"A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" (2019)

This was very different than what I thought it would be.  I don’t think that’s good or bad.  I think if they’d have done what I thought they would do, I’d have been disappointed—no matter how good it would’ve been.  However they didn’t.  It shifted to focus on someone else’s story.

But they didn’t do weird either.  It was just introspective enough to be good, but it managed to not drag the story either.  

Good choice of beginning and ending.  I loved the inclusion of songs Fred Rogers wrote and the cameos—although I didn’t realize the cameos at the time—and, finally, it found an acceptable way of honoring Mr. Rogers without either over idolizing in a saccharin-sweet way or destroying the positive good he contributed to society.

“Not Cinderella’s Type” (2018)

I am still a sucker for a Cinderella story. It is definitely my favorite story type. I came across this movie on Roku and have since discovered it is on YouTube as well. Over the last week, this movie has become an obsession. I cannot stop watching this movie or parts of the movie. I am enjoying it SO much.

It is a different type of movie from other Cinderella stories in that focuses in on the emotional abuse from Indy’s family (Indy = Cinderella). Oh, there’s still romance, but the story drama is more subtle. In this story, the riches (rich prince) are the safety that the Bailey family offer Indy away from her atrocious family. The love and caring that they express towards Indy—steadily and slow slowly, even after initial pushback—is so heartwarming and endearing. My only sad regret is that there’s not more story at the end, or an even a sequel. I would love to continue watching Indy’s recovery process and future adventures.

don’t let what seems to be a low-budget movie hinder you. This is one movie that I highly recommend.

"A Cinderella Story: If the Shoe Fits" (2016)

 My second dive into Tubi on Roku resulted in me coming across this film.  As I've said before, I'm a sucker for a good Cinderella story.  That's probably my favorite story type, and this was a fun find.  It's carried out in the vein of a musical--both in story style and a large part of the setting.  

The costumes were so much fun.  Oh, my--Divine's outfits were hilariously and wonderfully over the top.  Olympia (the short one) was a extremely close second.  Okay, those two might be a tie.  The show's costumes fit into style of musical theatre, too.  

I love the comic ploys to extend and cover delays in the play within a play.

It had the right amount of songs and dance sequences.  I kind of liked the repeated song motif that they went with.  I could live with the lip synced songs, although, I was momentarily pulled out each time the transition happened, especially at the start of the song.

I was okay with the choice for Cinderella to save herself--and it did work for this movie--but it's also one of the things I like about this story line, so I miss it when it doesn't happen.  I know that if  the script writers would have had "Prince Charming" come to save Cinderella, there would be push back criticizing the story bit in terms of modern public values.

But that's just it.

Sometimes a person finds themself so buried in a situation that it takes someone outside of themselves to say, "Hey, let me lend you a hand." And that moment, is one of this story arc's sweet spots.  Instead, this Cinderella had a split moment of stress, a huff, and then, "Okay, how do I solve this?"  So, she sings, dances, fixes motors, and saves herself.  So, why did she need "Prince Charming" again?  The answer to that makes me sad.

Missing sweet spots aside (yes, plural), I thoroughly enjoyed myself.  Once I decided to deliberately suspend my disbelief (and I had to take a firm step in that direction to have that happen), then I am relaxed into enjoying the show.  In fact, I definitely would watch this again...and again.  That's a "win!" that I don't say about musicals very often.

"The Man Who Invented Christmas" (2017)

When a friend recommended this movie to me, I was intrigued and skeptical.  Intrigued because as a novel writer myself, I can relate to characters existing "in the room"--so I wanted to see how close someone else's view was of this.  (It was practically identical.  Nice.)  Skeptical because I wasn't sure how much of my own writer's experiences would get in the way of just being able to enjoy the movie.  While there were moments where I worried whether this movie's Dickens would lose a page or miss a deadline, the direction, editing, and writing of this movie quickly assured me that these common plot elements had no place here and would not be making any appearances in this film.  With only a fleeting moment or two to give such a worry place in mind, the worries were quickly dispelled, and I was happily able to just enjoy this movie.

This "retelling" of A Christmas Carol was well done.  It was nice being able to just follow Dickens's story along as he was creating it, and the interspersion of London came at welcome intervals.  There was a good balance of up and down moments, and of serious and comical story threads.  The music played to this wonderfully well--"amusing" music lest we take ourselves too serious for too long, and tugs of more serious tones lest the movie get too shallow or too silly--tugs assisted by art direction, of course.

I enjoyed seeing Mrs. Dickens' listening in.  Make-up/costuming with Dickens's red, sleep-lost eyes was noticed and appreciated.  The bright red cover of the finished book at the end.  Just the right length of movie, and suitable end credit music to help the audience reluctantly leave the world of Dickens to return home.  The two screens of historical note material was probably the best way to have done that--although, the movie did end with the line of eager customers at the store--a cozily lit store surrounded by snow and closed businesses--and a reading of the newspaper review in the Christmas-y parlor.

Well done.  Merry Christmas!

"Wonder Woman" (2017)

Well, I've finally seen it.  Finally watched this movie.  And it took me a while because I was quite conscious of all the hype that was made about this movie when it originally came out.  As such, I think this response needs two parts.

First, the movie itself--just as it is:  a movie.  Plot was fine--nothing elaborate.  Characters weren't flat, but basic.  The action/fight sequences were fun to watch.  And all the other aspects--set, costume, music, etc.--quite adequate.  Good even.  High points of quality:  the action sequences, and the way Gal Gadot carried Diana--her poise, her bearing, her charisma.  As a movie, I'd give it an 8 out 10, maybe even 8.5.  But as far a movie goes, I don't know that there's too much more to say.  The movie seems to hang it's hat on the action sequences--and if it was merely aiming at a good action movie that carried out DC's conception of Wonder Woman for a modern audience, then it was successful.  Quite successful.  Well done.

But I can't help noticing that the second part of this response colors the my thoughts on the first, and in that respects, I was quite disappointed.

The second part of this response is all the things that surrounded this movie when it came out.  There was a great deal of hoopla at the time.  The movie was being touted as a celebration of women.  There was even a little bit of controversy as some movie theaters held the first showing of the movie for women only (and some of the men didn't like being excluded).  And a few of those who saw it came out of the theater vindicated and ecstatic that the movie was a celebration of women. 

So, maybe all of this set the movie up for higher expectations within me--higher than it should have, higher than what may be was realistic. 

I can see that if a person wanted to see women as equal to men--as better than men--then, I suppose the movie accomplished that.  But what does that mean?  Within this movie, it means they gave a woman the bigger weapon, the better skills, and the higher success rate than the male characters. 

Is that a celebration of women?  That sounds more like trying to make a woman become a man, not celebrate being a woman. 

Oh, I know.  There are those who would say, "I am tired of seeing men get all the laud, and women being lowered..." [or whatever adjective would be chosen to be put there].  "...and it was time to show that women could be a hero/heroine just as much as men."  I still can't help feeling like something's been lost.  It's kind of like the old story of a woman climbing the business ladder only to find that what it took to climb ladder (male tactics) made her lose all the qualities that made her uniquely a woman.

If I'm looking at this movie as a story, as a movie, then it was a good movie--8 or 8.5 out of 10.  If I'm looking at this movie as a "celebration of women," then I think it is a failure.  I think that there needs to be a better movie that can celebrate those things a woman can do that a man can't, and that would be a "celebration of women."  I can think of several movies plus a few characters that do a better job on that front.  Ocean's Eight pulls off fashion, smarts, the ability to blend in, and most importantly collectivity--almost a sisterhood--between the characters.  That's something you'll find in the female aspects of our society  Even The Single Moms Club does a much better job celebrating what makes women unique and wonderful. 

It's also one thing to be brave when you're invincible.  It's another thing to be brave when you're not.  Think of the character Narcissa Malfoy who for the love of her son has the nerve to ask someone trying to look dead if her son is alive and then turn and lie to Voldemort about it.  Talk about a gutsy woman.  As for action scenes, we have that too:  Turn to Lara Croft to find a way to take an action sequence and make it over into a woman's style, and not just give the girl a bigger "gun."

So if you're looking for a page out of the comics brought to life, if you just want to see a woman "kick some butt," then this movie is great for that.  I'll completely support that.  But if you're wanting a movie to "celebrate women," then I think you need to keep looking.

"Ocean's Eight" (2018)

Having seen the other three Ocean's movies (still haven't seen the original, though), this one had me intrigued and it did not disappoint. 

I came across it on a Mother's Day display, and it caught my attention.  It amuses me that the girls could do their heist in less numbers than the guys and do it with their own flair.

It's a light movie, but that's what it was meant to be.  Would love to have seen a few more personality moments, though, from each of the eight.  I mean, we have come a ways from the original TV show Charlie's Angels where the girls are just active figures with no distinguishing personality traits, right?  Right?

I did enjoy the runway exit for ladies displaying the re-cut jewelry and their fancy garb, but I'm afraid my "I want to re-watch that moment" might be limited to Awkwafina's stall sprawl and a few other of her smooth moves such as her pocketing this and depositing that.  Maybe Rose Weil's Met Gala outfit.

That said, I do recommend this movie as a good watch, worth the time.

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" (2018)

Too dark to feel satisfying.  Yet, too well written to not appreciate it.  Complete, yet unresolved.  Yeah, it's a second movie.  I once asked if there was a book that was the second in its series that was as satisfying as the first in its own right.  I gathered from the response that such examples are far and few between.  I think these movies have become the Charles Dickens serials of our day.  I don't think that's a good or bad thing.  Maybe mostly something to resolve myself to.  In any case, I almost enjoyed watching the author interview in the extras (and it's inside analysis of the movie) more than the movie itself.

This movie had it's enjoyed moments--Newt charming the zouwu being one of the top.  It's frustrating aspects are minimal, mostly limited to the tendency of so many characters to mumble.  I can understand it as a character characteristic and a style choice, but if the audience (me) can't understand it without multiple rewinds and/or subtitles, then how much is it actually communicating?  If anything, having to resort to such actions pulls me out of the movie's story.  Aside from often wondering "what did he say?" Newt's character's personality is still endearing.  Guess I can't have it both ways.

I did enjoy all the "name-dropping" of people and elements to tie in to the later-set-period of Harry Potter.  That made watching the movie somewhat of an "Easter Egg" hunt, which was enjoyable.

What I still hope for in future movies:  more "sneaky peaks" (okay, ANY peak) into the world of Ilvermorny Houses and culture, both with students and alumni; that the wonder of the magical wizarding world shows up more thoroughly in the next movie (more than just fancy entrances into places); and that all the loose ends in the Fantastic Beasts series gets satisfactorily tied up.

That said, would I recommend this movie?  Sure.  But, unless you're a "die-hard" Harry Potter fan, you might wait until you can watch all three movies in close succession.

"The Hunger Games" (2012)

I don't think I've gotten hooked into full fledged dystopian literature.  I just dont't think it's my thing.  Nevertheless, this novel and movie I've found do-able, and I was quite pleased with this adaptation.

A few years I tried watching this movie without having read the book first--something I don't normally do--but I didn't get very far in the movie before giving up on it.  I'm not sure if that's because it was dystopian or if it's because I hadn't read the book first.  Maybe I am a "book first" kind of gal. 

This adaptation was done very well--the costuming, the special effects, the art direction for the different social classes in this society--and I thought the end credits music the right style to play.

I just think I'm not into dystopian stories, or perhaps just not found the right flavor of one?

I was pleased with how they balanced indicating the violence without being too graphic in it's telling.  I'm actually pleased they didn't try to re-create the fallen tributes into the animal faces.

I liked the bird calls.

"Beautifully Broken" (2018)

The flyer came around.  "War (blah, blah, blah)...beautiful story (blah, blah, blah)...Go see it."  I had my reservations that I'd love it as much as the flyer said I would, but it was high on the local culture's radar, so I tagged along, unsure of how much I would enjoy it, but thought it would be good to at least be a part of this piece of local activity.  At very least I'd be able to say, "Yeah, I've seen it."

I was wrong.  I very much enjoyed this movie.  It is very well done.  Part of the local excitement is that the movie's director has local roots.  They have done well to be excited.

The story is very well done:  not so much gore shoved in the audience's faces that we needed to put defenses up to get through the movie, but enough hints and skirted images that we both knew what was going on and couldn't ignore it.  The weaving of the different story threads was well balanced and cut/edited well. 

I don't know that I'd call the story "faith-centered" because I think that term is part misleading for what this movie is and part mixed with preconceptions about what such a movie with that label would be.  I think "faith-laced" is better.  It's how my life works--not just "Jesus on Sunday morning," but Jesus and God and faith interlaced throughout all my week, through all parts of my life--or at least I'd like to think it is.  I'm a sinner along with the best of hypocrites, just never far from God's forgiveness either.  And that's where this movie does the faith-lacing well.  It successfully departs from the faith-genre-acting style that comes across canned to me.  This is acting in the style of real-life, and brings faith into its life situations as faith should in real-life.

And it's point?  It's not the salvation pounded out in same-new ways.  It's the message of how God likes to take the broken pieces and do beautiful things with them because He can.  Because He does.  Because broken He can work with because it shows His beauty and strength.  Which, oddly enough, is the title of the movie.

Go figure.

Final tidbits:  the ending scenery of Rwanda is beautiful.  I'm not sure, but it looked like the theme song was performed by at least three different singers (neat!).  The story is based on a true story.  How much of the movie is a true and how much adjusted for movie telling purposes?  I can't say, but I can say that I recommend this movie.

I don't know how widespread this movie's distribution is, but if you're looking for a beautiful, "decent" (it goes beyond decent--good is the word here) movie that supports a beautiful idea (that God uses broken things in beautiful ways), then consider going to your local movie theaters and requesting this movie come.  Then spread the word to everyone you know to go see it.  I think it is worth supporting this movie.

"Ready Player One" (2018)

I know, I know. "But in the book, ________ was my favorite part, and it wasn't in the movie."  Admittedly, even I will have to watch the movie a second time to enjoy it on it's own terms.  But the author of the book co-wrote the film, and co-produced the film.

That's not exactly ammo from the book against the film.  That's ammo for taking the book's ideas and looking at them fresh.  A film adaptation for it's own merits.  And in looking at those merits, the film stayed true, generally speaking, to the spirit of the book.

Now, the film.  On it's own merits.  (Because I haven't taken yet to posting book reviews online--at least, nothing regular.)

Story/plot--condensed well enough to keep a good hook to see what would happen next.  Successfully including surprises (even for those who read the book).  Seemed like there were one or two holes, though.  At the time, wondering how Wade's hideout was discovered was one "wait a minute" moment.  But the answer was there, subtly placed, earlier in the film.  How the high 5 hacked into Sorrento's rig was explained, but I'm not sure I was sold on that answer.  Maybe a second just-enjoying-it-now-that-I -know-what's-coming will sell me on the first time's hesitation.

Looking back at the "leave the stacks while you still can" after seeing the events unfold wasn't a line that made sense to me, nor fifty people standing there with one guy with a gun.  Nobody came from behind him?  Maybe I missed some thinking/thought processes somewhere.

With all the possible 80s references to pull from, I don't know that I was thrilled with the grab bag of horror as opposed to other options.  That might just be me.  Maybe those who enjoy the horror genre felt the movie was more balanced in it's 80s references???  I dunno.  Someone will have to tell me.

I'm thinking the music choices generally worked, with a few that were definitely "nice touches."  "Stayin' Alive" comes to mind.

Do I recommend the movie?  Yeah, I do.  But if you read the book first, go in with a blank slate and open mind.  In fact, what you know from the book might even trip you up.

If you have neither read the book or watched the movie, which would I recommend enjoying first?  Actually, I can see it going either way.  So, I'm not sure it matters.  If you read the book first, then watch the movie, the movie will hold a few surprises even though you'll generally know how it goes.  Sorta.  If you watch the movie first, then read the book, the book will hold a few surprises for you even though you'll generally know how it goes. Sorta.  Either way, remembering that the movie is an adaption--not a reproduction--will mean that you'll get two fresh stories for the "price" of one story arch.  And that's not a bad deal.

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" (2016)

Newt Scamander's mannerisms are refreshing because they're not done absolutely everywhere.  "Neat and Tidy" plot, with a melancholy ending--but maybe it sets things up for the next movie while leaving the present story mostly satisfied.

Set in New York City.  Filmed in Liverpool, England.

"But I made them cocoa."

Was trying to remember which Hogwarts house was blue and yellow.  [Answer blue and bronze are the colors of Ravenclaw.]

Overall, enjoyed the movie

"Hidden Figures" (2016)

The plot for this mixed the different threads very well.  I'm still mulling over the music choices--they fit and yet they didn't.  More fit then not. 

While the film was done very well--and I'll enjoy watching and re-watching it--, I'm not sure I'd list it in a "top 10" list, and I'm not sure why/why not.  I still would recommend the film for anyone wanting a movie they could just enjoy watching, (and I'm looking forward to watching documentary commentary or accompanying interviews now that I've watched the movie).

"Wonder" (2017)

Very sweet story,  So well done.  The characters are real, not stock.  I like the NASA "3...2...1" sound underlying Auggie's first day of school.  I like the unique chapter view-from-a-character way that the movie used.  I can't speak to the book adaption, but I suspect that that was well done, too.

I recommend watching this with a box of kleenexes nearby.  Nice way to escape and be encouraged.  Well done.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" (2013)

They did what they could in the time that they had, and I thought they did a very good job of it. Nevertheless, I'm glad I read at least two books of the series (the first two) before I watched this film.  They crammed a lot into this film.  And for as much explanation that the book got to provide, the movie handled divvying it up very well.

 A Canada-Germany film, which intrigues me. 

The use of Bach's music as a tool for the good guys was nice.  Yay, the good guys get to use music for a change.  And I'm glad they used one of my favorite lines from the book.  Evidently, they did too.  I can almost hear them, "We have to use that line."  And I was pleased they gave the author credit that the movie was based on her original ideas.

I think there was one or two fight scenes that I would've liked to have followed a little better, but nothing a re-watch or two (or whatever) won't solve through the marvels of rewind.

The choices for condensing story needs, and other choices that I am assuming were for budget constraints, I thought were done well and understandably made.  Well done guys.

"The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part 2" (2012)

Director:  Richard Eyre

Cuts the prologue (about the spread of lies); Falstaff's page is more "serious"--more as one on the outside looking in, as an observer.  This production has the advantage of on-site locations for setting.

This version seems to do a better job of tying the larger story threads together across the entire play.

Also, the initial arrest-attempt of Falstaff is humorous.  Eastcheap scene is bawdier.  The king's while-ill speeches are played with more temper and more reflective.  The character of Silence is played, at least part of the time, with a stutter.  Falstaff's draft was played more straight/serious.  Wort was played as a small/short person.  Falstaff faces much more how he is growing old as all things are changing around him--something he is at first in denial of and, later, reluctant to face when finally absolved to confront it (during his draft visit).  Prince John of Lancaster is played strong, and his distaste if Falstaff is clear.  Prince Hal upon viewing his father on his deathbed, while torn inside, is played with more certainty, with Prince Hal trying to steel himself to do what he knows is coming, what he himself will have to do.  The fight between Hal and his father, true, genuine, and its resolution touching and heartfelt.

"Royal Shakespeare Company: Henry IV Part II" (2014)

Director:  Gregory Doran

This series continues to be a good one to aid the understanding of the text, and to see the spirit and manner of a theater/stage performance of plays.

The beginning cast light figures of hash tags to go along with the speech about rumors.

Includes the beginning prologue.  Falstaff's page is more humorously played as if in cahoots with Falstaff's take on things, or at least is along for the ride.  The King's death runs like a long heart-attack scene which may be considered as fair reason for the king's staggering-around doubts about Prince Harry's reformation and intentions having muddied his ability to think and see clearly.  The character of Silence was played as one whose mind tended to wander off making him seem a bit spacey.  Falstaff's draft was played attempting to bring out more of the humor of the scene--Wort played as a humpback.  Prince Hal upon viewing his father on his death bead seems more at a loss for what to do.

"Royal Shakespeare Company: Henry IV Part I" (2014)

Director:  Gregory Doran

Where the Dromgoole version Falstaff is more the power/authority figure in much of the banter in the first half of the play, in this version, the power/authority figure is Prince Hal and the beginning of the play this power/authority is definitely used for fun, games, jest, jokes, drinking, and being lord of fun.

While Dromgoole's version shows good back and forth banter, I think this version might have the best post-robbery version of Falstaff's tale.  The play within a play is  humorous to the end.  Even the "I do. I will" line while delivered serious--and can be seen as genuine--there are no serious ripples for its expressing, at least not immediately.

The confrontation between Prince Hal and his father had a Prince Hal that was much more humble and a father who was much closer to tears at his dismay than other versions (so far).

The fight between Prince Hal and Hotspur was less a carrying out of resolve for Prince Hal.  It was more a growing up epiphany to have faced the death of someone who had always been praised.

Finally, the conflict--the age-old conflict--between King Henry and Hotspur's father and uncle was much clearer, more pronounced.  It is much clearer in this version the tragedy that a disagreement between two men (leaders, older generation) would result in the deaths of so many who were not a directly a part of the heart of the quarrel.

This film does have a live audience present in a deep-thrust stage.  I liked this performance.  I enjoyed how Falstaff was portrayed, and it was nice to see other viable options for the other characters taken up.

"Macbeth" (2015)

Director:  Justin Kurzel

The art direction is amazing.  Things have been done in previous productions with light and dark (set, costumes, lights, etc.).  This does the same but adds fire.  Light.  Dark.  and Fire.  It also looks to have worked to weave a thoroughly Scotland feel through the whole thing (definitely in scenery; twinge of Scottish accent, but still keeping it understandable for those of us who are outsiders--made it feel more Shakespearean that way too--at least for me).  Intriguing things are done with stopping and starting (fast and slow) action and with music (open chord drones on violins/strings), especially at the beginning and end.

The weird sisters also had repeated appearances in this version as with previous ones, but putting it together with the fire theme against the uses of the cross and light through crosses brought more "just whom do you serve?" belief questions into the story without necessarily addressing the question directly.  (Note [with the weird sisters nearby] Macduff's "let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd" near the end)

The text is moved around and different lines juxtaposed in a way that works.  The Birnum wood coming to Dunsinane is via fire burning a forest and the smoke and fire heading up to Dunsinane castle, providing both a screen of fire and smoke for the military force there and another way to work the theme of fire in.  This fire screen besides providing an ongoing thematic element and dramatic set piece also provides a way for the audience to watch the violent showdown between Macduff and Macbeth with a little less gore while still getting the action of a "good" fight.

Other than an occasional yell--okay rare yell--I think the entire movie was whispered.  It was thus with relief that I found some scenes cut--some of the "talking someone else into something" scenes such as the lengthy discourse when Macbeth hires the murders and when Macduff searches out Malcolm.  I found this a relief this time because while Goold's 3-hour version flew by, this version seemed to crawl through its two hours.  I suppose if you looked at all the whispering as sitting around a fire (note theme) and telling a tale full of sound and fury, then perhaps you wouldn't worry about how fast you told the story while you waited for the fire to burn itself out.  I couldn't tell you why it dragged, but it did.  A well-done tightly woven text of a two hour movie drags on more than an include every line and go for three hour movie.  Go figure the mysteries of movie making.

The ghost in this banquet hall scene was shown in this version--well done with subtle appearance instead of in-your-face.  There is no double, double toil and trouble speech.  No Siward and son scene.  No Lady Macduff lamenting about hubby leaving, though you see her and her kids captured and burned at the stake (note again the fire theme).

This Macbeth seemed to be played as a soldier from beginning to end, not having gone crazy but perhaps not knowing how to stop being a soldier.  Through Lady Macbeth, a story thread was woven of her having had kids--one for sure, maybe two?--and then lost them, perhaps not able to have more, and then having to watch Lady Macduff's kids burn at the stake; the thread of the loss of children as a significant theme/story thread.

Recapping:  I liked the art direction--light, dark, fire, violin drones.  I liked the text changes.  It's nice to have a different interpretation of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to compare to and with.  But it sure did drag.

"Great Performances: Macbeth" (2010)

Director:  Rupert Goold
Patrick Stewart

This version of Macbeth is not for those who are squeamish at the sight of blood.  In fact, should you consider showing even a scene of this to a classroom, it would be wise to carefully consider twice-over what you would show.

That said, the interpretation of this Macbeth is the closest interpretation yet to how I read Macbeth's transformation:  unsure and hesitant some (while still a soldier) at the beginning, moving through the middle where he has power and "enjoys" being in charge at the top, and ending with a crazy man who let power go to his head from too much war/violence without it seeming only "psycho".  Unlike the 1983 interpretation of Lady Macbeth (who one could be sympathetic with for her plight regarding her changing husband), this Lady Macbeth is much less soft, but just as real a portrayal.  The repeated physical gesture [hand in hand we go in/out together] was noted and effective.

This version works more women characters in well (good!).  We see Macduff's family more than once.  Hear from them lines in more than one scene.  This version also has the three witches/weird sisters repeating appearances in different ways throughout the play.  The Siward and Young Siward scenes/moments are kept.  You have an invisible dagger (first vision), but a visibly demonstrated Banquo Ghost.  The last set of visions is a mix of invisible and visible representations.

Most lines are heard plainly, but the very first soldier's report and many of the weird sisters incantations are not understandable.  However, the sense of all these hard to "hear" lines are not lost.  The effect of the first soldier's report was clear enough.  The sense of the "double, double toil and trouble" song is clever; so was an effective delivery.  (The incantation hints of rap in style.)

The set and costume are reminiscent of 1940s war, though done well to keep the "country" of that of the world of the play, and none other (or none other as far as I'm concerned).  I saw a documentary not too long back about one of England's castles that during WWII had underground headquarters where much war time council and action was done.  This Macbeth set reminds me of that documentary--an underground "bunker" where most of the action takes place.

The play "takes its time" in that it does everything and it is a 3 hour movie; yet, it hooks so well that the time is not long, and I did not wish to hit "pause" at all (except to re-watch a scene or two here and there).

The warning at the beginning of this movie/play was well needed.  It is a bloody play, then it again it's a bloody story.  It was told very well.

Now I want to go watch something light and fluffy so that I'll actually fall asleep tonight.

"Shakespeare's Globe: Henry IV, Part 1" (2010)

Director:  Dominic Dromgoole

This is a live stage play that was filmed, but is filmed very, very well.

This version is very good at showing the verbal banter that exists between Falstaff and Hal.  The play within a play is played highly humorous up to the "I do.  I will" line which smacks Falstaff unexpectedly.

This version also includes some physical humor.  This includes some of the crass that Shakespeare has buried inside the play.  As a theatre play it shows well the feeding off the audience and demonstrates the need to wait for laugh lines, comic timing, and the value of what an interactive audience will do.

It does work better to enjoy this version if you are already familiar with the story and jist of the lines.

This Hal definitely does not want to grow up.  He goes kicking and screaming.  I question that this interpretation shows Hal growing up at all.  His battle valor is more as a response to his father's challenge, much in the style that he answered the bar challenges earlier in the play.  He answers the challenge, and things are made up with his father when Hal saves his life, but has he grown up?  This version doesn't answer that question; therefore, it shows the latitude that the text gives in not answering this question as a given "yes."  It shows Hal as ethical in battle, but is he ready to rule?  This interpretation leaves that question unanswered.

With that food for thought in the background, the forefront shows a thoughtful, irreverent Falstaff who sits at the top of humor as the main thrust of this version.

This is the version of the silent but visible husband of Mistress Quickly who sat up above in the balcony and smiled.