Reviews written by registered user
mush-2

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
34 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

12 out of 55 people found the following review useful:
Unfunny kinda gross comedy, 24 July 2015
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a disappointment. Yes I know Arnold Schwartzneggar had already made a movie about a pregnant man. But this seemed like an opportunity to do an amusing updated version,especially one that might deal with changing gender roles.

In this iteration, a gay male couple finds themselves expecting a baby.

Apparently, there was a mutation in the human species and men can now give birth. That amazing bit of news is told to us in a throw away bit, by a newscaster on TV and the main reaction of one of the protagonists is incredibly- annoyance that he is not the first anymore and no longer "special".

The movie is poorly acted and not funny. Instead of emphasizing the humorous situation of a man confronting the problems that women have faced for millennia, the movie instead is obsessed with the gross details of exactly how the man got pregnant ( anal sex naturally!) and how he gives birth( a good bowel movement , of course). There are other unnecessary gross scenes- the pregnant man has morning sickness and vomits a lot. OK. we see that several times. Got it. Did we need a scene of him vomiting in the face of his partner as they make love? Aside from being visually disgusting and not remotely funny, it is illogical. One when is extremely nauseated, I doubt one feels like making love.

There are some nice performances by the actor playing the doula and the young ex boyfriend But that's about it.

The lead actors are occasionally wooden and mannered. The actresses who play the sister and the doctor are especially amateurish. Sorry. I know it's a low budget movie , shot on location and it's nice to support creative filmmakers trying for something original.. But this one doesn't work as a comedy or a relationship story.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
SPOILER-Compelling Story. Mostly well done in spite of slow style., 27 May 2014
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This contains spoilers: This obscure little movie boasts a fine cast, including Christine Lahti, Jennifer Jason Leigh,Nick Nolte, Hallie Steinfeld, Guy Pearce and Kristin Wiig in the lead. I guess they all saw something in the script that they liked. And truth be told, it is a fairly compelling story, although executed very slowly. I kept thinking, what a great yeasty drama this would have been if made in Old Hollywood with say Bette Davis or Greer Garson. The plot is a good one- meek, shy innocent one played by Wiig, is conned by two teen girls into corresponding via email with one of the girl's widowed father who is a drug user and ne'er do well.He is well played by Pearce with a characteristic withered handsomeness- a Lothario gone to seed. Wiig is so taken by the fake emails, she hops on a bus to join him.

When she realizes she has been duped, she decides to stay anyway. And here is the meat of the movie. She manages to redeem this lost man by her innocence, selflessness and purity. She even manages to chase out his slutty , druggie girlfriend played very well, as always, by Leigh.

See why this would have been perfect for Old Hollywood?

Pure innocent goodness redeems lost man with home cooked meals and fresh laundry. Lars Von Trier would hate it!

The plot is satisfying and works except for one major flaw near the end. The two teen girls get no comeuppance or punishment for their cruel prank. Wiig doesn't even get an apology. I think the movie suffers a bit for this. They were trying for something subtler , I guess.. Sometimes, though conventional melodrama is the way to go.It was invented for a reason, after all.It

I did like the suggestion at the end, that Pearce is not really cured of drug addiction and Wiig may end up running that motel by herself one day. Wiig is good in the role. It's a great part. I think a finer dramatic actress may have shown us more layers. But good to see, she is expanding her repertoire.

The movie is worth checking out.

8 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Queasy, slapstick- unsure if it's a sex romp or a family comedy., 18 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie is sometimes a sex romp and sometimes a family comedy. But it made me kind of queasy, especially, with the gratuitous nude scene of the klutzy model is an unfunny bit of slapstick, filming a commercial where she is unable to hold onto a bar of soap and keeps hitting the director in the head with the soap. These sort of scenes are grafted onto a sentimental plot where a very horny tour guide operator discovers a love for young children and family. This plot is set in gear by a mom who somehow allows her children to be attended to by the male stranger. At one point, the tykes tell the guy whom they confuse with their dad, , "aren't you going to bathe us?" Luckily, we are spared seeing that unsettling moment actualized.

The movie has a cheesy Euro pop score that does it no favors as it floats in and out of the action.

This is one of those movies whose plot could have easily been resolved with an ordinary conversation between the characters. Instead they are forced to adhere to the inane storyline and come off as brain addled libertines. Even the sensible flight attendant Greta has to act like a moron allowing her fiancé to lock himself in the plane's bathroom until she capitulates. Of course, the plane load of passengers serenade the lovers as they make up...I was getting a little airsick during that scene.

While it has some pretty travelogue sections , the movie over all does not succeed.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Watchable,dated family comedy, 6 August 2012
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is watchable and engaging despite its flaws.its the sort of movie I wish I had seen as a child , I would have liked it a lot more then. The real life Mr. And Mrs. Cary Grant are the parents of three children plus two foster children. Both foster kids come to them as sullen, angry and disturbed , but in a short time, after being loved, mostly by the patient and kind Mother(Betsy Drake) , they transform into nice sitcom kids. Once Mom succeeds with Jane , there isn't much doubt or tension that orphan #2 will end up a conformist Eagle Scout.

The good stuff-the child actors are all good. Norman Taurog elicits good performances out of children. We hope he didn't need to threaten to kill the dog, this time, in order to motivate the kids(famous story told many times by Jackie Cooper). The not so good stuff- WB and Max Steiners decision to telegraph every emotion with the heavy score. I know it's a feature of its time, but really do we need another tinkly version of Row your boat,after we heard Grant and the family sing it ad nauseum.

Another possible negative-Cary Grant casting, in general..yes his performance is fine, but seeing him with his great tan ,great hair,Cary Grant voice playing a struggling municipal employee,just not real believable in this role. And this is not to say,Grant can't be great playing struggling, real people,just not in this movie..

There is a running gag that I did enjoy,that Grant is constantly sexually frustrated,with all of the kiddie interruptions. And there is one eye popping sight gag, that will go over every kids head, I am sure . Mom and Poppy are about to get it on, he has planned a romantic night with a bottle of champagne .They are interrupted again by crises de child. Grant accepts it as the bottle of champagne explodes and foams all over the bed.Probably the best moment in the movie. Some other strange bits-why did orphan #2,jimmy John sport a real New York-ese Brooklyn accent, when no one else did?

What about the extended scene of Grant in his white trunks and nothing else.? He looks trim and good for 50's standards,but why is he still clad in the trunks for the next ten minute scene? Over all, worth watching and engaging, but definitely dated and of its time.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good early talkie Will Rogers comedy, 24 October 2010

It starts out slow going and suffers from the early talkie stodginess. But once Will Rogers and family hit Paris, it picks up and has some genuinely funny moments. Example, Rogers sees his daughter and boyfriend clad in white fencing uniforms and says, "Ya got the Kulu Klux Klan here too?"

The humor is on the Beverly Hillbillies level of the clash between the crude if honest Americans vs. the effete French aristocracy. As another reviewer mentioned, the plot closely follows Dodsworth, which is a much finer film. Still it has its moments, mostly belonging to Will Rogers and Fifi D'Orsay who theater buffs will recall from the original cast of Sondheim's 1970's Follies.

Borzage does good work with the cast , especially Rogers from whom he coaxes some sensitive moments. Worth seeing for especially for Borzage or Rogers fans.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Through the years Saga with EG Robinson, 11 January 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Forgotten epic of a meat packer played well by Edward G. Robinson who takes over his fathers business and becomes ruthless.

I agree with the previous reviewer who complained about the many holes in the plot and inconsistencies- Robinson is first presented as a lover of humanity and the arts. He has a complete personality switch and becomes a ruthless, amoral business man all because of a little Machiavellian advice from lover Francis.

That said, the movie is interesting, well produced, historically accurate in a lot of ways and finally quite moving as Robinson ends up alone, back in his beloved Greece but afflicted with dementia so the events of his life become momentary snapshots that come and go.

I also liked the portrayal of the deterioration of his marriage. As in many 30's movies, there is a lot of truth that is hinted at but not fully explored.Sometimes, this leads to a superficiality which is unsatisfying but sometimes it leads to motifs that suggest subtly the inner workings and leave it up to us to connect the dots.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Good Lombard presents- Depression Era Values of Hard Work vs. The wastrel rich., 11 January 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Surprisingly good Carole Lombard drama about a virtuous chanteuse who is eager to have her hard drinking, wastrel husband, embrace her middle class values of hard work instead of allowing himself to be supported by his stereotypically rich and stupid parents.

There is more going on here than appears on the surface and the themes

presented would be explored more fully in other plays, novels and movies.

Are Lombard's Depression Era values of meaningless hard work for pay really the key to achieving fulfillment in life?

Clearly, the job that Lombard forced Raymond to take is mind numbing and meaningless. After all,they don't really need the money. Why take that job away from somebody else who really needs it? Shouldn't Raymond find a job more suitable for his "talents" (if he has any..)

The movie shows us some of these issues but stacks the deck by making his parents so obtuse and snobbish that Lombard by contrast seems always correct. Other movies like You Can't Take It with You take an opposite tack- life is short, why waste it on empty labor unless you have to.

Anyway, Lombard looks beautiful and her performance is emotional and nakedly "out there" as the best of the 30's and 40's actors are. Raymond isn't bad - he refers to himself as a rotter and a drunkard. Today, we might say he is a potential alcoholic and his buddy Sig is his enabler. The movies production values are quite good for 30's Columbia. The movie worth catching and thought provoking

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
pathetic documentary, 29 July 2008
2/10

Pathetic,sad documentary on so many levels.This short purports to celebrate the MGM films of 1975. The film is inept and boring and has tacky scenes of audience members picking their noses and close ups of food on a buffet line. Who edited this thing?Is this worthy of a major film studio? Why are there scenes of Gene Kelly speaking silently?Why are there scenes of a producer's conversation that are unintelligible? And then the sad slate of movies that are being celebrated-Hearts of the West,Logans Run,The All American Girl starring a very butch looking Stockard Channing.Talk about a bunch of forgotten movies.This was the year of Jaws and Nashville!.The movie industry was reinventing itself but MGM was still looking to its past for inspiration and glory. In a few years, the famous lot would be part of the Sony lot and MGM would be sold,gutted and sold many more times.This short is just an example of an era fading right before our eyes.

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Chic but skewed morality tale -pre code style., 6 June 2008
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As most other reviewers have pointed out-this woman's picture of 1931 has some very odd morality and that's what makes it a very interesting relic. Norma Shearer is a liberated young woman who allows her lover to have sex with her whenever he wants without his offering any sort of commitment. He even announces after they have run off together that he has a wife in Paris. Then he dumps her in Mexico. But she accepts all this abuse because she still loves him and believes that marriage is not necessary for happiness. However she is still so hurt by him, she becomes a super slut and becomes well known among the elite Eurotrash for her available sexuality. Then the lover sends her a telegram saying he is divorcing his wife and will agree to marry her. Shearer is thrilled until the lover finds out about her checkered European adventures and dumps her. There is a "happy" ending when the lover comes to his senses a year later and agrees to marry her.

Wow- talk about an abusive relationship, by todays standards.

All the while, Robert Montgomery as her best friend half heartedly offers to marry her whenever she gets upset. His character drinks throughout the movie. Montgomery gives the best performance and is quite charming. Today, we can interpret his actions as either deeply closeted or just someone who loves his liquor more than actively pursuing the love of his life.

Shearer has costume changes in nearly every scene. I am sure the female (and some male) audiences of the day loved it. As usual she is very chic. She has a tendency to pose, silent movie style occasionally- but I can fault the director . He should have reined her in. She didn't do that much when she worked with a stronger director like George Cukor. Shearer has loads of charisma that still come across today. The movie is worth checking out...

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Early talkie musical comedy has its moments., 5 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Early talkie musical comedy has its moments. Robert Montgomery is charming. The song "Go Home and Tell Your Mother" has an infectious melody,if an insipid lyric. Benny Rubin is occasionally hilarious (if not very P.C.) as Montgomery's Jewish sidekick. If you know a little Yiddish, his scene with a fellow" landsman" on the golf course is a riot. The location shooting is fluid and polished by the standards of the day.

The plot is silly and forgettable and the leading lady is pretty but not much of an actress. I read this was a flop. I guess by 1930, audiences were not in the mood for the super rich lording it over the working class and talk about " inexpensive" $50,000 apartments came off as elitist and offensive.

Still, for a not unpleasant time filler, you could do worse than Love in the Rough.


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]