damienmuldoon

Isn't it refreshing to know that TV can still produce gems like this? I love history and this period (the 17th century) is my favourite era. When I discovered that the BBC were making a series about Charles ii I was intrigued, when I heard that Rufus Sewell and Shirley Henderson were to star, I was excited. My excitement was not misplaced. This TV show is one of the best costume dramas ever made. Charles, one of the most scandalous of England's kings, is brought vividly to life by Sewell's delicious performance. Helen McCrory is hypnotically obnoxious as Lady Castlemain, official prostitute to the court of King Charles and Shirley Henderson excels as the long suffering wife of the philandering king. There is so much history to be covered in the reign of Charles ii, fire, plague, wars, religious tumult not to mention the inexhaustible line of Charles's mistresses and this production packs it all in. We even learn of Charles's ill fated father and the austere rule of Oliver Cromwell. The only unfortunate thing about this production is that there weren't more episodes.

I have to admit that it was hype and hype alone which encouraged me to go and see this movie. For weeks, every newspaper and TV show had reports and clips of how "great" the movie was. Also, it was directed by the same man who did "Charles ii the Power and the Passion" for BBC television and that is one of the best period dramas to be made in the last twenty years. So off I went to the cinema with high expectations. Then reality set in. There are three distinct parts to this movie. The beginning, which is too long. The middle, which is too abstract and the end, which is too predictable and makes huge sections of the middle obsolete. Yes, there is some fabulous cinematography and the performances are mannered and well directed. But the story gets lost somewhere. Perhaps it just got buried beneath the mounds of pretentious camera work and over-the-top attempts to create upper class British characters from the 1930s. I've not read the novel so I can't comment on how good or bad an adaptation it is. But as a piece of cinema, it disappoints.

I watched this film for the first time, last night,and, it is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. There are shades of "Surviving Picasso" about it. Yet, this movie transcends the Picasso film on a number of levels. Where "Surviving Picasso" is all about Anthony Hopkins masterful performance, "Frida" has a chemistry between its leading actors that you just don't see enough of in modern cinema. Yes, Salma Hayek inhabits the character of Frida and makes it entirely her own. But Alfred Molina's portrayal of her overweight, philandering husband really brings this movie to life. History is important to this movie also. Although removed from the turbulent events dominating European politics in the 1930s, Mexico embraces the ideology that will soon tear Europe apart and reflects that ideology in its art. Diego Rivera, as portrayed by Molina, is certainly a greater lover of women and painting than he is of political ideology, but the fact that he plays host to the exiled Trotsky shows that he is willing to put himself in harms way for the sake of his political principles. Trotsky is played charmingly by Geoffery Rush and his introduction to the story sends Diego and Frida's marriage to another level. This movie never fails to surprise you and if you have not seen it yet, you should.