laurel21000 Reviews

Ring of Bright Water (1969)

Film Genre: Ga-ga for otters...

[4/10 · 11 May 2009]

For me, at least, this film was stultifyingly boring and yet still likable. That was part of it's charm. Stultifying and yet mezmerizing in its languor and torpidity all at the same time.

The location shots of London and the scenery of Scotland were what kept me watching. Scotland was beautiful. The Scottish brogue was very pleasing to the ear. And the two co-stars were quite good in an uber minimalist kind of way

But whenever the otter took center stage, I found myself seeking refuge in enjoying the cleft in the chin of William Travers or wondering if the sweater he was wearing would be difficult to knit. Anything, anything but that drat otter.

I don't think the film really established Traver's initial connection to the otter very well. The sighting in the shop window came off as contrived and undeveloped. I think more time could have been spent in showing his life in London so that his desire to escape it would have been more keenly felt.

Marlene (1984)

Dietrich vs Schell. Dietrich wins. Maybe....

[8/10 · 3 May 2009]

I haven't seen that much of Marlene Dietrich's work. Not enough to get a comprehensive historical perspective. This film filled in some of the gaps and made me want to seek out more of her movies and to read more about her.

Aside from everything else this documentary presented, the dynamic between Marlene Dietrich and Maximilian Schell alone made it well worth watching.

Schell is obviously a very impressive, accomplished and charismatically attractive guy, no doubt accustomed to getting his way. Especially with women. But even at the advanced age of 82, Marlene Dietrich not only held her own but prevailed against him.

This film makes plain that before she agreed to do this documentary with Schell, Dietrich had spelled out her conditions very specifically. But although she made sure that her terms were all there in black and white in the contract, Maximillian Schell apparently believed that this "contract" was just a formality for getting his foot in the door. And he could then draw on his charms, those that he had so often used to his advantage, to make her drop her conditions to accommodate his vision of the documentary and his path to getting there.

But Marlene Dietrich instead handed him a big surprise. Here was one woman who seemed immune to the Maximillian Schell Onslaught. He could not charm her, he could not cajole her, he could not pressure her, he could not jolly her, he could not dazzle her with his estimable intelligence and good looks.

Dietrich stood firm. She did not appear on camera even though he kept stepping up his insistence that she do so. And at every point along the way, she controlled the information. She told him as much as she wanted him to know and no more.

And who can blame her. She had spent a lifetime of hard work creating this Marlene Dietrich persona and filling it with substance. It wasn't a mirage. Who was he to think that he had the right now, at this point in her life, to define her. She had already earned the right to define herself.

There are a lot of interesting aspects to this documentary. The give and take between the two of them when she calls Maximilian Schell a prima donna and an amateur are more amusing than harsh. When he walks out on her and she spiritedly takes him to task about his wretched manners is quite funny, too.

The ending is also quite powerful. As the film proceeds, you are left with a sense of Marlene Dietrich as this very pragmatic and practical person who mocks and seems impervious to displays of sentimentality. And yet she grows tearful and emotional when Maximillian Schell recites with her a poem from her childhood. Giving a glimpse into the complexities within.

In fact, that is what Schell's documentary accomplished, IMO. It provided a valuable glimpse into the complexities, dualities, and contradictions within.

American Friends (1991)

Unrealized Potential -- Pretty darn awful !

[2/10 · 28 February 2009]

It was actually painful to watch this because it was as if many of the elements for success had been carefully gathered together but then spectacularly botched in assembly.

It's the cubic zirconium version of a Merchant/Ivory production.

The production design and the location cinematography were wonderful but they were sabotaged by everything else.

The tone of the film was relentlessly morose and the pace too slow for something so little charged. I usually hate Alfred Molina (for no good reason) but his character here (although a villain) actually became the most welcome presence on the screen because Molina, at least, brought some spark and energy and vibrancy to his part.

The others seemed to be walking through a field of molasses. The casting was atrocious, at least in my opinion. There was no one to root for. Palin is usually very likable but his approach to this part was wooden and monotonous. No shading at all. Not to mention that Michael Palin apparently thought that transforming his normal attractiveness into big-screen unsightly was somehow more "authentic" and "artsy." And if the audience is expected to care about his character's depicted "romance," how about casting an actress with some charisma, some ability to enthrall and enchant. To make the filmed version of the true-life story believable. Or at least watchable.

All in all it was a missed opportunity to make a good film. This one was, in my opinion, not worth watching. The back story is much more interesting than the film itself.

The Millionairess (1960)

Highly Entertaining!

[7/10 · 15 February 2009]

This film works very well, IMO, on the level of pure entertainment. There are many elements to be enjoyed.

It is not a film in which one is swept away by the story and the characters. It's a film you watch with a certain detachment and never really suspend disbelief.

But there is a lot of fun to be had in the amused detachment. A lot of the dialogue is really hilarious. That alone would have made it worth sitting through. But on top of that there is the way Peter Sellars interprets his particular character. The body language he brings to it and some of the nuances in his schtick are both intriguing and highly entertaining to observe.

Then there is the stunning beauty of Sophia Loren which is further enhanced by a steady stream of wardrobe changes, each more spectacular than the one before.

And then there is the parallel running commentary you can have in your own thoughts about how the movie plot line brings to mind some possible similarities that there may have been in the real-life relationship Princess Diana had with her very own Indian doctor, Dr. Khan, said by some to have been the love of her life.

Again, a lot to enjoy about this film and well worth seeing, JMO.

Never Ever (1996)

See it -- you'll be glad you did!

[7/10 · 11 March 2008]

There is a lot about this film to like. I liked its intensity. It was a compelling work. I liked enormously how it showcased the beauty of Paris. I liked that it was bilingual. Hearing both French and English being spoken was very pleasing and added a lot of texture to the film. I liked much of the cast.

But most of all, what I liked best and what made the biggest impact on me was the presence of Charles Finch himself.

He's a really wonderful actor. I'm disappointed (to put it mildly) to learn that this has turned out to be his only starring role to date.

Finch radiates charisma from the screen. Considering that he, from what I have learned, had far and away the least acting experience of any of the others in the cast, he not only held his own but pretty much, in my opinion, charisma-wise wiped out all of the others.

In fact, the lack of experience probably worked in his favor. It made the charm less practiced and, therefore, the story felt more real. And it made me, as the viewer, keep wondering, Wow, who is this guy anyway?

Although there was a scene at the beginning of the film that was off-putting because it seemed to be such a self-conscious and manipulative attempt at being provocative for provocative's sake, the story itself then served to get things back on track.

Unfortunately, it was also the story, specifically the ending of the script, that finally sabotaged and derailed the film. This same film I had been experiencing as so compelling and enjoying so much. Until it fell apart at the end. At least for me.

The story concerns an extramarital affair. Sandrine Bonnaire plays the love interest.

Her character is a professional woman in her mid to late thirties.

She becomes involved with a married man displaying not even a hint of a troubled conscience at this fact. That would indicate that Bonnaire's character has participated in this circumstance before.

And yet when complications arise, the script has this woman turn into a drama queen. A drama queen with a very strong sense of entitlement.

Even before the script turned her character into someone who lacked credibility, Bonnaire did not deliver in this film -- at least from my perspective.

This was surprising because I'd never before seen Sandrine Bonnaire as anything less than excellent. For example, in Regis Wargnier's film, East/West, she was superb. She always brings such depth to a part and is captivating to watch. And yet here, she was subpar. Again, only my opinion. Maybe it had something to do with the language barrier. I don't know. But Bonnaire did not have her usual mojo. Nowhere near it.

In contrast, Charles Finch's acting and presence continued to be very effective throughout the entire film but the sensibility behind the ending of the script (which Charles Finch wrote)left me disaffected, disheartened and rueful.

Yeah, he's a fascinating and charismatic looker but maybe not all that great of a guy in real life was the sentiment I was left with by the end of this film.

Finch, as the scriptwriter, attempted to spin his character's behavior as not only understandable but (gag) admirable and even attempted to sell it as somehow (gasp) noble.

Um. Sorry. Not buying it. It ruined the film. And it tainted respect for Charles Finch himself. Fairly or unfairly.

Come September (1961)

Among the best of this type of comedy!

[10/10 · 6 March 2008]

I came to this picture expecting to only skip through parts of it.

I had watched Kevin Spacey's "Beyond the Sea." That sent me to seek out Dodd Darin's book about his parents, Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee.

This autobio/bio (Dream Lovers:The Magnificent Shattered Lives of Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee), by the way, turned out to be one of the best written and compelling bios ever. Dodd Darin came across as so obviously a person of very high integrity and he wrote about his life and his parents with a very strong priority on finding and presenting the truth. So different from the many bs-laden, so-called autobiographys with all of their "composite characters" (code for I'm lying)littering the market.

And then that book led me to want to watch "Come September." It was on this picture that Darin and Dee first met. It was also Bobby Darin's first role.

So I was mainly curious to get insight about them and was prepared and expected to have to wade through a mostly boring comedy to do so.

But, surprise on me, "Come September" turned out to be Terrific! Fantastic! Wonderful!

The script was very sharp and clever. There were tons of extremely witty lines. The laughs just kept coming. Quite a few were of the laugh out loud variety.

The film had great timing. It just kept zipping along delivering the entertainment big-time scene after scene.

The casting was superb. Every part was maximized by the respective actor. Walter Slezak was excellent. He contributed a lot to the overall warmth and good-natured tone of the film. Gina Lollobrigida was stunningly beautiful. The cinematography of Italy was stunningly beautiful.

This is just a truly first-rate film. Well worth seeing and well worth adding to a film library.

It has also made me enthusiastic to search out other work by its very talented director, Robert Mulligan and its equally excellent screenwriter, Stanley Shapiro.

Scent of a Woman (1974)

Not worth your time!

[1/10 · 16 February 2008]

I came to this film expecting to see something transcendent. After all, the remake of Scent of a Woman with Al Pacino had been so wonderful. And I had never yet seen a Hollywood remake that even approached the original in quality. They are usually shattering disappointments.

So I fully anticipated that Vittorio Gassman's version would far surpass Pacino's.

But Surprise, Surprise. Finally. Who would have thought it. A Hollywood Remake that Ruled!!! Yay! It was not even a close contest, in my opinion. This film with Vittorio Gassman was for me flawed beyond redemption. I'm bewildered to read that it was even nominated for an Academy Award and has received other very prestigious awards.

True, Gassman got the blind part of his role down. He had obviously done a lot of research and put in long rehearsals. And he had the potential to be great.

The trouble was with the script. Gassman's character was a pig. An entertaining pig at times, an interesting pig at other times but never more than a full-fledged PIG.

So while the film could engage you in the spectacle sense, it was really difficult to care about what happened to the characters or to root for them. The script just put them in a series of scenes, the common denominator being coarseness and then more coarseness.

What was most offensive about this film were the scenes near the end in the Nepalese restaurant. Apparently Gassman had been friends with this family for many years -- since their daughters were children. So he was like a uncle figure.

Then when this film catches up with them, the girls have grown into young ladies. And the Gassman character is shown treating them very disrespectfully (to put it mildly), exploiting them and preying on them.

Except for the one he apparently loves. But why was it OK for him to exploit the other young girls? This predatory aspect of the film was so beyond offensive that it ruined the entire film and made it irredeemable and indefensible.

Go see Al Pacino's Scent of a Woman instead. Pacino is brilliant. And the remake has heart and soul -- both of which are sorely absent from the original. The original has noisy drama but it is a hollow soulless drama.

And Now Ladies & Gentlemen (2002)

Disappointing...

[3/10 · 10 February 2008]

This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.

The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow.

None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.

Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.

Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.

Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.

I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.

In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead.

The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.

Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.

What Happened Was... (1994)

Compelling!

[9/10 · 31 January 2008]

I found this film emotionally wrenching but with no catharsis. Neither of its only two characters was particularly likable and yet the film permeated and enveloped in such a way as to make it imperative to care about and root for them. Both individually and as a couple.

But the rooting was not without an ambivalence. The film unfolds and draws the viewer in but it never throws out a liferope with a hint of buoyancy to cling to. The man and the woman are intriguing but each of them has very evident psychological obstacles in their makeup. Maybe insurmountable obstacles.

You want things to work out for them but you have to ask yourself to what end. Their lives are each severely wanting and problematical to put it mildly but there is no indication that joining forces would in any way ease the situation.

Noonan never makes it easy for the viewer. It's kind of daring and exciting to realize at the end what choices he made as a writer and as a director. The characters are without any easily accessible wit or accessible charm and yet their dialogue is fascinating.

Their exchanges are agonizingly awkward and yet completely engrossing. Engrossing in a very uncomforable sort of way. The discomfort was probably because it rang so raw and without any tarting up.

I longed for more theatricality in the delivery of the lines. That would have provided an emotional distance and made it easier to take the film. But I have to admire Noonan for not choosing that route as a director.

By going completely naturalistic, there was no barrier, nothing to shield you from the film's impact.

I wish Noonan had chosen to end the film differently, though. I wish there had been more of a glimmer of hope.

Although it's beyond presumptuous to discuss changes to the script, I wish that Noonan had ended the film with the Jackie character giving a different response to the Michael character's invitation to go out with him Friday night. Rather than responding that he should ask her again when they saw each other at work (accompanied by an expression on her face indicating that she had already lost complete interest in him), I wish she had instead said that she would be glad to have dinner with him if it could be a celebratory dinner. It would be conditional. That when he had finished making the preliminary arrangements to complete the credits for his law degree, she would be glad to join him for dinner. And that would be only a small indication of the kind of congratulatory blowout she would plan for him after he had gone on to pass the bar exam.

And if Michael had also in turn given some reciprocal show of support to Jackie. She had no writing talent but judging from her apartment, she had creativity and a good eye. There was promise there. Promise to be encouraged.

I guess I just wanted to believe that there was some small glimmer of hope that they could help rescue each other. But instead the ending was relentlessly and piercingly grim.

Well worth seeing, though! The acting was brilliant, the set design, the cinematography, the music, all exceptional. And the last shot of all the buildings and all the apartment windows was very powerful carrying as it did the message that behind each window was more drama.

A Simple Story (1978)

Worth seeing but flawed

[5/10 · 7 December 2007]

I think Claude Sautet was a brilliant film maker and A Heart in Winter is one of the all-time great films.

However, A Simple Story, IMO, disappoints in a number of ways.

I think the script cavalierly devalued the role of a father in a child's life. The character of Romy Schneider first unilaterally decides to have an abortion and then, not too long into the future, decides, again unilaterally, to get pregnant. All without any consideration for input from the respective father. The subtext of the script-- the sensibility behind the script -- transmits the message that this is as it should be.

There is also a scene in which a man with whom Romy Schneider's character has broken up waits for her outside her building late at night and drunkenly confronts her. The episode turns violent. This former love begins striking her and even throws her to the ground. A trio of passersby comes to her aid. They begin hitting the guy to subdue him. The Romy Schneider character comes to his defense and tells them to leave him alone. They walk away castigating each other for getting involved.

Although this "domestic violence" episode had escalated to the point where the Romy Schneider character could have been seriously hurt, the film gives the impression that the jerk was not the guy who was being violent, but instead the jerks were the good samaritans who had stopped to help.

This kind of values sensibility behind the script left me alienated from the film and wondering. Claude Sautet -- who are you???

Additionally, the only actors whose work and presence I found interesting were Romy Schneider, the actor who played her son and the actor who played the son's father. Everyone else was pedestrian. JMO. I thought the group of friends surrounding Romy Schneider's character were for the most part boring and not screen worthy.

It was very sad, however, watching the suicide storyline of one of the characters play out, knowing that Romy Schneider herself had several years later tragically taken her own life.

Nelly & Monsieur Arnaud (1995)

Hey, how come no cute guys?

[6/10 · 27 April 2007]

I watched my first Claude Sautet film two nights ago. It was titled Cesar and Rosalie.

My response was intense. In fact, intense doesn't even cover it. Make that uber intense. Cesar and Rosalie was absolute perfection. I had never seen anything quite like that on the screen before and was left completely infatuated with Claude Sautet. Mr. Sautet had somehow worked himself into my very biochemistry because my enchantment demanded to be fed. I had to see another Claude Sautet film as soon as possible.

Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud was the one I got a hold of. All day long I looked forward to seeing it. I couldn't wait. But, alas...

Oh, well. It was so lovely having Mr. Sautet up there on a pedestal. Even if only for a short while. But now I realize he was a fellow human. Sigh. A wonderful filmmaker yes, but human and thus inevitably flawed.

I was disappointed in this film -- Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud. Most especially with the casting. Sorry, but NONE of the men were sympatico. Neither in their physical presence nor in their personalities. At least not in my opinion. And that sucked a lot of vitality right out of the film.

Michel Serrault did not have a scintilla of masculine appeal. I never bought that Beart was in the least attracted to him. Merely using him as a distraction from the pain of her divorce instead.

I thought it was kind of interesting that the actor who played the editor with whom Beart became romantically involved bore a physical resemblance to Serrault. In fact, he very much looked like what Michel Serrault might have looked like back when he was a young man with dark hair himself.

I think Sautet may have fashioned the resemblance deliberately. Why? I don't know.

The actor who played Beart's husband was also physically completely nondesript. Or at least presented as such.

Again, all of this served to rob the film of true romantic tension and, therefore, made it difficult to really buy into the story line.

But it was still a wonderful film, of course. Full of complexity, witty and intriguing dialogue and well worth watching. Just not perfect. JMO.

Peter's Friends (1992)

Rubbish, Trash or Debris? This film is definitely one of the three.

[1/10 · 13 March 2007]

I hated this film. And then when I was through hating it, I began to loathe it. My last ounce of strength left over from loathing it was consumed in despising it.

This film is so bad. It is coarse. It is stupid. It is coarsely stupid and stupidly coarse.

It's beyond bewildering, in fact it is unfathomable as to why Rita Rudner would write such an awful showcase for herself.

I've heard some of her standup comedy.

Her standup was funny.

This film was not.

The Golden Coach (1952)

Stunningly wonderful!

[10/10 · 13 March 2007]

The only other film I had seen by Jean Renoir was Rules of the Game. That was, of course, sheer genius so I couldn't wait to watch this one.

For the first few minutes I was completely captivated. The colors. The costumes. The music. It was a feast for the eyes and the ears.

But then, horrors, it actually became -- oh no -- a bit tedious. To say I'm not a fan of Commedia dell'Arte would be an understatement, so some of the theatrical scenes at the beginning of the film began to seem interminable.

But yay. I solved that problem by fast-forwarding through them.

And then as I sank back into the film it suddenly caught fire.

I was transfixed. Original plans had been to watch it over two nights but I couldn't let go. The film would not let me go. It had seized me and there would be no release.

I think it is because while watching Renoir's work, you know indisputably that you are in the presence of genius. It radiates through the screen. It surrounds you. It leaves you awestruck.

I want to watch it again. I want to figure out how Renoir does this. How he weaves this magic. How he creates this momentum to move the story forward in such a way as to have the excitement of the most intense action film.

Speaking of action, there is a sword fight in this film that is wonderful.

And tons of humor.

And it's loaded with so much heart.

Anna Magnani was great.

As great as Magnani was, even greater, IMO, was Duncan Lamont who played the Viceroy. I immediately looked him up to search out his other work.

One interesting side note for me was in the accents. This was the version of the film that had been filmed in English and there were all kinds of different accents of it floating around among the cast of characters. Alas, it was kind of sad to realize how poorly, in contrast to all of the others, the American accent(from beloved U.S.ofA) fared in comparison. Ah, life.

Maybe Baby (2000)

Terrific and Very Funny!

[28 February 2007]

I got a hold of this film only because I was interested in seeking out more of Hugh Laurie's work. I did not know what to expect - did not even know it was a comedy.

And it turned out to be a hoot. One of the funniest films I've seen in a long time. I thought the screenplay was excellent. Fantastically clever dialogue.

Now I'm very keen to embark on a quest to unearth whatever else screenwriter and director Ben Elton has done.

One of the things I especially liked about how this film was put together was the way it combined absurdity and farce with a more conventional rom-com approach.

The cameos by Emma Thompson and Rowan Atkinson were fall-out-of-your-seat hilarious (as were the more lengthy contributions of Matthew Macfadyen). At first I sort of wondered if they would jerk me out of involvement with the story line but they did not.

In fact, I think this is a really smart approach to doing a comedy. Too much broad farce in one film can quickly lead to burn-out. But when it's limited for the most part to cameos, it's very welcome and entertaining and enhances rather than detracts from engagement with the plot.

The casting in this film was inspired. Joely Richardson was perfect. Matthew Macfadyen could not have been better. James Purefoy was wonderful. As was Adrian Lester.

Surprisingly, since it was his work specifically I was initially looking forward to seeing, Hugh Laurie's was the only performance in which I was somewhat disappointed. Laurie seemed to go out of his way to low-key it. I think he chose to go too minimalist in his interpretation of his character. Just my opinion. But hey, Hugh Laurie, even not at his best is still pretty darn terrific.

I think writer and director Ben Elton created an exceptionally entertaining and at times very moving film that is very much worth seeing. In fact, I think this film has the potential to have the lifespan and long reach of many of the screwball comedies of the 40s.

Close Up: Jackson Pollock: Love and Death on Long Island (1999) Season 2, Episode 4

Engrossing and insightful!

[8/10 · 10 February 2007]

I thought director Teresa Griffiths did a very good job. The editing of the various interview subjects was especially effective. There was a lot of subtext to them. Not only did they cast light on the character and talent of Jackson Pollock, but they also revealed something of the character of that time in history and gave a feel for the artistic community that was Pollock's social circle. It made for reflection about the interpersonal dynamics in which Pollock functioned.

What the film lacked, at least in my opinion, was a kind of overview of just what a seismic blast abstract expressionism and Pollock were to the art world and how much this shifted the focus and heart of it from Europe to the United States.

But watching footage of Pollock working and seeing his enormous talent was quite affecting. As was hearing the interview with his wife Lee Krasner and the interview with the girlfriend who was with him in the automobile crash that killed him, Ruth Kligman.

Krasner comes across as quite the strict enforcer which given the self-destructive direction so much of Pollock's behavior took was probably necessary to keep him somewhat in check and able to work and be productive.

Kligman, on the other hand, as she spoke seemed to tend towards pretentiousness and be devoid of anything as bothersome as a conscience. She, no doubt, romanticized herself in her own mind as a "free-spirit" although others perhaps might characterize her with other adjectives. Much harsher adjectives, I'm guessing.

There was also an interview with Ed Harris. I thought he made a very interesting observation about Pollock, as I understood it. That Pollock had reached a point where his "technique" was something that no longer challenged him. It was familiar to him. He knew he could do it. And that his cooperation at that time with the documentary being made about his life just served to point that out to him. In a sense, Pollock realized that abstract expressionism had become his schtick. And this drove him to begin drinking again and begin down that final self destructive path that ended his life.

Before Sunset (2004)

Sequel as demonstration of Peter Principle...

[3/10 · 7 February 2007]

Given that this movie was a sequel, the casting was a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately so, in my opinion.

Since so much of the sequel was obviously improvised, it required actors with a lot of juice. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy did not deliver it. Although Delpy fell far more short of the mark than did Hawke.

Ethan Hawke is an interesting screen presence. His body language, the way different expressions dart across his face. The range of what he can convey. To me, Julie Delpy is much less compelling.

Additionally, this film was very chatty. The scripted part seemed to be going for a Dinner with Andre type of feel. Some of the scripted chatter was thoughtful and engaging. A lot of it, though, was self-consciously delivered and pseudo profound or perhaps more accurately -- profoundly pseudo.

I think Ethan Hawke would have done much better in the improvised scenes if he had had someone other than Delpy off which to bounce. Though, perhaps she was at an unfair disadvantage because English is not her first language.

Even though it is merely far-fetched and fanciful speculation since again, logically, the casting here of Hawke and Delpy had to be a foregone conclusion, the improvised nature of this movie would have worked much better with another duo. Say, Hugh Laurie and Drew Barrymore, for example. Now that would have been some movie. Laurie would have come up with some great dialogue and Barrymore would have played off of it.

Another winning combination of actors here would have been Owen Wilson and Francis O'Connor. That would have been chemistry galore. And Wilson is known for his improvisational contributions to dialogue.

Another fact that hung over this movie was the contrast between its plot and the plot of Ethan Hawke's "real" life. The romantic melodrama Hawke lived through and which received so much coverage in the press far, far exceeded the romantic complications in this movie. And somehow made the movie seem banal in comparison.

Putney Swope (1969)

Downey as Crackhead Auteur

[1/10 · 5 February 2007]

I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.

Who wasn't?

Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.

A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty.

Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.

I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.

Jane Austen in Manhattan (1980)

Great title -- lousy film!

[1/10 · 3 February 2007]

Boring and annoying are two adjectives that spring to mind regarding this film. The only aspect that salvaged it from being completely unbearable was the presence of Anne Baxter.

Until she appeared on screen it all just seemed to be a series of disjointed scenes bound only by a shared pretentiousness. And then, boom, there she was and suddenly the electromagnetic field changed.

It was interesting to observe how powerful the presence of a single person can be. Because, in this case, Baxter brought a coherence to the film. With her appearance, the different elements seemed to fall into place. At least to a degree.

I tried to figure out what it was about her that seemed to make this happen. Was it "star" quality? Was it a gravitas that came from her years of experience? Or did she, as opposed to the other actors here, perhaps resist the "direction" that was being given and merely follow her own course as far as interpreting her character. I don't know. I couldn't figure it out.

The only other actor who created a real character as opposed to a caricature was Kurt Johnson who played Victor. And Sean Young was quite good.

The others were giant clusters of affectations. Robert Powell who played Pierre was especially annoying. Granted his character was supposed to be so. But he was not interesting annoying. Just annoying annoying.

Jane Eyre (1983)

Fantastic!

[9/10 · 2 February 2007]

I was completely captivated by this version of Jane Eyre. I give the credit to the dramatist Alexander Baron who did a superb job and to Timothy Dalton who was great.

To me, Timothy Dalton had to carry the film. And was more than up to the task. The movie was titled Jane Eyre but in my mind, at least, the name that was up in lights on the marquee was Mr. Rochester.

It was Dalton's charismatic presence and the life force and passion he brought to the role that made the movie.

I think that Zelah Clarke was not a good addition to this film. Although by the end, it didn't matter. The momentum created by Baron's script and Dalton's performance had made Clarke's weaknesses a moot point. They more than made up for it.

I read that Zelah Clarke is a very respected stage actress. Perhaps she took the advice that is often given to those making the transition to film, not to overplay their parts, too much to heart. Because she seemed determined, too often, to mouse her character.

I also think that her makeup for this role did not work. Clarke is an attractive person. I know they wanted her to look plain here. But there is movie "plain" and then there is evil stepmother plain. And I think they crossed into the evil stepmother plain. So much so that for me at least, for much of the film, Zelah Clarke's appearance was a distraction as I found my thoughts diverted into trying to gain some insight into why they were making her look so wretched. Jane Eyre should not have a mean mouth was one preoccupation toward which I found my mind detouring, for example.

What made it especially jarring was the constant references to Jane Eyre's youth. More than several times was the age of 18 mentioned. And yet here was someone playing the part who looked to be about 34. Not even twenty something. That was a huge error in casting, in my opinion.

Also, the actress Sian Pattenden who played Jane Eyre as a child was so affecting and compelling. And then to suddenly see her all grown as Zelah Clarke (at least as Clarke chose to play the part) was such a disappointment. All the energy and charisma that Pattenden had brought to the role were suddenly zapped out.

As the end of the film approached, Zelah Clarke began to show some of her excellence as an actress so it was obviously a choice she had made on how she chose to do the earlier scenes. I'm not disputing her deserved reputation but I do dispute her interpretation of this role. JMO.

But again Timothy Dalton was great, great, great!!!

Bombay Talkie (1970)

absorbing film - draws you into it's world

[6/10 · 2 February 2007]

I enjoyed entering into the world of this film. Watching a movie within a movie is always interesting to me. And especially when the setting is India. That the characters were shallow and yet fascinating was in itself fascinating.

Merchant/Ivory bring such a complex texture to all of their films. That's what, to me, makes them such great filmmakers And their sensibility is very much present here also.

I also liked getting some insight into the Indian culture. Ever since watching Monsoon Wedding, I seem to have an affection for it. The coloring of the people is so beautiful. The dark hair and the dark eyes. And the clothes, especially the beautiful saris the women wear. I know it is the guru/savants that draw many to the culture but I seem to find it very easy to control my enthusiasm for them. The aesthetic beauty, however, is very compelling. And the spirit of the people.

This film is worth seeing, imo. Merely to set forth the plot would not really do it justice. It's one of those instances where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The Clearing (2004)

Robert Redford's eyes.

[2/10 · 17 December 2005]

This film was a big disappointment to me. I could not stop noticing Redford's "eye-job" long enough to ever suspend disbelief and become really involved in the plot. The parallel plot in my head kept spinning out likely scenario's of Redford and his plastic surgeon with Redford being reassured of how "rested" he was going to end up looking. Yeah, right. If "rested" is resting in intensive care after having the character lines around your eyes scraped off.

Maybe because of this, I never gave Redford's performance here a chance. I don't know. But to me it fell far short of what Helen Mirren and Willem Defoe brought to this movie. Both of them, especially Mirren, added a great deal to the film. They were excellent. But things became tedious for me a lot of the time when Redford was on the screen.

A great deal of this film depended on nuance and intensity. An actor like Anthony Hopkins could have brought that in spades and with him playing Redford's part, I think this film could have been salvaged. Actually much more than salvaged. With Hopkins in the central role, it could have been a film well worth seeing.

Clash by Night (1952)

great dialogue

[10/10 · 17 December 2005]

It was really wonderful to watch a film with dialogue so finely crafted. It was a pleasure to savor the artistry of the language.

And the actors matched it with their own artistry. Very strong performances by all of them.

In fact, artistry is the term that best sums up this film for me. There is the experience of being completely caught up in the story and at the same time being aware of the stunning talent in all areas of collaborative film-making that it took to bring this to the screen.

This was my first exposure to the work of Fritz Lang. Now I can't wait to seek out all of his films!