No one beats a screenwriter for hating everybody else’s movies (including most of his own), so I am known among my friends as a terrible film curmudgeon, bemoaning the great days of Fellini, Bunuel, et al. What a bore. So I’m pleased any time I can recommend a new one and I did quite enjoy Nanny McPhee, which Sheryl and I saw with Madeleine Saturday night of its opening weekend at Hollywood’s Arclight Cinema. Of course, I am a huge Emma Thompson fan, as an actress and as a writer. Her script for Sense and Sensibility was one of the best Austen adaptation’s ever. I also understand she had her hand in the new version of Pride and Prejudice. 
Here she has written herself a role filled with wart-filled amusement as the Nanny-from-Hell come to reform a family of deliciously unruly kids. At first you almost cannot look at her, then her blemishes (and snaggletooth) gradually disappear as the children do reform and it’s the same beautiful Emma. Corny, but effective.
McPhee has some other terrific performances, stacked as it is with a who’s who of the British stage – Colin Furth, Derek Jacobi, a scenery-chewing Angela Lansbury. And speaking of scenery, that’s probably the best part of this film – Michael Powell’s colorfully playful Victorian sets which resemble William Morris on acid. 
Costumes are in a similar vein as you can see here from the photo of Celia Imrie who portrays the potential Wife-from-Hell for hapless Colin Firth. You will not be surprised to learn that it never happens.
Don’t take this as an unqualified rave. I am at the point in my life that I realize that your pleasure in a movie (or anything else) is vastly related to your mood, place and the company you are with. Who knows if I would like La Strada if I saw it now? I might get bored. (Nights of Cabiria, which I have seen recently, however, did not bore me. It still made me cry forty years after I had first seen it.)
I like Emma as well. Will take Nanny McPhee under advisement. But…agree with your point on ‘boring’. For years, for me, La Strada was the film to beat, perfect. Then after four or five viewings over 30 years, I reluctantly saw behind the curtain. Though Quinn and Masina’s performances were, and are still, goal setting. As an aside, I will never forget Gance’s Napoleon, seen at the SF Opera, with a full orchestra. Magnificent.
As a teenager, I remember all the brouhaha over Last Tango in Paris.
What a bore, didn’t even last 20 minutes.
Was it really necessary to make her so incredibly ugly for the role? When the commercials come on, I am so grossed out by her appearance. Was it really necessary? Would the movie have been just as good if she’d looked like her normal self? Does the ugly actually add anything to the role? We used to get Julie Andrews as a magical nanny, now we get a beautiful actress beat with the ugly stick as a nanny.
Actually, lindenen, the ugliness did work, at least for me. I imagine Thompson was trying to get away as much as possible from Mary Poppins,a point of obvious comparison. It succeeds pretty well, though of course McPhee does not have those songs.
Chim-chim-churee. Thomson has courage for taking on an icon. Forthe most part, she succeeds.
I didn’t know EmmaT had written it.
Will have to see it. (Colin Firth is always a plus to any movie, and did I see 2 bassets in the trailer?)
Whoa! Narnia earned a nomination in the Best Makeup category. Woo Hoo!
Will see it.
When will you post something on the Oscar nominations, particularly screenwriting?
Sorry, but the recent movie production of Pride & Prejudice was dross–certainly not Austen’s book, and far from an improvement or even a useful alternative approach, so if Emma Thompson had something to do with it, bad cess to her. Compare the 2001 BBC version, with Colin Firth & jennifer Ehle.
Not love La Strada? No way. Surely the best movie of all time.