My first thought was of Eleanor possibly being pregnant also.  But I am seriously displeased that the General is in town.  His presence can only bring trouble for our newlyweds (both sets!).

I can't think of 2 more different movies, but I saw them both this week and liked them both very much.

"Breach" is based on a true story.  It stars Chris Cooper (who was FABULOUS) as Robert Hanssen, an FBI analyst who sold information to the Soviets and (later) the Russians.  Ryan Phillipe plays Eric O'Neill, the FBI flunky who is put in a position to help catch Hanssen in the act.  Laura Linney is quite good as the agent to whom Eric reports.  Even though I knew what was going to happen, I was still on the edge of my seat at points.  I highly recommend it.

"Music & Lyrics" is a delightful piece of fluff.  Hugh Grant plays Alex Fletcher, a former 80s pop star from a group called (appropriately enough) "Pop."  The movie opens with a music video of their biggest hit, "Pop goes my heart."  Hugh does all his own singing, and he really holds his own.  Here is the video, courtesy of YouTube.  I was too old in the 80s to pay much attention to MTV, but I know enough about 80s music to have found this video absolutely hysterical.  The movie itself is adorable.  Alex is asked by a Britney Spears-type named Cora to write her a love song by the end of the week.  Alex discovers that Drew Barrymore (his plant lady) is good with rhyming, so he asks for her help writing the song.  Alex is still living in the 80s, performing at county fairs and amusement parks, so he really needs this job.  Drew's character (Sophie) is not interested, but she finally gives in.   Anyway, without giving away too much of the story, I'll just say that I enjoyed this movie very much and can see myself buying it when it comes out.  Hugh Grant looks like he's having an absolute blast, and the outtakes or "making-of" (if any) should be great. 

Oh, here is another clip of Hugh singing.  It reminds me of when I turned 40 in 1999 -- a couple of girlfriends who were also turning 40 and I went to Great Adventure in New Jersey to see teen idols from our era -- Peter Noone (of Herman's Hermits), Davey Jones (of the Monkees) and Bobby Sherman (sawooooooooooooooon!).  It was great.  This sea of 40-somethings singing along while their husbands and children were on the outskirts pretending they were alone.

I see that a new version of Wuthering Heights might be in the works.

I've never been able to get past the first couple of chapters.  Maybe an adaptation will convince me to read the whole thing.

That subject has come up for discussion at various places, including AustenBlog. 

Andrew Davies has always been about as subtle as a sledgehammer.  This is just one more example of why I think he's overrated.

Interesting article about "The Queen" (and the Princess): http://www.nysun.com/article/48954

I've said Charles was immoral several times.  How does that mean that I approve of what he did?

And yes, Helen Mirren IS a goddess.

Yes, her job was to produce the heir and the spare.  Which she did very well. But her job didn't involve taking the spotlight from the Prince of Wales.  But that's exactly what she did.  And it wasn't by accident.  The woman was a master manipulator of the media who seemed determined to make herself look good at the expense of the Royal Family. She became more well-known even than her charities.  It was all about *her*.

If we go back less than 100 years, we will see that Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was very popular when she married Prince Albert of York.  She continued to be popular when she became Queen Consort when her husband inherited the crown from Edward VIII.  But she understood that the wife of the King did not have a constitutional role.  She did not take advantage of her popularity and use it to make her husband look bad.  Instead, she protected him (he was a stutterer and not interested in publicity) and used her popularity to help make him popular also.  For Queen Elizabeth, the Crown was the important thing, not her own interests.

I'm still in NY, trying at once to save money for the move and to pay down debt so that I have as little as possible when I make the move.

As of right now the job is safe, but I am really tired of working for a 71-year-old man who throws temper tantrums.  I've never needed antacids before this.    I gave up the best job I ever had to earn more money and I've been paying for it since.  I'll probably be paying for that one horrible decision for the rest of my life.

On the plus side, Dad came through the surgery (it turns out that, when they opened him up, his condition was worse than they'd thought) with flying colors and he now feels GREAT.  I think Wednesday was the first day he was allowed to drive again, so I'm dying to find out how he feels about getting his independence back.

The whole idea of the move is nerve-wracking.  On the one hand, I love New York.  I was born here.  After spending the first few years of my life in Queens (one of the "boroughs" of the City) I spent most of my childhood 2 miles from the city limits and spent a lot of weekends visiting friends and family who lived in town.  I learned to ice skate in Central Park.  I ate ice cream at Rumpelmeyer's.  I was taken to stores that only exist in the memory of other people who grew up here.  I saw the planes hit the Twin Towers. I knew people who died and I know people who survived.  A twist of fate kept me from being one of the dead. I love the theater.  I love art-house movies.  I love Mom-and-Pop stores where you are known by name.  I love how everyone delivers.  I love how I can choose from a dozen different cuisines -- all within a 5-block radius of my apartment.

But I hate the cold. I hate how expensive it is to live here.  I hate living in a shoebox that I have to climb up 2 flights of steep stairs to get to and that I pay more than 1/3 of my take home pay for the privilege of living in one of the world's great cities.

The older I get, the more important the "I hates" are to me.

Welcome back Mary.  It's good to see you.

He indicated in an article that he wanted to explore (no pun intended) the backstory (no pun intended) of Willoughby's seduction of Eliza Williams.

I wouldn't mind seeing the duel scene, though. I've been meaning to write that fan fiction for years.

I just saw a photo of the cast of MP3.  They have Fanny slouching.  Oy.

I was so excited about the "Season of Austen." Now, given everything that I've seen and read about all the new movies, I am so depressed.  They all look plain scary.  Granted, Andrew Davies is involved in several of them, and that says a lot.

I bought a new computer in November, and was told that it is Vista compatible and that I could upgrade for free.  I talked with the tech guy from work and he said he's not installing it for any of his corporate customers and that he didn't think I needed to do it either.

I'd love a Mac, but I can't afford it so, in the meantime, XP is fine with me.

Cool.  I like Father Tim.

I liked Brosnan, but mostly because he looked drop-dead gorgeous in a dinner jacket.   

But I really liked this movie, and was pleasantly surprised at Daniel Craig.

Good going John!

I had a long talk with my father about this movie and about the discussion here.  He's most definitely on the same page as you.  He described Diana in a nutshell: a selfish girl who didn't want to do her job.

Diana was a commoner, but not in the same sense that we are.  The only one of her 3 siblings who was on her side in this whole thing was her brother, and he was having his own marital problems.  Both of her sisters (one of whom dated Prince Charles years ago) sided with the Royal Family.  Diana was raised around the Royal Family (Prince Andrew was a playmate of hers), and she should have known better what to expect (and I'm not talking about Charles' behavior -- I'm talking about the whole "kit 'n' kaboodle", including how she was supposed to behave).  Both of her grandmothers were ladies-in-waiting.  Her father was affiliated with the Royal Household.  Diana was raised with these people.  Her grandmother and his grandmother arranged the match because of this proximity to the Royals.  In short, she really should have known better.

This is not to say that Charles did the right thing in waiting so long to get married and ended up having to marry a teenager because she was the only eligible virgin around.  But she is not completely blameless in that she refused to accept the consequences of her own actions. 

I haven't seen the Dalton version in a while, so I'm going to have to go from memory on this.

I liked Dalton because it, like P&P1, is very close to the book.  They kept the gypsy scene as Bronte wrote it, kept the inheritance, and the fact that the Riverses are her cousins.  The Hinds/Morton version left all of that out.  This new version is, IMO, rather well done.  I liked Ruth Wilson a lot.  I thought she showed the facade of reserve but with turbulent emotions underneath that Jane Eyre has in the book.  And I liked Toby Stephens a lot.  The gypsy scene is there, but it's done differently from the book and, I actually think the way this version does it is better than other versions because it's more believable on screen this way than taking it directly from the book.  Yes, I'm rambling, but it's really hard to describe.

There is real chemistry between the actors in this version.  It's the first time I've been able to see what each one of the characters sees in the other. 

But then, I've never seen the 1973 version, but I will report back after I've seen it.  This one is, apparently, the best one of all (except, of course, for the production values).  I am looking forward to it.