Conference bookie::movies

    I have been dying to see this movie since I am a huge fan
    of Alan Rickman and also Emma Thopmson.  But knowing the
    Sony Theaters in Leominster, they will never show this film
    since it only shows films that either have violence/sex/harsh
    language or on the other side of the scale like Disney movies.
    I will probably have to wait at least 6 months to rent it or,
    if I'm lucky, it will be shown in the Maynard/Littleton/Acton
    area.  I will keep my fingers crossed.
    
    Mo
    

    Starts this weekend (12/15) at the Framingham General Cinemas - in 
    back of the Natick Mall.  They show a lot of these types of movies.
    
    Judi

Come out to Amherst/N. Hampton area! You can see it out there, I am 
sure.


                      <<< Note 984.1 by PCBUOA::CHENARD >>>
                           -< CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT >-

    I have been dying to see this movie since I am a huge fan
    of Alan Rickman and also Emma Thopmson.  But knowing the
    Sony Theaters in Leominster, they will never show this film
    since it only shows films that either have violence/sex/harsh
    language or on the other side of the scale like Disney movies.
    I will probably have to wait at least 6 months to rent it or,
    if I'm lucky, it will be shown in the Maynard/Littleton/Acton
    area.  I will keep my fingers crossed.
    
    Mo
    

    I agree with .0, "an absolutely wonderful movie". Don't miss it.
    
    John

    I was somewhat apprehensive before seeing this movie, since I am a 
    hoge Jane Austen fan, and usually don't like any movies where I've read
    the book before, and I was pleasantly, nay, delightfully surprised.
    
    Sense and Sensibility is not Jane Austen's best work. What Emma 
    Thompson did was to take out absolutely the best of the work, and 
    toned down the sour bits (which is the relationship of the mother and
    Maryanne towards Eleanor).
    
    This is a wonderful movie, and I give it high marks. If I were to 
    find a flaw it is the casting of Hugh Grant. His Edward Farrars is just
    a little too young for Emma Thomson. Everything else worked for me.
    
    SEE IT!
    
    Marilyn 

    Re .5:
    
    My wife and I had the same initial reaction concerning the relative
    ages of Emma and Hugh (although we felt Emma was too old :-).  However,
    I have since looked up their ages and, to my surprise, Emma will be 37
    in April and Hugh will be 36 in September.  
    
    I agree completely that it is an excellent movie, much better I feel
    than Persuasion.
    
    Rich

    Re -1
    
    You're right, I should have said too young "looking" for Emma Thompson. 
    And the real Eleanor would have been much younger than 37, in the book,
    but Emma looked every minute of it in the movie.
    
    
    Marilyn

   "Emma looked every minute of it in the movie." Meeeeyowwwwww!  I
    should have looked that good at 37 (or 27!!).
    
    Your problem seems to be that Hugh Grant (who I didn't think was
    too bad in this, but who couldn't compete with the rest of the cast,
    particularly Rickman) doesn't look his age yet.
    
    The film was superb.  It's a shoo-in for nominations in Best Actress,
    Best Adapted Screenplay, and probably some others as well.  Go see it!
    Good story, great characters, laughs, scenery, and I loved director
    Ang Lee's "painterly" vision.
    
    Chris
    

    re -1
    
    No, "my problem" as you call it is not that Hugh Grant does not look
    his age, although that could have been solved by casting someone else 
    as Edward, but that Emma is really too old (and old looking) for the
    role of Eleanor. The book Eleanor could not have been more than 22-23,
    which was quite old for an unmarried girl at that age. 
    
    I don't find anything catty about that. If I'd said she looked older
    than 37 that might be considered catty, although it might also be the
    truth! There are many 37-year old actresses who can play roles
    supposedly much younger than their age, this is not the case with Emma
    Thompson. She is an excellent actress, just not in the ingenue age 
    bracket any longer.
    
    
    Marilyn
      

Excellent movie. Emma Thompson can do no
wrong with her period pieces. Probably explains
why Kenneth Branagh and she are getting divorced.
Ol' Ken can't stand the competition.

JK

    I didn't think I'd like it (a 'chick' movie, by the looks of it), but I
    was pleasantly suprised.  Good drama, original laughs, good story, and
    a nice ending.  don't wait till it comes out on video - see it in a
    theatre.
    D

  We saw Sense and Sensibility on the big screen this weekend and it's a really
beautiful film.

  I don't feel it is quite in the league of a "best picture" but it contains
many solid performances with some brilliant scenes. On the other hand, like
many English based films it had moments that seem to drag on longer than
necessary.

  The story is mostly soap but the charm of the people involved, particularly
the women, make it a credible film. Where it makes a good movie, it would be
a really 1st class Masterpiece Theater but lacks the depth to really be
considered among the category of best picture of the year.

  What with the filming and all I'll be generous and give it **** out of 5.
After all it's been a somewhat weak year for films. 

  George

P.S. I have a question I'll put after the SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING




  There was a woman named something like Lucy Steel who said that she was
secretly engaged to Edward for 5 years but couldn't marry because Edward
would lose his inheritance. When she told Edward's sister, the sister went
ballistic and literally beat her up.

  We next heard that she was going to marry Edward anyway and that he was
going to get a Parish (I guess he was a minister of some sort?). Finally
we heard that he married Edward's brother Robert instead.

  Did that mean that Robert lost his inheritance? If so, who got the family
money? If not, then why was it OK for Robert to marry this woman of lower
class if Edward was not allowed to marry her?

  George

Who was cast as the 2nd daughter?

I thought she was young, much more charming and expressive than the rest. 
Ironically (at the end) her man is too old for her.

    Kate Winslet plays "Mary-Anne", the middle daughter and I believe she
    has been nominated for best supporting actress
    

    I agree 99% with George in .12, including the first paragraph.
    
    However, I only give it ***� / 5 because I just don't feel it's a
    4-star movie. It seemed a bit too candy-coated at times (that's my
    subjective opinion) and I found the pacing too slow at times, too
    fast at others. (When is Middlemas, anyway?)
    
    I've a question for anyone who has read the book, but it's a minor
    spoiler, so:
    
    
    There's this wonderful turn of phrase when Elinor and Marianne are
    having a private conversation. Elinor say's "let's talk" and Marianne
    responds:
    
    "We have nothing to say to each other. You, because you
     communicate nothing; I, because I conceal nothing".
    
    ... approximately.
    
    Was this in the original novel or was it Emma Thompson's screenwriting?
    
      John

    Answers:
    
    John - Thompson's line in her screenplay is original Austen
    
    George - There was a line about "running out of sons to disinherit"
    that explained this.  I think it made it to the screen, but I'm 
    not sure (having read both the book and screenplay since).
    
    Chris

  I finally got around to seeing "Sense and Sensibility" over the weekend with
  two other couples.  Everyone really enjoyed it, as did I.  The film did not
  achieve a rank high enough (for me) to be put onto the highest levels
  occupied by the Merchant/Ivory films in terms of its cinematography, story,
  characters and depth.  That said, this was a wonderful film however, with a
  beautiful story and charming characters you really care about.  It would
  compete well for the best film of the year in my mind (it's been a weak
  year).  Emma Thompson did an astounding job with what was one of Austen's
  lesser works (as I remembered it).  Emma has a much-deserved strangle-hold on
  these period pieces.  I hope she keeps at it.

  Emma Thompson was her usual excellent self, and the two younger daughters
  were fantastic as well.  The youngest one was very cute (I think we'll be
  seeing more of her in film) and the middle one was very attractive (in a Jane
  Austen sense) as well.  I was expecting to not be happy with the casting of
  Hugh Grant as I felt I had tired of him, but his performance was very good
  and completely fitting for the story, here he was for me once again (and
  happily so) the old Hugh Grant from "Maurice" in his acting.  Nevertheless he
  proved once again that he is the true master of the "pained look" facial
  expression, but it worked and fit nicely here.  Some in the group felt that
  Hugh (Ferrars) was a little too young for Emma, but I thought it fit within
  the film well enough and I personally had no problem seeing them together.
  Quite the reverse actually, I thought Thompson did an excellent job creating
  the longing in the audience to WANT to see them together, that they belonged
  together.  Alan Rickman was very good as well.

  The story is the true star of the film.  What a change today is from those
  Edwardian times.  My internal reactions were going mad in the scene where
  Emma offers Ferrars the news of the parish offering.  How could she not say
  anything.  "Say something!" a voice inside me was screaming.  The fact that
  this reaction inside me didn't seem to be mental thoughts, but instead some
  deep-seated visceral reaction from somewhere else I found fascinating.  It's
  amazing how far we have travelled in our socialization from those times, and
  that these extreme emotional reactions to those scenes didn't come from the
  head but from somewhere else even more ingrained in us.  Something was making
  me want to leap out of my seat to poke both Emma and Hugh on the shoulders to
  say "Just say it! How many more years of this do you want to go by!" The fact
  that these reactions were allowed to build and simmer over time during the
  viewing showed for me the true achievement of Emma's skill here.  I was also
  touched by the very last scene, I didn't expect it at all (forgotten), but it
  pulled the whole story in nicely for me.  I had figured the character in
  question for much more of charlatan than he really was.  It was a nice touch
  to include that scene.

  Don't miss your opportunity to see this beautiful film on the big screen
  before it leaves.  It needs to be seen in the theatre, I feel something would
  be lost in the transfer to video (the sweeping views of scenery and
  cinematography helps set the mood by flooding the senses).

  -Erik

    Re -1
    
    Small nit. Jane Austen lived in the Regency period, which predates the 
    Edwardian era by about 100 years (give or take a few years).
    
    
    Marilyn

>    Small nit. Jane Austen lived in the Regency period, which predates the 
>    Edwardian era by about 100 years (give or take a few years).
    
     But she WROTE about the Edwardian era...   :-)    
    
       John

    How could sha have KNOWN about the Edwardian era if she lived about 100
    years before it?
    
    Marilyn