ladwash Reviews

Return to Me (2000)

has all the predictability of a Romantic Comedy, but is still enjoyable

[10 July 2000]

romantic comedies; I don't like 'm. Why not? Well, because the films are hardly ever original, terribly predictable, have overly clear symbolism and most of the time young actors, who don't care too much about their acting skills, as long their name is on the screen. 'Return to me' is a romantic comedy, and as with most romantic comedies, it's not a comedy. It's more to be taken as 'a sad start working towards a happy ending'. Veterinarian Elizabeth (Joely Richardson) and architect Bob (David Duchovny) are a happy couple. After an accident, Bob loses his wife. Almost at the same moment, waitress Grace (Minnie Driver) has a heart transplant. Somewhat a year after Bob and Grace meet and fall in love. Until they find out whose heart is beating in Graces' chest...

Well, this film has indeed above named elements; it's storming when the happy couple has the accident, there are a lot of coincidences, and the happy ending shows up in what other country then romantic Italy. And ofcourse a nun on a bike and jokes about a gorilla are always funny. On the other side, perhaps without those elements it would never have been a romantic comedy. Director Bonnie Hunt is linear in telling the tale (?..) and doesn't fall into the trap of silly, unconvincing dialogues or into exaggerated tearjerking (since when is that a verb?). She knows to avoid that through the characters, they don't accept the story right away and are actually a bit surprised by it. The actors are doing ok, Duchovny, basically known of his role in the X-files hasn't had much success as film actor and Driver, 'girl-next-door', 'till now mostly seen in films as the love interest, are together convincing as a nice, somewhat dull couple. Entertaining about the film is not so much the love story, but the other subplots. Grace best friend Megan (played by the director herself) and her chaotic household of five children and husband (James Belushi) and Grace caring Irish grandfather (Caroll O'Connor, better known as Archie Bunker, yes it's him!) and his Italo-American friends. well, there is actually not much to say about this film, in spite of its' dim romantic storyline, the film is well made. Absolutely nothing special, but not bad. WITHIN it's genre I'd give it *** out of *****.

Sliding Doors (1998)

disappointing, not very original, neither funny or convincing

[6/10 · 10 July 2000]

I was told by different persons to see this film. In all my naivety I listened. It's a film of two stories; in one Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets fired, meets a man, goes home and finds her boyfriend shagging another. She gets a haircut, moves in with her best friend, starts up her company and meets man again. plot 2: Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets fired, misses the underground, comes home later, doesn't find boyfriend with another, so stays with him and continues boring life, until she finds out he's having this affair. It's an interesting idea; the question 'what if', life could be completely different, because of one decision, or simply because of sliding doors closing in front of you. The story is told by parallel editing, the scenes are alternating, which makes it hard to identify with any of the characters, the scenes are too short. And besides that, the actors are not helping much, especially Gwyneth Paltrows' performance (and some dialogues) is very flat, with her perfect British accent. The interesting part about the film is the ending; where the the two stories become one and we are again at one of the first scenes. Much better and original is 'Lola rennt' (in english probably: 'run, lola, run', in Dutch: 'Viola holt'), where the director plays five times with the idea 'what happens if'. Everytime the story goes wrong,

it starts again. Lola rennt has the originality it needs and above all: it's irony, something that is lacking in SD. ** out of *****

The Truce (1997)

Good intentions, but PLEASE stick to the book

[10 July 2000]

There are books and films. Two different ways of telling a story. Sometimes films are based on books. In that case one does good by not concentrating on the book and see the film as an independent work of art. Barthes already proclaimed 'the death of the writer', the discourse is not a message of the writer. But sometimes it's impossible to ignore the writers' work and his message. This is the case with one of this centuries' most important writers, Primo Levi. He didn't just write books, but was able to put in words his very own experiences in the German Lagers and this way put it in a much broader sense, he wrote history.

Many years before, Rosi had succesfully filmed 'christ stopped at Eboli', which was also based on an autobiography (Carlo Levi, not related to Primo) of the fascist period. Rosi did well not to choose Primo Levi's 'if this is a man' (se questo e un uomo), which describes the unimaginable experiences of Levi in the German Lager, he chose what could be called its' 'sequel'. 'the truce' ('la tregua') in which Levi describes his journey home from the camp in Poland to Turin, Italy, which took him an absurd nine months.The film starts when killingfactory Auschwitz-Birkenau is liberated by the Russians and the survivors are freed and put in trains, not to go home directly, but to be send to other camps. From there the journey continues, by train, by foot, meeting various characters. Levi, played by John Torturro, is a silent man who now and then expresses wise words or memorable sentences, but somehow never really makes you think. It's a man we follow, but doesn't touch us, let alone move us. This is not Turturro's fault, he gives a fairly good performance, but Rosi wants too much tell an important story, forgetting the ones who ARE the story; namely the characters. None of them is very well worked out. Take the Greek Nahum, in the book a surpising, colourful person, here just one-dimensional. Symbolism is overly present; Levi who doesn't want to throw away his campjacket, 'to remember' is credible, but the survivors are faced with german prisoners twice and it's given an unconvincing weight, as one German throws himself on his knees, when he sees Levi and his yellow star of David, far too grotesque. Another unconvincing role is given to the music, it's overly present, even a violin is stolen (where Rosi had this idea from is very unclear??) for no good reason. Music should be on the background.

I am sure Rosi had good intentions, but sometimes it's better to read and reread a book and try to reach as many people as possible in that way.

**out of ***** If this is a man (se questo e un uomo)-primo Levi The truce (La tregua) - Primo levi The saved and the drowned (I sommersi e i salvati)-Primo levi

Rent a Friend (2000)

entertaining

[29 May 2000]

RENT-A-FRIEND; the title is english, but it's a (typical) Dutch film, by Eddy Terstall. Well, as most of his selfwritten films also this one deals with young adults, esp. assertive women, relationships (where love isn't really jumping off the screen, it is more defined by sex) and the same cast. This film was slighlty different as he had a big budget, yes he had a whole million dollars (rumours go that actors were fully paid !). This is the main difference to his other films. The money was clearly invested in locations, this time not the recognisable 'backyard' of the director, the Amsterdammish neighbourhood 'the Jordan', but the very modern buildings and flats in Rotterdam. This decor suited perfectly the plot, which is a parody on modern society; A writer (Rifka Lodeizen) of a famous soapopera, in which she puts her own life experiences, breaks up with her boyfriend (Marc van Uchelen), because besides painting mexicans from above (a big circle with a small one in it), he doesn't make money. Through the soap opera, boyfriend sees she's sleeping with her boss. He sets up a company, where you can rend friends (no sex) and is very successful. The film is entertaining, more structured, but still lacks sometimes in its actorsachievements and dialogues, but certainly deserves a larger (Dutch) audience than it's getting now. *** out of five

Erin Brockovich (2000)

A very good TV film

[29 May 2000]

ERIN BROCKOVICH- no introduction needed here, I guess, the enormous publicity campaign has done its job. As most stories which are based 'on a true story', this one deals with a poor woman, who stays herself and is able to do good work and become very rich at the same time. Julia Roberts is finally starring in a film, where the story isn't about being a love-interest or chasing one. And surprisingly she is well cast and doing a good job. She is emotional and aggressive when she ought to be, with the right amount of it, not overdoing, or lacking conviction. Also Albert Finney as the lawyer is at his best. The only thing in this film that raises question marks is Erin Broccoli's boyfriend; what is he doing there, and why does he stick around (he is her housekeeper and nanny)? And perhaps this film is a bit longish to some taste. There is not much what can be said about the film, it has everything one expects from it, a bit of laughter, a few tears, a happy ending. Not anything in particular that makes it a 'must see' on the big screen. It is a very good TV film. ** 1/2 out of five

Felicia's Journey (1999)

boring, but interesting film, with superb acting.

[29 May 2000]

FELICIA"S JOURNEY (Atom egoyan)- an irish girl from the country, goes to industrial Birmingham, to find her boyfriend who left her pregnant. She meets a nice, calm man, who takes care of her, but then turns out to be a mass murderer. But in the end they find salvation or something like that.

This film has been labeled 'thriller', but I'd call it drama. The director focuses more on the characters than on the story, even though this story is one, with different layers. In parallel editing he concentrates especially on Dr. Hilditch, who picks up Felicia. DR. Hilditch seems a nice, slow man, who prefers to have employers instead of a (cheaper) machine, who (dr. not the machine) turns out to have a complicated inner frustration that goes back to his childhood and his mother. The film is like dr. Hilditch, nice, slow, but as it goes on boring. nontheless it's an interesting film, with superb acting by Bob Hoskins. **1/2 out of five

The Story of Us (1999)

boring story, bad acting and conventional (gender)roles.

[29 May 2000]

THE STORY OF US-Two fine actors, Michelle Pfeiffer and Bruce Willis (in spite of his action films, he has proven he can act) and a simple, but recognisable story about a marriage that has come near its ending. Plus music by Eric Clapton. But still a different film from "who is afraid of Virginia Woolf".

Sounds very promising. Well, you're WRONG. completely wrong.

Michelles' character is a bored housewife, who can't stop nagging (stereotypical...?) and Bruces' character is actually a nice guy who is trying to make up all the time. The not very well worked out characters and sloppy dialogues makes the constant fighting not very convincing, but that is not the real reason, the reason is simply that both Pfeiffer and Willis are giving bad performances. Do they just not 'click' together, or were they both tired? Somehow you don't believe they were in love, so how are you supposed to believe their fighting is real, that the fire has gone out, when there has never been a spark? You just keep hoping they'll shut up quickly and go their own way, which ofcourse doesn't happen, because just in time (they must have known the film was finishing), Pfeiffers' character realises she needs her man. What also surprised me is the way they raised their children, two spoiled, 'perfect' american kids, by hiding their fights and pretending to still love each other. Erm..did they really think that is good for a harmonious family life, full of lies and hypocrisy, and what about the divorce, the kids will take that better now...NOT. as predictable as the film is, of course they have friends, who give advice about marriage and sex during lunch. How many times have we seen that before? I guess it is still fascinating hearing women talk about that. (how shocking, and how modern!). THe soundtrack by Eric Clapton, seems to contain one song, that is heard over and over again. Let me give you one advice, read a good book and discuss that during lunch with your friends instead of going to this film, which only offers a boring story, bad acting and conventional (gender)roles. * out of five You really don't need to be a man to dislike this film, as one reviewer claims here..when a film is bad, it's bad

The Green Mile (1999)

Well told story full of racism

[4/10 · 29 May 2000]

THE GREEN MILE-starts out with an older man, remembering the time he was much younger and working in 'the green mile', the prison cell block, prisoners were put in, before being electrocuted in the electric chair. The real story starts when a huge black man, John Coffey comes in, who much later in the film turns out to be able to heal people in a mysterious way. We also get acquainted with the other prisoners and wards. One of the wards is not as nice as the others, but a frustrated sadist. The story is well told with great eye for detail, also the actors, with Tom Hanks as main character are giving excellent performances. The film loses (great part) of its' credibility when John Coffey starts working his miracles. It is not very clear why we need to see not one, not two, but THREE electrocutions(of which one goes wrong and never seems to end).

But what is mainly disturbing about this film is not so much its' length or the unnecessary flashback (why not start right away with the story?), but the portrayal of its charachters. The film seems to be trying to tell us, that we should be nice to all, no matter what or who, not be racist, but it does it in a very stereotypical and disturbing way, and thus sending the opposite message. As Hall already once argued, a representation of, for example violence, is not violence, but a message about violence. The huge, muscled black guy, is really a softy who is hardly able to pronounce grammarly correct sentences. It is very surprising nobody protested against this terrible stereotype, which I supposed has been overcome and belonged to the past, where blacks were thought simple and stupid. The nice wards are all good christians (after all, we are in the south of America), and therefor it is impossible that someone who is able to perform miracles has done any harm. And indeed this 'angel' turns out to be innocent. Yep, the Good and the Bad are not to be mixed up, ignoring roughly the enormous grey area in between. Surprising then that it is OK to treat the nasty ward, Percy, in a very cruel manner. OK, he is a very bad guy, but weren't we supposed to be nice to all? * 1/2 out of five