Ancient Egypt brought to life on screen... of a sort...

Don't forget-- just two days until my giveaway for Cleopatra's Daughter and The Heretic Queen comes to a close! You still have plenty of time to enter HERE for a chance to win one of the two signed books!

Today's entry is not meant to be a be-all-end-all of Ancient Egypt in film. I am, after all, only mentioning the few that I have seen. But if, like me, you're still enraptured in the world of Michelle Moran's novel after you finish reading it, then maybe you'll want to check one or two of these out:

HBO's Rome (2007)

This is the best television show ever made.

That being said, there are some historical inaccuracies. Some shady timelines, some characters never aging. The fact that they imply Octavian's mother, Attia, was in love with Marc Antony, and ruled Rome as his mistress. That sort of thing. But it's soooo good. And if you're a history geek like me, you can overlook some problems and fall in love with the amazing detailing instead. The costumes and sets are impeccable because they're real. They are in Rome. The extras are all Romans, and the rest of the actors are a superb, ensemble British cast. It is horribly violent and crude, but then, so was much of Ancient Rome. It's not a show for everyone, but if you can stomach it, I think you'll love it, too.

Cleopatra is, I think, very realistic. She's not exactly pretty (which we are now learning is probably closer to the truth of her physical appearance), but she controls the men with her sexuality and uniquely Ptolemaic confidence. I'm not sure whether I think Cleopatra would have been shorn underneath her wig like this actress is, but I'm sure they had reason to believe it could have happened. Overall, A+ portrayal of Cleo.

Cleopatra (1963)

I don't remember a whole lot of this movie because I've never seen it all at once.

It is almost 5 hours long.

That being said, it has a certain entertainment value that makes it worth viewing. Elizabeth Taylor is at her most beautiful here, which is saying a lot, though whether she resembles anything of the actual Cleopatra is anyone's guess. I'm willing to bet no, but again, I will overlook that inaccuracy in light of good theater. I mean, this is where Liz Taylor and Richard Burton fell in love. That's epic enough in itself! They practically portray their own lives! I'm giving it a B+ for that alone!

Caesar and Cleopatra (1945)

Ditto on this, I don't really remember it. Of what I do recall, it's kinda goofy. It's written by George Bernard Shaw, but I don't think the man read just the right history books for this one. And Vivien Leigh is a miscast, I'm sorry to say. I wouldn't exactly recommend this movie, but it has an archival appeal to it. D+ (see, I can't actually fail Vivien Leigh-- that's my problem...)

Land of the Pharaohs (1955)

I looked this movie up on Amazon and it is currently out on DVD under the series "Camp Classics." That sums up this sword-and-sandal epic so well. Joan Collins. Need I say more?

I mean, let's forget historical accuracy altogether here and get right into the story. In the 18th Dynasty, the pharaoh hires a man to build him a labyrinth in his tomb so intricate that no thieves could ever find their way out once inside. While building this masterpiece, he takes as his bride the lovely Joan Collins, a princess with a chip on her shoulder. The princess conspires with her lover to assassinate her controlling husband, but the pharaoh is determined to never let her go... I won't even TELL you the ending, it is that good! I'm serious; the ending has a twist you will NOT see coming, and it turns this around from a cheesefest to kind of a good story. B+/A-!

ETA: Holy crap, William Faulkner wrote the screenplay. What?!?

The Mummy (1999)

Whatever, I threw this in. I LIKE it, okay? The original one is really funny, and while it's not exactly Ancient Egypt, there are enough elaborate crypts and crawlies to satisfy most viewers. Solid B.

"There are as many kinds of Austen adaptations as there are moments in time." Friday Film Review.

Mansfield Park (1999)

Director: Patricia Rozema

Cast: Frances O'Connor, Jonny Lee Miller, Embeth Davidtz, Alessandro Nivola, et al.

My Review: Hey guys, remember when this movie came out? And everyone was really excited because finally a *woman* was going to direct an Austen adaptation? And it got good press because it had a hot, up-and-coming young cast? And then when it came out in theaters it got bad reviews because it took so many liberties with the source material?

Okay, technically I don't remember any of that... but that's what I've been reading on IMDB in preparation for reviewing this film. What can I say, I was in grade school when this came out, and just slightly too young to have gotten caught up in period pieces. Anyway, I find the responses to this film to be fascinating; you either love it or hate it. There is no in-between.

I'm not going to summarize this story because, really. Fanny Price is born poor, goes to live with rich relations, falls in love with her pseudo-brother, the end. I want to get to the good stuff (illustrated!).
Fanny, as played by Frances O'Connor, is judgmental, yes, and preachy, yes, and all the same stuff that we always complain about regarding the character, but overall I thought she did a decent job. She is *not* as prudish as the book character, so she had that going for her, as well. Jonny Lee Miller is adorable, of course. I heard that he will play Mr. Knightley in a new BBC adaptation of Emma to come out next year, and I think that could be excellent.

Let's get to Alessandro Nivola as Henry Crawford, the ne'er-do-well who almost steals Fanny's heart. The problem here is that he is TOO good in this role to make it believable that Fanny would choose Edmund over him. Edmund, destined to be a parson for... no discernable reason... is really harsh on everyone. Perhaps we're meant to believe that Fanny chooses Edmund because she doesn't think she deserves anyone different. Maybe she hates herself and wants to live a life of judging others and being judged. I don't know. All I know is that Austen (allegedly!) had wanted Fanny and Henry to get together, but someone who read an early draft of the novel basically told her Henry was "too good to be true," and suggested she make Fanny choose Edmund. So then Austen wrote in the little section where Henry and Maria run off together. In this movie, Fanny catches them in flagrante delicto before they run off, but still. I feel like, if I were a director, and I had a cast like Frances O'Connor and Alessandro Nivola, I would just change the ending. Actually, I would forget about an Austen adaptation and just make it a really awesome Regency romance. There, I said it.

Another thing people didn't like about this movie is how sexy it is. Ooo, yeah, check out that hand on the neck... for shame! How dare anyone introduce physicality into a romance!

I know the rebuttal is that Austen didn't write about it, but... I don't really care. People held hands, even in Regency times.

Oh my lord, what is that?!?

Aaaanyway, what I'm so sarcastically saying is that I actually enjoyed most of what Rozema "added" to the original Austen in this movie. It made it younger and fresher. There are still too many really boring, dry BBC adaptations out there, that this one stirred the pot in a nice way. I agree with the validity of the argument that it's not "true" Austen, but I will counter that with another... just because she didn't write about her characters kissing or anything of that sort, doesn't mean she didn't imagine them participating in those activities at some point in their lives. She also didn't talk about them going to the bathroom (and I bet you won't find any Regency writer who did), but you know that Regency people did, in fact, have to use the facilities at some point. They are human just like us.

So, enough ranting on that subject. I LIKE THIS MOVIE.

Also, this:
That is James Purefoy in the really, really tiny role of Tom Bertram, heir to Mansfield Park. He would go on to be Marc Antony in Rome and star in plenty of other great movies and shows. I just think the fact that he has approximately 3 lines and all of them are performed intoxicated is hilarious.

Visit the IMDB page for this movie

Buy this on DVD on Amazon

*SWOON* Friday Film Review.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Director: Joe Wright

Cast: Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen, Donald Sutherland, Rosamund Pike, Simon Woods, Dame Judy Dench, Jena Malone

Summary: I’m… not going to summarize this. If you’re reading a book blog, and furthermore a historical book blog, I think I have good odds that you know what the story is about.

My Review: As I’ve already stated, I love this movie. The book purist in me cringes at the cuts and changes they made to the storyline and various characters, but I love it regardless.

Thus, this is mainly going to be a gushy picture post.


I liked Keira Knightley as Lizzy a lot. I think that she comes off as an intelligent person on screen and she does a great character arc.

I did once read, however, a review that said she would have done better as Cathy in a production of Wuthering Heights, rather than P&P. They said, among other comments, that she wasn't quite charming enough as Lizzy, and anyway the rest of the cast was ready made for that movie. I do think that Matthew Macfadyen would also have been great as Heathcliff, and this picture:


could absolutely have been lifted straight out of a scene of WH.

Regardless. I like this cast together a lot, and I still love this movie. Also, this scene at the end, where Darcy walks across the field with his jacket billowing in the breeze? That's awesome.


Which brings me to Mr. Darcy himself. Look at that. He's all broody and judgey. He just wants a hug, and to get the hell out of that ballroom. Matthew Macfadyen was definitely worthy of taking on the role. But is he better than Colin Firth? I answer that question with another question: why do we have to choose? There's plenty of Darcy love to go around!


I also like most of the rest of the cast. I loved Rosamund Pike as Jane, particularly because now we could believe what all the characters say in the book: Jane is the fair, gorgeous Bennett girl, and Lizzy is the sharper, slightly less polished daughter. As for the other girls... they were fine. I can't tell if I didn't like Jena Malone because Lydia is such an infuriating character, or because I was jealous that she got to be in this movie and I didn't, or because I have traumatic memories of being forced to watch that horrible Stepmom movie where she plays the daughter. Either way, I could have done without her.


This is a very visually appealing movie. I know a lot of people didn't like the drabness of Lizzy's dresses and her giant walking coat, but I actually did. I feel like, given their family situation, they might not be wearing the latest cute fashions, or have clothes that fit them exactly, or have perfect hair.

I love the hair in this movie. Witness this picture. Getting my hair to look like this is on my list of things to do before I die. I simply feel that this movie is the way it might have looked to live in Regency England. Also, see the Ciaran Hinds version of Persuasion. Even the actors in that one look straight out of Regency. I don't know what it is, if there's a certain look or dress, but that's the feel I get from these two movies.


This is my favorite scene in the movie. Thiiiiiiis. This is subtle and gorgeous and so real, and more beautiful than the final kiss. This is actually one of my favorite movie scenes out of any movie.

So that's one item down on my list of things to do for the Everything Austen challenge. In fact, I'm enjoying this so much, I may just review a film adaptation of every major Jane Austen novel. We'll see next week!

"What is true of most men is doubly so of him." Friday Film Review!

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Director: Stephen Frears

Cast: John Malkovich, Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman, Keanu Reeves

I caught this movie on HBO during the last week and fell back into it like a chaise longue. The thing I love about Dangerous Liaisons (adapted from the 18th century epistolic novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses) is that it is two movies in one (and they may be mutually exclusive): it’s a complex social commentary and/or a terrific, sexy soap opera.

While I have not read the original novel, from what I know this film follows the original story pretty closely. Not long before the French Revolution, the Vicomte de Valmont (Malkovich) and the Marquise de Merteuil (Close) are old friends and older lovers whose primary drive in life seems to be making other people as miserable as they are. The Marquise holds a grudge against the Volanges family and employs the Vicomte to avenge it, enticing him to seduce the young Volanges daughter, Cecile (Thurman) so that she is ruined for her contracted marriage. But these plans go awry due to two unforeseen circumstances: in simultaneously seducing the famed moralist Madame de Tourvel (Pfeiffer) the Vicomte begins to fall in love, and Cecile begins to fall in love herself with the Chevalier Danceny (Reeves… and don’t worry, he’s not in it very much). Needless to say, pandemonium and nakedness ensues.



The movie won a few Oscars, mostly for how gorgeous it is. Somehow, at this period in time, Malkovich is actually believable as a… how might we term it… “lothario”? What I’m trying to say is that this period piece looks well on him. See The Illusionist to similarly witness Edward Norton wear the Victorian age like he was born in it. Glenn Close got nominated for Best Actress and the whole thing was nominated for Best Picture.

This movie came out quite a while ago, and this wasn’t even the first time that I, myself, have seen it, but I thought it was such a perfect summer movie that I should write about it here. The characters are quite awesomely wicked and the costuming is drool-worthy. Someone came into the living room while I was watching this movie and commented that they couldn’t stand it because the characters were such horrible people. I would agree except for the fact that I have sat all the way through previously and learned that each character gets justice handed to them in some form. I like wicked characters as much as the next person, but I like them to learn from their mistakes or else be punished for them, or at least have a believable reason as to why they can continue to be wicked. I think it’s the writer in me that craves for complete character and story arcs. In the end, this film does not disappoint.

It's also a great story about the end of the Ancien Regime in France. It could also be said that this was a great movie about the 1980s, as it were: extreme capitalism and people who seemed devoid of social foresight. At any rate, the aristocracy was so debauched and out-of-touch with reality that their scheming and amorality was leading to their own downfall, which is just what happens to our aristocratic characters. Even the Vicomte is able to predict his own demise toward the end of the film. There is also light commentary on the different social roles given to men and women at this time period from the Marquise:

"When I came out into society I was 15. I already knew that the role I was condemned to, namely to keep quiet and do what I was told, gave me the perfect opportunity to listen and observe. Not to what people told me, which naturally was of no interest, but to whatever it was they were trying to hide. I practiced detachment. I learned how to look cheerful while under the table I stuck a fork into the back of my hand. I became a virtuoso of deceit. It wasn't pleasure I was after, it was knowledge. I consulted the strictest moralists to learn how to appear, philosophers to find out what to think, and novelists to see what I could get away with, and in the end, I distilled everything to one wonderfully simple principle: win or die."

She doubtlessly follows her own promise through to the end. It's easy to say that she didn't have to be so cold-hearted and ruthless toward everyone, but then we watch every single character fulfill her prophecy. In a way, the Marquise is her own Machiavelli, although she is not exactly dealing with matters of state here.

So whether you want to see intrigue and social commentary, or just want to watch a lot of pretty people screw each other over, I highly recommend this movie.



See the IMDB page for Dangerous Liaisons