Rosamund Pike | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Rosamund Pike’

It Seems I Am Over-ruled…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Brenda Blethyn, Carey Mulligan, Caroline Bingley, Charlotte Lucas, Claudie Blakley, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Bennet, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Jane Bennet, Jena Malone, Joe Wright, Judi Dench, Keira Knightley, Kelly Reilly, Kitty Bennet, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Lydia Bennet, Mary Bennet, Matthew Macfadyen, Movie Reviews, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Collins, Mr. Darcy, Mr. Wickham, Mrs. Bennet, Pride & Prejudice” (2005) — movie review, Reviews, Rosamund Pike, Rupert Friend, Simon Woods, Talulah Riley, Tom Hollander on March 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Pride & Prejudice” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the 2005 adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic novel, “Pride & Prejudice” (2005), directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, the sharp-eyed second daughter who refuses to settle; Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, the stiff, socially awkward, secretly decent rich guy; Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet, the kind, beautiful eldest sister; Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet, the wild youngest sister; Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet, the giggly / follower sister; Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet, the serious, bookish sister; Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley, Darcy’s friendly, slightly clueless best friend; Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley, Bingley’s snobbish, judgmental sister; Rupert Friend as Mr. Wickham, the charming cadd who runs off with Lydia; Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, the dry, quietly loving father; Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, the anxious, marriage-obsessed mother; Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins, the painfully awkward cousin, who is due to inherit the Bennet home on Mr. Bennet’s death; Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy’s aristocratic dragon aunt; and Claudie Blakley as Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth’s practical friend who chooses the security of marriage to Mr. Collins over romance.

Background: I’ve seen this movie multiple times now and I still enjoy it so much I’ve now read the book and purchased and viewed multiple versions / adaptations of this story. (Full Disclosure: I watch this version every time I watch a different version and while this remains my favorite, I do see the strengths of many of the other adaptations.) My first review of this film was back in November of 2011 when I was doing single paragraph reviews (review here). This was Joe Wright’s first feature film, and it ended up earning four Oscar nominations — Best Actress (Knightley), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Costume Design. The chemistry between Knightley and Macfadyen really makes this film version, and the little period details (muddy hems, cluttered rooms, house staff smoothing tablecloths) make the world feel real and lived in (IMHO).

Plot: Elizabeth Bennet lives with her four sisters and anxious mother in a country household where property and marriage are the main paths to security. When Mr. Bingley arrives in the neighborhood and falls for Jane, his friend Mr. Darcy manages to insult Elizabeth almost immediately. Wickham, a charming militia officer, adds fuel to the fire by hinting at past wrongs done by Darcy. Meanwhile, Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, gets (painfully) rejected, and then marries her friend Charlotte. Elizabeth later encounters Darcy again at Lady Catherine’s estate, where he blurts out a proposal that is while heartfelt equally insulting. She turns him down, only to learn later — through his letter — that Wickham is not the victim he pretends to be. Things come to a head when Lydia runs off with Wickham, threatening the family’s reputation. Darcy quietly steps in to fix the situation. By the time everyone returns home, Elizabeth has seen Darcy’s true character, and the two finally meet in the middle and profess love.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; beautiful and grounded; a few small issues; absolutely yes.

Any good? Yes. It’s one of the most re-watchable period films I own. The story moves quickly without feeling rushed, and the emotional beats land. The movie keeps the humor, the class tension, and the slow-burn romance without getting stuffy.

Acting: Knightley brings energy and intelligence to Elizabeth, and Macfadyen’s awkward, tightly wound Darcy works perfectly opposite her. The younger sisters each feel distinct, Charlotte’s choice makes sense, and Wickham is exactly the kind of smooth-talking problem Lydia would fall for. Dench, Hollander, and Sutherland all add weight in their own ways. (Sutherland is my favorite character of the three, but Hollander is thoroughly / convincingly obsequious in his role.)

Filming / FX: No big FX here, just beautiful cinematography and great production design. Natural light, long takes, muddy fields, cluttered rooms — it all feels / looks real. The score fits the tone without overwhelming anything.

Problems: If you’re attached to the longer BBC version (which I have also watched multiple times), this one may feel compressed. LoL… Some viewers may object to the exclusion of the Darcy lake-swim / wet shirt scene (in the BBC version) which isn’t in this version. A few other transitions are also quick, and the movie leans more romantic than the fuller versions. Nothing major, though.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. This film is a comfort watch for me and I go back to it (or one of its other versions or related films) almost yearly. I enjoy the characters, the humor, the awkwardness, and the slow shift in how Elizabeth and Darcy see each other.

Final Recommendation: High recommendation. The Oscar nominations were well deserved, and the film holds up beautifully. If you like Austen, period dramas, or just a well-acted romance, this is an easy pick. This “Pride & Prejudice” remains my favorite version / adaptation.

.
Click here (22 March) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

It Feels Like A Western Shakespeare

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Arizona, Blazing Saddles, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, Captain Joseph Blocker, Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk, Christian Bale, Clint Eastwood, Comanche, Dances With Wolves, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Hostiles -- movie review, John Huston, Master Sergeant Thomas Metz, Montana, Movie Reviews, New Mexico, Reviews, Rory Cochrane, Rosalee Quaid, Rosamund Pike, Silverado, Spaghetti Westerns, The Lone Ranger, The Outlaw Josey Wales, U.S. Cavalry, Unforgiven, Wes Studi, Wyoming on July 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Hostiles” (2017) — movie review
Today’s review is for the western / drama film: “Hostiles” (2017) starring Christian Bale as Captain Joseph Blocker, Rosamund Pike as Rosalee Quaid (a traumatized widow), Wes Studi as Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk, and Rory Cochrane as Master Sergeant Thomas Metz (Blocker’s longtime friend and fellow soldier).

Background: I like Bale, Pike and Studi, so I thought I’d pick up this film to check it out. That was about 2021 (COVID era), and then I just never quite got around to watching it. It’s been popping up on my “get around to watching list” lately, so now I have. This is my first viewing of the film. Like most kids of the late 50s and early 60s, I played a lot of cowboys and Indians. I also loved viewing the movies and TV shows. Then, around 1971, I read “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee” and my whole perception of “America” changed… Yes, I watched the “Spaghetti Westerns” / Clint Eastwood trilogy, but the shine of the “American Western” was gone. It REALLY died with the satire of “Blazing Saddles” and it’s taken me a slow feed of Westerns over the decades to get my interest back in appreciating the genre as an “art form”.

This is a movie, set in 1892, about a battle-hardened U.S. Cavalry officer (Bale / Blocker) who is reluctantly carrying out orders to escort a dying Native American Chief (Studi / Chief Yellow Hawk) and his family back to their homeland in Montana. Blocker, who has spent most of the last two decades fighting and killing Native Americans, refuses the assignment, but under threat of court martial and loss of his pension (he is set to retire), he accepts the detail. The film emphasizes Blocker is a man of duty and he has killed because it was his job and not because he “enjoyed” it. This is why he initially hates the Chief. He feels the Chief and his tribes enjoyed butchering in the name of war. In the end, Blocker realizes many of his side (and under his command) misinterpreted his actions and they (as he imagined the Indians) DID enjoy the slaughter.

The journey begins and along the way, Blocker’s party encounters Rosalee Quaid, whose entire family was slaughtered by Comanche raiders. Blocker buries her dead and then gently prods her to join the group. Quaid wants to die and be buried along side her family, but in the end chooses life. As the group faces ambushes, internal tension, and moral conflicts, Blocker begins to see the humanity in the Chief (and his family) he once called enemy. Likewise, Quaid finds that not all Indians are the same and some can be loving families, too.

So, is this movie any good? How is the acting? The action scenes? Is it entertaining? Did I like it? In short: yes; very good; okay to good; so-so; and, yes – very much!

Any good? Well, it didn’t win any Oscars and it didn’t even get nominated for any, but I felt it was every bit as good as “Dances With Wolves“. The actual filming is beautiful and the “roughness” of the journey is emphasized by the caked on dirt and muck the characters acquire on their face and clothes. This is a “subtle” realism I (perhaps strangely) enjoy seeing in film.

How’s the acting? Very good! Again, all the characters – but Bale’s in particular – are “deep”. Even the “bad-guys” look and act the part. Possibly the sole exception are the Comanche warriors who are completely lacking in background development. They’re simply presented as butchers / savages.

How’s the action? Within reason, it’s actually pretty good, too. The gun fights are “mostly” realistic for effects and for tactics. And, where they are not realistic, they are “mostly” at least possible. I could quibble, but it’s “just” a movie…

Is it entertaining? Yes, but not in the traditional sense (except at the VERY end). This is “Unforgiven” or “The Outlaw Josey Wales“, not “The Lone Ranger” or “Silverado“. Although there is quite a bit of graphic violence, this movie is more about the character’s changing than the typical Western shoot-em up. So, introspection over gunfights. It needs to be added that if you substitute the towers of John Huston’s Arizona / New Mexico for the plains of Montana and Wyoming, you have an idea of the visual beauty of the vistas / landscapes captured in this film.

And did I like it? Yes, very much. Bale continues to impress me with his performances. All, I can say is I’ve yet to see him in a comedy or funny role, so “intense” may be all he can do. I also continue to like Pike’s acting even if it seemed a little “uneven” in this film. The film says the group has enough provisions for a month, but it’s not at all clear how long the trip actually takes – it felt a LOT longer. Pike’s character just seemed to me to get over her family’s slaughter a little to quickly. Okay, a LOT too quickly. But I still liked her performance. The supporting cast (especially Studi and Cochrane) add depth and a surprising amount of realism and profound dignity.

Is the ending realistic? Who cares! It’s what I was rooting for and I’m happy it was in the film. (Now, you’ll have to see the film to find out what I’m talking about… LoL)

Problems? I said I wasn’t going to quibble, so just one… NO experienced military person is going to shoot / injure someone at 10 yards, shoot them again at twenty (-ish) yards and then put down his firearm to get a knife to walk out to the injured guy “just” to gut him. He might still have his firearm, or if you’re sure you saw him drop it, he might have a second one which he pulled out while you turned your back to get the knife. You approach with the knife (your firearm still in hand and ready to shoot). IF both hands are empty, then you can holster your firearm and “gut” him. There were a couple of other “details” like this, but again, I’m quibbling about Hollywood.

Final recommendation: highly recommended! If you’re into films that challenge their genre’s tropes and explore the emotional toll of being human – feeling hatred, loss, and (sometimes) eventual forgiveness, this is a very good film – and a great Western. But, remember, it’s NOT a feel-good film. It’s a feel-something about others / discover-something about yourself film. It asks: “Can you learn to forgive?” And, of course, given the violence and implied sexual assaults, this is not a movie for young children.

.
Click here (10 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.