There are intriguing and intelligent narrative nuances brought out in Elizabeth I's pre-coronation years, yet.. (sigh) the pacing is a muddle. Halfway through, Edward is still alive, still half-king. We have yet to get through Lady Jane's and Bloody Mary's reigns. Where is this series going? As for Elizabeth—oy. Out of over a dozen characterizations (in films I've screened), I've never seen Elizabeth written as so dull, witless, and stupid a girl. All the characters surrounding her—particularly her lover/pseudo-step-father, Thomas Seymour—proclaim to behold the spark before them, which will one day ignite a bold and canny Virgin Queen's 45-year reign. But I don't see it in Alicia von Rittberg, though the fault may be with the writers and director. The love triangle between Elizabeth, Seymour, and King Henry's widow, Catherine Parr, is interesting, and the impulse is correct (in my view). However, to hang the entire season grinding the angle into dust is less interesting, particularly as Elizabeth comes out of it seemingly more vain, self-absorbed, and unenlightened from the tortured romance. Bella Ramsey's Lady Jane is equally tedious. The surprise standout of the series is Romola Garai. Compounding the stellar acting, Garai's Mary grows more intelligent and sharp with every episode, while her character groks each new event, spiritually evolving into a higher nobility and rank. We watch in awe as Mary's stature gains momentum. Considering the grotesque portrayals common to Bloody-Mary-past, seeing Mary from this angle is a treat and a surprise. Clearly, the producers wish to see the seasons grow with Elizabeth surviving each of her siblings' (+ short-lived cousin's) reign. However, the series would be far greater if Becoming Elizabeth would just, well.. become Elizabeth.
UPDATE: —welp— I guess the reign of Elizabeth is not to "become." CANCELLED.
In 'The French Dispatch' director Wes Anderson goes all out with his characteristic aesthetic, beautiful visuals, use of colour and attention to detail. The music is great, fantastic even at times. There are more top actors than you could find at an average Oscars party. And visually most of shots are works of art all by them self. It is rather unfortunate that Wes his attention to detail do not translate to a more coherent story as a whole, holding the movie back.
'The French Dispatch' contains three separate stories, only trivially connected by a fourth overarching story about a newspaper and its journalists (based on the origins of a real newspaper.) On their own, each story is serviceable, but unfortunately the guiding story is lacking enough substance to make it work as a whole. The at times rather dense dialogue, riddled with puns and metaphors, also do not help with avoiding confusion. Especially for the average cinema visitor. However, the jokes and puns are often positively unexpected and with a great show of comedic timing, even during otherwise non comedic scenes. And this is without having to resort to the type of subversive humor we so often see nowadays in blockbuster films.
The three stories on their own, especially the rather quirky first one about the convicted murderer, are all interesting and fun enough to make the viewer invested. And although each story is not likely to be strong enough in its current form to carry a whole film, I think they could have benefited from some more time. To give the characters some more and/or better introduction. It would also have the benefit of seeing some more from all the fantastic actors.
I would recommend to watch this movie at (a somewhat larger screen) at home, where you have the option to rewind. That way it is also possible to appreciate the many details in many shots and scenes.
With every movie Wes improves his meticulous and almost obsessive attention to detail in every shot. Considering the visuals; In 'The French Dispatch' he once again trumps every movie Wes Anderson has made before, including the well received 'Budapest Hotel' and his critically acclaimed stop motion films 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Isle Of Dogs'. Of course there is an ample amount of his characteristic centered camera work, straight angle moving and panning, and the painting-like sets in almost every shot. He plays with aspect ratio and switches between colour and black and white for significant portions of the movie. And there is even a fully (drawn) animated section, which is a lot of fun.
If a movie was only visuals, this one would have been rated a 10/10.
I absolutely enjoyed the music and music timing in this. Composer Alexandre Desplat (who often composed for Wes Anderson his films) made a score that was often subtle, while still reinforcing the atmosphere of the movie and the scene. I also noticed some parts where video and audio were carefully timed to match one another. On a few occasions the music felt like a temporary extra character in the scene, leading the atmosphere instead of only enforcing it, and I found myself actively appreciating it more than I usually do when watching a film.
With all the actors involved, and the limited time they are given, it is difficult to properly discuss acting as a whole. There are so many fantastic actors in this, but the lack of screentime for each of them makes none of them award worthy. I have to mention Benicio del Toro for his acting though. With his menacing performance he outshines most of the other actors. And that is with a cast like this very difficult to do.
Overall I enjoyed this movie a lot, but even though I would like to recommend it, it is difficult to recommend to most people except for people already familiar with Wes Anderson his work. It might be not accessible enough for the average person, with the separate stories and visual style. While for a film fan the story issues can be problematic. Its shortcomings are especially unfortunate, because it likely will be a cause for less people to watch it.
