Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
I looked up this movie on the IMDB expecting to see like one review raving about how sexy Jane March was. You know, like the common review for classic B movie actress Shannon Tweed. But I get here and find reviews of how this is a beautiful movie about a girl coming of age. Ooooookay. I'll be honest, I first saw this movie when I was 13 and my hormones were going crazy. I couldn't believe what I saw. I felt so dirty. I couldn't believe that it was shown on Showtime. I could have sworn they actually showed real sex. Not simulated, but real. I imagine that people who enjoyed this movie also were the same ones who crowned Lolita the best movie of 1997. To sum it up, I found this movie to be nothing more than a skin flick. It's all right, but it's not for everyone. That's for sure.
I rented this movie over the weekend and didn't know that it was a tv movie. I found it to be okay. Rob Morrow was good as Dr. Hiller(why is it he always plays doctors from New York.) The Italian actress who played Sylvia was good, if a bit annoying. I found her crying to be annoying and over the top. Basically, I just didn't like her. I thought that Marisa Tomei just stole the show. She was so cute and great in it. I didn't get the ending at all though. If you've seen it, what the heck? Do they break up, do they not? I just didn't get it. It was basically about love. I thought that the back of the box made it sound more interesting than it was. A doctor in New York is newly married with 2 daughters when a woman from his past comes and makes him remember his deep love for her. What does he do? Stand by his wife's side whom he has known since his days at the University of Michigan or does he go to the one he will always truly love and watch her die? It could have been better, but I found it predictable. I did find myself rooting for Marisa Tomei. I mean every second she's on the screen she's happy and just brights up the scene. Utterly enjoyable to watch, as opposed to her competition embodied by some cancer ridden Italien actress. It jumped from 1998 to 1982 to 1996 and any other year I've forgotten and that was a bit confusing. Basically, it was pretty good. The ending was a bit sad and it makes you think. It doesn't necessarily tell you what happens. Similar to Chasing Amy, it's up to you to decide what happens between the woman Dr. Hiller chooses and himself. Being the optimist I am(not really, just am this time because of Tomei) I would have to say that they live happily ever after, and let lying dogs die. Whoa! THat was a pretty stupid anaology, huh? Rent it if they don't have that new release you wanted.
Movies often have lines that become part of our culture. The line from
this one is
hoo-ha! I don't know why for sure Pacino says that. He does though and
great. Whenever I ask anyone about this movie, those who have seen it 99%
of the time answer with a hearty hoo-ha!
As for the performances: Pacino, I dare say, gave his best performance ever. It was also the riskiest. We're not supposed to like him, but we do. We can tell he doesn't think that Charlie is a moron. We can tell that he likes him in fact as a son. It strikes us as sad though. We can sense that this man has always been lonely. But then he lost his sight because of his mere stupidity and fondness for booze. He became even more lonely and sarcastic. Mean in fact, but funny. I was laughing my $ss off when he drove the Fararri, yelling hoo-ha! at every turn. Charlie has what Slade attempted to achieve his whole life: integrity. As he says, Slade did stuff just to do stuff. Charlie does it because he means it. Chris O'Donnell, as Charlie Simms, is good. Albeit a bit understated. As I said before, Pacino is masterful. The actor who played the rich boy George is funny too.
When I first saw this, I thought the ending ruined it. It seems a bit trite and cliche ridden, but the final speech is good. Brilliant, in fact. Pacino's character comes to his own realizations and ultimately his climax in the speech. Brilliantly acted by Pacino, I may add. He takes several stupid lines in the speech and makes them forceful.
This is a good movie. Great really. It ranks on my top 10 of all time. Number 1 being Saving Private Ryan. If you want to see what Academy voters are swayed by, see Unforgiven. If you want to see a masterful movie that contains one of what I consider to be the best performance by an actor ever(the real best being Charles Sheen in Major League 2)see Scent of a Woman. The script does have its errors. The time duration is often unclear. Slade tells Charlie that his gun is not a gun, but a weapon or a piece. Seconds later, Charlie asks for it and Slade refers to it as his gun. Just little stuff like that are the reasons why the Academy didn't give it their vote. I don't care about that though. See it. Remember, the two best syllables in the world are....oh wait. I can't print that. If you've seen the movie, you get the joke.
Okay, I all ready wrote a 21/2 page review for this, but it had profanity and gave away basically the whole entire plot. I don't think they'll post it, so I'm writing this one. I'll refrain from cursing and revealing too much. L.A. Confidential was the best movie made last year, no matter what the good folks at the Academy say. As is the case this year(Saving Private Ryan the best movie made this year), the Academy gives the award to the wrong movie. Oh well. There's nothing you can really do. Am I ranking on Titanic? No. Titanic was an unbelievable movie. It was spectacular. But you have to remember that it's not necessarily cinema. More than half of the time, those actors and actresses were imagining that the ship was sinking and looking down at a blue screen. Are there any blue screens in this one? None that I can think of. It's filmaking at its best. It's a classic. Film noir reborn really. You've got all the classic elements of film noir. The doomed heros who struggle with inner and outer demons, the femme fatale who knows more than you'd think, a corrupt system, interesting camera angles(like the one used when Bud goes to Patch Pierce's home. The camera focused on Pierce, looking upward while in the backround is Bud, out of focus. All of that good stuff. I think that Kevin Spacey is great in the film, as is Guy Pearce and I have now forgiven the actor who played Bud White (can't remember his name) for the horrible sci-fi thriller Virtuosity. Basinger, who won her first career Oscar, is...good? I'm not sure on this one. She does a good job. Especially in her scene with Guy Pearce. If you've seen it, you know what scene I'm talking about. I just didn't get her motivation on things though. She was the hooker with the heart of gold. How stereotypical is that? But that's what film noir gave us in the end. Stereotypes. The hooker with the heart of gold was made a stereotype because it was made popular by film noir. Did she deserve the Oscar? This is a great movie. Watch it. The ending might surprise you and also upset you, but it's a great movie. It will probably be like Chinatown and last the test of time. It was the best movie made last year, all though I liked Chasing Amy and Good Will Hunting the most.