Miranda-Richardson Movie Reviews

A witty and comical drama, very much from the origins of today's romantic drama, of a marchioness who starts up a conversation with her philandering lover, who went to prison for a while, and makes him give an account of his pleasurable exploits. Slowly and surely, he captures her heart and soul as she discloses one of her amorous encounters. Quite a naughty film with naughty naughty sweet scenes. The scene where a young lady comes in the author's cell to seduce him and he refuses her is funny! Modern and eighteenth century elements are blended in this film. Not much of a structured plot and the film lacks intrigue. But the spell of both lovers will entice you and I trust the owl to keep a secret. You'll know what I mean if you see the film!

'Twas an interesting story of two people, a game of minds. The seduction of a mind to claim the body which keeps it. I will not say 'tis the best film I have seen, but certainly it has its merits. That so much of it is all performed in the same room removes from it the usualy visual lures of movies these days makes it all the more intriguing. Certainly, this would be a boring film for most, as it requires your attention and an understanding of the subtly clever tricks each character plays . . . tis not for the night when one wishes action, drama, etc. This film is light at heart much of the time, very amusing. I recommend giving it a chance when you feel as if life is too demanding, and you wish to fall into the mirth of wooing a lover's spirit into bed.

It's time someone gave this pretentious film the panning it so richly deserves. First of all, let me say that I have nothing against Wallace Shawn or talkative films - I rather enjoyed "My Dinner With Andre," which somehow manages to hold the viewer's interest with its interesting dialogue and enjoyable setting. This film, however, is a yawn, and it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense either. Throughout the movie we mostly see three things - the faces of the three characters talking, in front of some nameless postmodern background. As if this weren't visually boring enough, things get worse when we have to use our ears. Each in turn, the characters spew a lot of ridiculous monologues at the viewer in affected, self-serious voices. Somehow this is all supposed to tie together into one of the characters appointing himself the "designated mourner" for western culture (though why this random fool should matter to us in any way is never clearly explained.) All I can say is that if western culture is dead, it was this film that killed it.

not being sure what/whom lead some to argue about the protagonist's transition from high- to low-brow. if this transition had anything to do with this movie it must have happened before since jack is nothing else but a pretentious low-brow pal who's faking his way around. otherwise a nerve-test: excellent interpretation around a low screenplay.

Funny how people revere this movie, using terms like "thought provoking" and "intelligent" and "masterpiece," but no one seems to know what it's about. The acting is impeccable, and the script seems to be about the death of an elite inteligencia and the victory of a shallow, all-surface society where nobody has to do much thinking. But the protagonist, the Mike Nichols character, though he denies understanding the "highbrow," displays the coldest and sharpest mind in the story. Compared to him, Ayn Rand was Danielle Steele!

The ending is moving, and the metaphor of the designated mourner is touching, but when people try to talk about this one they stop short of being specific about what in hell it was they found so interesting. They all sound like Roger Ebert; they use a lot of the lingo of film reviews but they don't really know what the thing was about.

This documentary, which only barely scratches the surface of Bond is not only very short, but also not well researched. How well can a documentation about 19 (official) movies be, when it only last about an hour? It is more than obvious, that the people who created this DVD did not know what they were talking about. They even show an interview with Maud Adams, who did appear in Golden Gun and Octopussy, but still say that no Bondgirl actress appeared twice in different movies... After watching this, owners of Bond DVDs, will be frustrated they spent money on this. Each one (!) of the Bond DVDs includes more features and more interesting documentations. In my opinion, they should have put these documentaries on a DVD Set by themselves. Instead, they created this documentation with all that was left over... or so it seems. Don't buy it, if you own Bond DVDs! If you are a newcomer to the Bond phenomenon, and only own a few Bonds on VHS, this is a good, but very basic overview of all things Bond.

I can tell you this...if you're a Bond fan, see this...you will thoroughly love it.

Interviews with all 5 Bonds (Sellers and Nelson are missing, but who cares). Clips from a ton of films, Q and more. It's a fun-filled hour or so for us Bond-maniacs.

I saw it on AMC one night earlier this year and was wondering if it would make it to video. I am glad it is!

Are you a bond fan? This is the movie for you! Filled with exciting information on all the James bond films from Dr. No to The World is Not Enough, this story is one not to be missed. Also included are interviews with many people of the "Bond Family" including Cubby Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson, Terence Young, John Glen, Louis Gilbert, Maud Adams, Jane Seymour, Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Sean Connery, George Lazenby and many more.... There are also exclusive interviews with Ian Fleming from his home Goldeneye in Jamaica. This story contains chapters on the Bond girls, exotic locations, the novels of Ian Fleming and many more. The only downer to this is the very droll voice of narrator Miranda Richardson. Telling the tales of the movies, the novels and James Bond himself- this story should be in everyone's collection who calls themself a Bond fan!

What on EARTH possessed Shirley Maclaine to go along with this? Was she just desparate for work that she didn't mind completely dishonoring Term of Endearment???? This movie was horrid. Absolutely horrid. If I could turn back time, I would never have seen this film at all. I felt it was out of the bounds of tradition with the first film and should not have been a sequel at all.

Even on its own merits, the film cannot stand alone.

I see that this film, the sequel to "Terms of Endearment," has recieved either great reviews or awful reviews in this forum. The truth is, it is somewhere in between. Shirley MacLaine is a delight as Aurora Greenway, Marion Ross holds her own as Aurora's Maid, and I thought Ben Johnson's performance was beautifully understated and effective. But the plot founders in several areas: the affair between Aurora and her Therapist (Bill Paxton) is unbelievable and borders on nasty (think "Autumn in New York" in reverse); there are too many characters that don't get developed as needed; and some scenes drown in pathos. The ash-scattering scene on the beach is way over the top (with deafening music to accompany it) and Aurora's grandchildren range from annoying to unbearable. Juliet Lewis' character vitually disappears half way through and Miranda Richardson's phony Texas accent is painfully overdone. This film is worth a look for sure, but it is'nt in the same league with "Terms."

If you enjoy watching people's lives, you will probably enjoy this movie. There doesn't seem to be a plot, per se, but simply an unfolding of the years through various characters' lives. The acting and dialogue are superb.If you were a fan of "Terms of Endearment," then you may feel a sense of closeness to the characters - you WANT their lives to go well. It is touching to see the years pass and the "family" draw closer together (some friends in the film are as much a part of the family as if they were blood kin.) If you are really into the film, you will laugh and you will cry. Although it's not your typical story type with a definite beginning and ending, it is well worth watching. After it is over it leaves you with some things to think about - important things about life.

The legends of Arthur and Merlin are so well ingrained that most people have an opinion as to what is right or accurate (myself included). Just remember that Arthur is said to have lived in the Fifth Century and that places the tale in the Bronze Age.

This rendition follows Merlin who was created by Queen Mab. She is afraid of the way Christianity has taken away her followers. She created Merlin to inspire people back to the old beliefs. But merlin is a man unto himself and refuses to be controlled.

Excellent special effects (Martin Short is suave and sexy) are added to an all-star cast to create a new tale of Merlin that at first I was uncomfortable with. Particularly the ending narration where it is mentioned how after Arthur, the Grail was found and England was united. But it all fits beautifully when we have the ending where we find out the story has been told by Merlin himself in a small town square. Martin Short comes up to him and says, "That's not the way I remember it." Merlin comments on how the story needs to be changed to be popular so he can make money as a storyteller. So anything you may think of as "wrong" in the movie can be explained away by this simple scene.

Some parts of the film are particularly gruesome such as the blood-soaked winter battlefield with Uther. This makes parts of the film unsuitable for some viewers, but it is still a fine effort.

I missed this movie when it was on TV, and I totally regretted it. The next day at school, EVERYONE was talking about how great it is. I resolved to see it when it came out on video. When I did, I was totally blown away! I mean, the acting was spectacular *special kudos go out to Miranda Richardson for her fabulous job as Queen Mab, and Isabella Rosselini, for being an excellent Nimue*, the plot was excellently written, and the setting/costumes were fabulous! Some of you biased reviewers *you know who you are* insist that Merlin "doesn't measure up" to Excalibur and that it isn't "historically correct". Gimme a break! First of all, why does Merlin have to be compared to Excalibur? Why can't you people just enjoy it for what it is? Secondly, let me say this loud and clear: THE ARTHURIAN LEGENDS ARE NOT HISTORY! THEY ARE LEGENDS! THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG TELLING OF THEM! Now that I've said that, I hope that everyone reading this will take my thoughts into consideration. If you haven't seen this movie and you like tales of adventure, romance, and magic, I DEFINITELY recommend it.

I was skeptical at first about the retelling of the Arthurian legends from Merlin's perspective. I am not a real Sam Neill fan either, so this movie had two strikes against it to start. Then I watched it. Whil some might think the special effects are cheesy, I found them to be at just the right level. Too many movies today go for the great special effects and forget the story. Merlin has a strong, human story that is not overwhelmed by the special effects and gives the viewer a full range of emotion.
I enjoyed how Arthur was seen as a pawn in a game of much higher stakes. I also enjoyed the way Morgan la Fey and Mordred were used. Merlin's perspective is well worth the time the movie takes to view. I most heartily recommend it to fans of knights in shining armor and people looking for an emotional film that does not try to cover a weak story with glitter.

The legends of Arthur and Merlin are so well ingrained that most people have an opinion as to what is right or accurate (myself included). Just remember that Arthur is said to have lived in the Fifth Century and that places the tale in the Bronze Age.

This rendition follows Merlin who was created by Queen Mab. She is afraid of the way Christianity has taken away her followers. She created Merlin to inspire people back to the old beliefs. But merlin is a man unto himself and refuses to be controlled.

Excellent special effects (Martin Short is suave and sexy) are added to an all-star cast to create a new tale of Merlin that at first I was uncomfortable with. Particularly the ending narration where it is mentioned how after Arthur, the Grail was found and England was united. But it all fits beautifully when we have the ending where we find out the story has been told by Merlin himself in a small town square. Martin Short comes up to him and says, "That's not the way I remember it." Merlin comments on how the story needs to be changed to be popular so he can make money as a storyteller. So anything you may think of as "wrong" in the movie can be explained away by this simple scene.

Some parts of the film are particularly gruesome such as the blood-soaked winter battlefield with Uther. This makes parts of the film unsuitable for some viewers, but it is still a fine effort.

I missed this movie when it was on TV, and I totally regretted it. The next day at school, EVERYONE was talking about how great it is. I resolved to see it when it came out on video. When I did, I was totally blown away! I mean, the acting was spectacular *special kudos go out to Miranda Richardson for her fabulous job as Queen Mab, and Isabella Rosselini, for being an excellent Nimue*, the plot was excellently written, and the setting/costumes were fabulous! Some of you biased reviewers *you know who you are* insist that Merlin "doesn't measure up" to Excalibur and that it isn't "historically correct". Gimme a break! First of all, why does Merlin have to be compared to Excalibur? Why can't you people just enjoy it for what it is? Secondly, let me say this loud and clear: THE ARTHURIAN LEGENDS ARE NOT HISTORY! THEY ARE LEGENDS! THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG TELLING OF THEM! Now that I've said that, I hope that everyone reading this will take my thoughts into consideration. If you haven't seen this movie and you like tales of adventure, romance, and magic, I DEFINITELY recommend it.

I was skeptical at first about the retelling of the Arthurian legends from Merlin's perspective. I am not a real Sam Neill fan either, so this movie had two strikes against it to start. Then I watched it. Whil some might think the special effects are cheesy, I found them to be at just the right level. Too many movies today go for the great special effects and forget the story. Merlin has a strong, human story that is not overwhelmed by the special effects and gives the viewer a full range of emotion.
I enjoyed how Arthur was seen as a pawn in a game of much higher stakes. I also enjoyed the way Morgan la Fey and Mordred were used. Merlin's perspective is well worth the time the movie takes to view. I most heartily recommend it to fans of knights in shining armor and people looking for an emotional film that does not try to cover a weak story with glitter.

A slow, dreary film so poorly lit several scenes exist in half darkness. Especially funny is a scene where one character asks another to take off his glasses -- you know, so he can see his eyes -- and we can't see his eyes! Too rich.

Stallone is Carter, a Vegas hitman out to avenge the death of a brother and the abuse of a niece. Caine's a goon, Rourke's a goon, Cook's the sexually abused niece and Cumming's just weird.

Stallone talks endlessly of taking the tough-guy standoffs "to the next level;" only Rourke is allowed to respond with his own level, after which Stallone returns with a level not seen since the final duel in "Cobra."

Having not seen the original for some time,I finally saw it in its entirety last week.Considering I've only just seen the remake tonight,it's fair to say it's going to be difficult to describe it as a film that stands on its own two feet.GET CARTER(1971) was about a mobster going back to Newcastle to find who murdered his brother.His search for the truth is ruthless. GET CARTER(2000) follows much the same story,Newcastle is now Seattle.I had my misgivings about Stallone playing Carter,but surprisingly he pulls it off.Not only does he look the part,this is one of his best roles. Supported by a sleazy Mickey Rourke,Miranda Richarson as his late brother's wife,and Rachael Leigh Cook who shines in this version,as her daughter Doreen. I wasn't expecting an action fest because the original gets by because of Micheal Caine's ruthless determination to get the truth. I do like this version but I have to deduct two stars for trying to sanitise Carter and adding a happy Hollywood ending.Also most of the film,the director is so obsessed with attention span,he "strobes" the picture regularly and unnecessarily.The final confrontation between Carter and Mickey Rourke is an anticlimax.The beach chase replaced by a brawll on a dancefloor.Not quite as memorable. Stallone seems to better with age and here he still packs a punch.And rather being a hinderance to a remake with a"you're the disease,I'm the cure" approach,he's much better in this film.

In 'Get Carter' Sylvestor Stallone plays Jack Carter a Las Vegas bookey or as he likes to say a "financial adjuster" and if you don't pay well let's just say he becomes 'Rocky' in a unofficial boxing match in the back alley while your tied down to a chair!
However the movie is based upon the revenge of his brother's death who supposebly died in a drinking and driving accident which obviously he does not believe and takes a train to Seattle to check it out. So as Carter searches all of Seattle for his brother's killer the suspects keep changing for whenever he muscles or question's the one who he thinks organized itor did it they give him another name. So after a while he no longer cares who exactly did it and starts killing anyone he for surely knows was at least involved. Get Carter also co stars Mickey Rourke, Alan Cumming, and Michael Caine.

A slow, dreary film so poorly lit several scenes exist in half darkness. Especially funny is a scene where one character asks another to take off his glasses -- you know, so he can see his eyes -- and we can't see his eyes! Too rich.

Stallone is Carter, a Vegas hitman out to avenge the death of a brother and the abuse of a niece. Caine's a goon, Rourke's a goon, Cook's the sexually abused niece and Cumming's just weird.

Stallone talks endlessly of taking the tough-guy standoffs "to the next level;" only Rourke is allowed to respond with his own level, after which Stallone returns with a level not seen since the final duel in "Cobra."

Having not seen the original for some time,I finally saw it in its entirety last week.Considering I've only just seen the remake tonight,it's fair to say it's going to be difficult to describe it as a film that stands on its own two feet.GET CARTER(1971) was about a mobster going back to Newcastle to find who murdered his brother.His search for the truth is ruthless. GET CARTER(2000) follows much the same story,Newcastle is now Seattle.I had my misgivings about Stallone playing Carter,but surprisingly he pulls it off.Not only does he look the part,this is one of his best roles. Supported by a sleazy Mickey Rourke,Miranda Richarson as his late brother's wife,and Rachael Leigh Cook who shines in this version,as her daughter Doreen. I wasn't expecting an action fest because the original gets by because of Micheal Caine's ruthless determination to get the truth. I do like this version but I have to deduct two stars for trying to sanitise Carter and adding a happy Hollywood ending.Also most of the film,the director is so obsessed with attention span,he "strobes" the picture regularly and unnecessarily.The final confrontation between Carter and Mickey Rourke is an anticlimax.The beach chase replaced by a brawll on a dancefloor.Not quite as memorable. Stallone seems to better with age and here he still packs a punch.And rather being a hinderance to a remake with a"you're the disease,I'm the cure" approach,he's much better in this film.

In 'Get Carter' Sylvestor Stallone plays Jack Carter a Las Vegas bookey or as he likes to say a "financial adjuster" and if you don't pay well let's just say he becomes 'Rocky' in a unofficial boxing match in the back alley while your tied down to a chair!
However the movie is based upon the revenge of his brother's death who supposebly died in a drinking and driving accident which obviously he does not believe and takes a train to Seattle to check it out. So as Carter searches all of Seattle for his brother's killer the suspects keep changing for whenever he muscles or question's the one who he thinks organized itor did it they give him another name. So after a while he no longer cares who exactly did it and starts killing anyone he for surely knows was at least involved. Get Carter also co stars Mickey Rourke, Alan Cumming, and Michael Caine.

I truly enjoyed this movie. It is highly underrated and hopefully will be appreciated in years to come. Instead of going over plot details, I trust just about everyone is familiar with "The King and I," I'll instead go over the things that I enjoyed most about the film.

Director Richard Rich, who helmed Disney's The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron, helms a very Disney-worthy animated feature for another movie studio. The artwork is beautiful, very vibrant, but the animation is on par with alot of the Disney films from the 1980s, maybe. The characters are basically the same from the original musical, The King of Siam and Anna included. However, there is a new character named Master Little who is voiced by SNL funnyman Darrell Hammond. He's probably the funniest part of the movie. One detractor, is that I thought that the villian, The Kralahome, was a bit too much like Jafar from Disney's Aladdin in his attempt to manipulate various characters, the King included.

However, I think the number one reason I like it better than the 1956 version is because it is only a brief 90 minutes while the original tops out at a whopping 133 mins. Overall I enjoyed Warner's 'King,' even though it seems to drag at points, I will no doubt enjoy watching it for years to come.

I was looking forward to taking my daughter to see the new version of "The King and I." I had watched the original with Yul Brenner many times as a child.

After the introduction of the King's assistant and his magical powers, my daughter was asking to leave the theatre. We stayed, hoping the film might improve.

This adaptation takes a delightful story and attempts to mold it today's audience with the addition of a sinister, powerful villian and a few cute animals.

The animation was an extreme disappointment - never surpassing the quality of recent Saturday morning cartoons.

The only strength of this film was the classic Rogers and Hammerstein collection of songs. Too bad even this could not save this film. The producers are hoping to introduce an old story to children with this new version. Do yourself a favor and spend your money on the original classic.

This version of "The King And I" seems to have gotten a bad rap!
Sure, much of the original story has been altered to make this "Family Viewing" but, the true heart remains! And those wonderful songs by R & H beautifully performed by Martin Vidnovik (The King) and Christiaine Noll (Singing Anna) are pure joy!
WB threw their hat into the animated feature film ring and created something as impressive as Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks ever could! However, this film did not achieve Disney or Dreamworks box office success! This film is a great introduction for children and adults to a classic american musical. I would love to have seen a new trend of animated classic musicals begin such as "Flower Drum Song", "Anything Goes", "Annie Get Your Gun", "Into The Woods", "Fiddler On The Roof" "Hello, Dolly!" or even "Gypsy" now wouldn't that be interesting! The animated TK&I has alot going for it gorgeous animation, great voices (speaking and singing), a great story and a timeless musical score! The running time is just under 90 minutes. Some of the songs were cut from the film but included in the closing credits performed by Barbara Streisand. The DVD has many cool features like a couple of "Making Of" featurettes. Cast & Character Bios and a sing-a-long! A DVD essential for any musical theater fan! Although, I'm sure many musical theater fans would strongly disagree with me!
Also see: "Anna And The King Of Siam (1948), "The King And I" (1956) and "Anna And The King" (1999) or read many of the books written about the life of Anna Leonowens and The King Of Siam.

Another disappointing delivery from Hallmark, which is a pity, as Arabian Nights was excellent, and Merlin was pretty okay. I confess I was disturbed on one level: there was something terribly "Willy Wonca" about it. I think it was because the dwarves looked like oompah-loompah hybrids in their ridiculous rainbow costumes. The exceedingly wholesome and annoying dwarves are named after the days of the week (the Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy thing was a Disney additive and no doubt copyrighted. In the original story they were nameless...) and these friendly fellows can - hold your breath for this one - conjure a magic rainbow and transport themselves about the countryside! There is also a giant dwarf dressed from head to toe in appalling yellow, apparently to inject some humour ... [shudder].

Leave this one on the shelf, folks; if you are above four years of age you might find it sickening.

Hallmark may not have a monopoly on dark fairy tales, but they certainly film them in style. This may not be the sugar-coated fantasy flick you remember hearing as a child, or even watching in the old Disney cartoon. This fairy tale is told the way that Grimm would tell it... with dark, sinister elements and fascinating plot twists. The seven dwarves (one of which is a girl) control the weather and are named for the days of the week. One of them is six foot tall. The Evil Queen is actually a hideous half-mortal whose brother, a genie, has given her a chance for happiness by giving her great beauty. The mirror plays a large role in the bewitching of Snow White's father, and Prince Alfred will soon face a challenge of his own.

There's something about the film that appealed to me... probably the darkness of the script, but also its reasoning and humor. I much enjoyed the psychological aspect of 'Snow White.' It's a magnificent retelling with gorgeous cinematography, a memorable score, and above all a magnificent performance by Miranda Richardson. I thought her enthralling as Queen Mab in Merlin; in 'Snow White' she shows us her full potential. I have doubts in Snow White herself, however... either the actress did not give her any passion, or her role was poorly written. Everyone else is just oozing with unique personality and depth, but this Snow White is a bland, brooding heroine with little to contrive interest in her.

What also fascinates me is that they chose to play out the climactic ending with Vera rather than Miranda... but shockingly, it works. She holds up well to the standard set by Richardson in the former scenes, although I did miss our lovely evil stepmother in-between. It's a script that reeks with clever ideas, memorable dialogue, and visual delights. Artisan has gone even beyond its success with The 10th Kingdom in masterful special effects that would put any Hollywood production to shame. The costuming is gorgeous, the sets in keeping with a fairy-tale like Medieval existence, and the cinematography is breathtaking, right from the opening shot to the ending panorama. The writer/director knew what she was doing.

But even gorgeously filmed as it is, you aren't going to want to plunk your little sister down in front of this one unaware. The script is very dark and contains sinister plot twists, frightening circumstances, hideous creatures, and some psychological elements. Preview first.

After searching Amazon.com for what feels like years, this great version of Snow White is finally out on DVD. As most reviewers have already said, this movie is visually stunning - everything scene is bright and colourful, giving it a truly twenty-first century fairytale look to it. Costumes in particular are lovely whether it be the rainbow outfits of the dwarves or Snow White's own princess-wardrobe.
The story harks back more to the Grimm's fairytale, but contrary to other opinions (including the editorial review) I think this movie is perfectly kid-friendly. I played it for the reasonably sensitive kids I babysit for (aged five to eight) and they were perfectly fine with it - let's give children some credit!
Following the Grimm version, the wood-dwelling couple John and Josephine give birth to a baby daughter according to Jo's wishes when she pricked her finger on a rosebush: a child with hair black as ebony, lips red as blood and skin as white as snow. However when the difficult birth takes Jo's life, John is forced to leave their home to fetch milk for his daughter. He stumbles through the snow, unable to find the village and only survives when his tears melt the icy prison of the Green-Eyed Granter of Wishes, who grants John three wishes in gratitude. Hardly able to believe the situation, John wishes for milk, a kingdom and his queen. The first two are easy work for the genie, but for John's 'queen', the genie goes to his sister Elspeth, an ugly wench who lives to spread misery over the forest creatures (she has a garden of 'real' garden gnomes!) Transforming her into a beautiful woman she gleefully forces John to fall in love with her through the use of a magic mirror, leaving her with a husband to manipulate, a kingdom to rule, and a stepdaughter to manipulate...
Though many may not of realised it if they were not fairytale lovers, the movie actually adds quite a lot of components from the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale 'The Snow Queen', namely the role of the mirror. When Elspeth shatters it, two shards fly into John - one in his eye and one into his heart - the same thing that happens to Kay in Anderson's tale. I suspect many people were confused at the whole mirror sequence if they weren't familiar with this other story.
In keeping in line with the Grimm's story, the movie does include the sash that squeezes the breath out of Snow White as well as the famous apple, but unfortunatly not the poisoned comb. Another fault was that like so may Hallmark productions they do not tie up the ends properly - in this case the plot line concerning Snow White and her mother. When on the run through the woods Snow White stumbles across her mother's grave, and when Elspeth prepares the apple she disguises herself as Josephine, and yet no words are spoken between father and daughter about her at the conclusion of the movie. Likewise I'm not quite sure what did happen to Elspeth - did she really get mauled by angry garden gnomes? It was a shallow end for such a complex character.
In terms of performances, Miranda Richardson obviously stole the spotlight from everyone. She plays her role with great pizzazz from the twisted, bitter hag to the joyful maiden to the jealous and suspecting wife. Kirstin Kreuk definitely looks the part of Snow White with her lovely features and dark hair, but delivers some of her lines a bit awkwardly - however the role of an ideal fairytale princess is a difficult one to play, so we'll let her off. Tom Irwin does all right for a man totally under his wife's thumb, but luckily his performance makes him more a sympathetic character than one to be sneered at. The dwarves have a rather minor role, but certainly stand out in their costumes and ability to transform into a rainbow - the relationship between Snow White and Sunday is especially touching.
Overall this movie is a good one, if not just for its gorgeous appearence - from the elegant yet simple palace to the quiet, peaceful woodlands; the elabourate costumes, the colourful makeup, the subtle yet beautiful special effects, I could go on...