teelbee

Going in, I had utterly no idea of what to expect from this film. My companion didn't even tell me ~what~ movie we were going to see, much less any clues to what it was about. I don't think I've ever walked into a theater with so little idea of what to expect. All I knew was that Clive Owen had a role; but he plays such diverse roles, that gave me no clues.

But, I'm sure even those who knew lot more about this movie going in were surprised. The story provides lots of unexpected and unusual moments. I would anticipate the plot would turn one way, and it would find a whole new direction of it's own. It was refreshing to see a movie that didn't try to fit a mold - that has it's own unique view, rather than fitting into a genre.

The acting was quite amazing; really wonderful believable performances all around. Main characters and minor characters were so believably portrayed that watching the movie occasionally gave me as sense of being the peeping tom.

So those are truly amazing achievements in a movie, especially these days. And yet...

"Boys" has aspects of a great movie, but, sadly, it isn't great. The underlying Peter Pan theme was a bit overplayed. It felt as though the director kept whispering in your ear, saying, "Got it? Got it, yet?"

The storyline held surprises, drama, tension, and some great comic relief... along with more than a few tediously boring scenes that let the audience fall right out of the movie (enough of the raindrops on windows!). It's always a bad sign when I check my watch during a movie, and I checked my watch way too many times in this one.

So, go see it and expect to see something special in it. The specialness is there, even if the movie sometimes dumps you out of the scene and back into your theater seat.

I rated it a 7, but actually think it's a bit shy of that. I read the book years ago, long enough to forget a lot. But, I remember the book as having much more action-oriented scenes and drama. Thus, more of a balance of sentimental and exciting scenes. I found the movie started dragging about 2/3s of the way through, but picked up a lot at the end.

I was ~very~ impressed with the casting of the young Clair. Between, the two Claires, they managed to capture the same look and nuance of expression. I was also very impressed with the casting and performances of the younger and older Alba. The girls did a terrific job with their roles.

I thought it was a good-to-almost-great movie - lots of good characters, good acting, and fairly well paced: 8 out 10. I deducted points for the corny stuff with the donkey, the tea scene with Father and The Strumpet, and the pie fight. A little buffoonery goes a long way, yah know? Emma Thompson was brilliant as as the taciturn nanny - all the more amazing as she had few lines and the expressionless demeanor expected of the serving class in Victorian England. She had to convey the Nanny's power and strength of character just by the look in her eye.

Age has not dimmed Angela Landsbury's star. She showed us she could still interpret a role with an almost uncanny sense of the character's essence.

Colin Firth played the hapless father - a bit broadly in my opinion, but not ~too~ terribly over the top. Thomas Sangster (the boy from Love Actually) was terrific in the role of the eldest brother - ringleader of chaos. The other children all gave better than competent performances - even the little baby. Kelly MacDonald was just okay in her ingénue role.

As for the plot, it's not entirely original but an entertaining story even so. Motherless children running wayward - trampling over a series of unfortunate nannies and their father. Nanny McPhee, with her magical cane, aims to reform this dysfunctional family. Although it is not a musical, you will be reminded of Mary Poppins, the Sound of Music, and My Fair Lady as elements from all three tales are incorporated in Nanny McPhee.

While it may or may not become as treasured a classic as any of those three preceding movies, it is truly wonderful and well very worth going seeing.