then murder him (by smothering him with a pillow!), marrying Brandon, and then having her die several episodes later with consumption (throwing up huge gouts of blood, no less) was insulting and preposterous. Wolsey's committing suicide by cutting his own throat was outrageous and awful. Some characters had no point to the story--Thomas Tallis anyone? The power-hungry Duke of Norfolk seems to be less powerful here than usually portrayed and Thomas Boleyn much more of a dynamic aggressor. Henry Fitzroy did not die as a mere child of plague; Bessie Blount was not married when she was Henry's mistress, nor was she LADY Blount--she got a husband as a gift from Henry after he was finished with her and she was a commoner when Henry's mistress; Charles Brandon's ward was Catherine Willoughby--not Brooke--so many unnecessary changes and inaccurate things and general silliness. And those who don't know any better will believe it all.

That being said, I found it kept my attention, it was compelling drama, well staged, pleasant sets and costumes (although some of the women's headdresses were questionable), and some of the performances were very watchable. Sam Neill is very good as Wolsey; Jeremy Northam an interesting Sir Thomas More; Maria Doyle Kennedy is excellent as Katharine; Henry Cavill a boisterous and thrilling Brandon; and Jonathan Rhys Meyers gives a fine portrayal of a young, athletic, sexually charged Henry VIII. This whole series is definitely meant to appeal to a younger, edgier sort of audience. But couldn't it all have been done more accurately and still been just as dramatic and exciting? These people led such interesting and drama filled lives as it was, why does TV need to create/change/disregard history?

I don't know exactly why I enjoy watching "Remains of the Day" so much that I have watched it multiple times. Is it that it strikes a chord in me, or makes me nostalgic for something that I never knew, or maybe it's just the beauty of the film... I watched it the other night for the first time in several years, and it made me realize once again what a touching movie it is. I have read the novel, as well, but I think this is a case in which the movie is almost better than the book. The pairing of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson, as Mr. Stevens and Miss Kenton, is exceptional, their characters are beautifully portrayed. Even with no dialogue between them, so much is conveyed by their looks and actions. Hopkins is the epitome of what a perfect English butler should be, in thought, word, and deed, even though the world is changing around him, and Thompson's professional and spirited housekeeper is struggling to control her longings for an emotional relationship with Mr. Stevens. That last scene between their characters when they meet 20 years later after so much has happened in between times, is just totally heart-wrenching to me every time I watch. Guess I'm just a sucker for lost romance! The whole feel of the film is so right--the scenes of the Oxfordshire countryside between the wars, the nobility of Darlington Hall, the beauty of the mounted foxhunters riding across the grounds, the automobiles of the 1930's, the huge dinner parties, all those period details make it such a wonderful experience. I enjoyed Hopkins & Thompson together in this one much more than in "Howard's End"--seemed a better fit for them somehow. It's also interesting to see Hugh Grant and Christopher Reeve in rather interesting supporting roles. All in all, it's a film I have enjoyed revisiting over the years.

Watched "Madame X" last night. It's one of those 1960's glossy melodramas with Lana Turner playing a woman married to an up and coming politician from a prominent family who is forced to give up her husband and son over a scandal, fakes her death, and leaves town. Twenty years later, in a twist, she goes on trial for murder and is defended by her own son. Melodramatic and full of plot holes, it's definitely Turner's movie, and she's great in it. John Forsythe is fine as the husband (he has the best voice ever) and Constance Bennett (in her last movie) is appropriately malevolent as the nasty mother-in-law who forces Turner out. Ricardo Montalban plays the unfortunate playboy, and Burgess Meredith is extremely villainous as the man Turner shoots and kills in order to stop his blackmail. An interesting picture to watch, lovely to look at, and actually not a bad story.