The other reviews here do a fine job of encapsulating this movie's plot line and its charms. But this is not just a low-budget film, it is a VERY low-budget film, so expect horrible lighting and sound; once or twice over the course of the movie, the characters are not even audible. The soundtrack is intrusive; the director ought to have had more faith in his material and just let certain scenes play out without tinny musical embellishments. I also found myself puzzling over the exact nature of the financial shenanigans that are a key part of the drama. Still, the movie has its moments and Jane Curtin gives an especially fine, and almost self-effacing, performance.
Reviews
15 Reviews
Before and After
(1996)
Family drama with an ethics theme
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If you've read to this point in the reviews then I suppose you will not be distressed by spoilers, but be on the alert. I discuss the ending. Spoilers coming.
This movie is about a family in crisis and I found it quite involving overall. It also raises ponder-worthy questions about personal and legal ethics. I was afraid it would end in typical Hollywood style with the kid getting off scotfree. But telling the truth doesn't give him a pass; he must suffer the consequences of his actions.
Of course the aggressive gotta-win attorney thinks his clients have acted in their own worst interests. But have they? Father and son do some prison time and then, the film suggests, the family heals and each member of it can move forward with a clear conscience.
I agree with some of the complaints aired here by others but not all. I thought the production values were fine. It's a cold movie, a twilight and night movie, and the murky snow-filled landscapes and shadowy interiors seemed perfect. I don't see how anyone can complain about Meryl Streep's performance, which is understated and nuanced. Neeson's character is fierce; it's gotta be played fiercely and Neeson comports himself well. The son and daughter were not as effective; these young actors lack vocal power and fail to put across any subtext.
This movie is about a family in crisis and I found it quite involving overall. It also raises ponder-worthy questions about personal and legal ethics. I was afraid it would end in typical Hollywood style with the kid getting off scotfree. But telling the truth doesn't give him a pass; he must suffer the consequences of his actions.
Of course the aggressive gotta-win attorney thinks his clients have acted in their own worst interests. But have they? Father and son do some prison time and then, the film suggests, the family heals and each member of it can move forward with a clear conscience.
I agree with some of the complaints aired here by others but not all. I thought the production values were fine. It's a cold movie, a twilight and night movie, and the murky snow-filled landscapes and shadowy interiors seemed perfect. I don't see how anyone can complain about Meryl Streep's performance, which is understated and nuanced. Neeson's character is fierce; it's gotta be played fiercely and Neeson comports himself well. The son and daughter were not as effective; these young actors lack vocal power and fail to put across any subtext.
Julie & Julia
(2009)
Delightful but could have been better
13 August 2009
This is an enjoyable movie, a great big hug of a movie, but one wishes more risks had been taken in the service of art and believability.
Amy Adams is a delightful person, pert and perky with a sweet speaking voice -- and she was completely miscast. You can't imagine her swearing like a sailor or being the least bit bitchy — and yet the script maintains that she was that way. But we don't see it on the screen. She's so fey and childlike that when she has her little "meltdowns" when the cooking goes awry, all you want to do is dust her off and give her a lollipop. The movie clips her talons in the service of . . . what I wonder? Oh, yeah, to give the mass market audience what it wants, a cute Meg-Ryan-like persona. Verisimilitude is sacrificed to the god of the box office. Meanwhile, a couple of Julie's woman friends ARE portrayed as bitches in small roles that, as written, are little more than caricatures.
I did appreciate the Queens setting, though. Hollywood usually depicts apartments that are far too glamorous for young working people to afford; the art direction in this movie is spot on. And may I also praise the couple's wonderful little red tabby cat who just owns that role!
The Tucci-Streep dynamic! One hardly ever sees unbeautiful people on screen who enjoy sex and a loving marriage the way they do. That seems pretty evolved! Then again, it's such a perfect marriage that the script must have been very much prettified. There are also some delightful scenes in a subplot involving Child's sister; the two are portrayed as paragons of sisterhood. Those scenes delighted me with their benignity but seem very much idealized in retrospect. I like movies that allow me to chew them over afterward for meaning and nuance and this foodie movie gives one very little to chew on.
The Ephron touch is what got the movie made and what made the movie sugary — and in a movie about cuisine one also wants a touch of the sour, the bitter, the spiced.
Overall, though, here is a movie about the grownup pursuit of happiness and few movies have dealt with this core piece of the American ethos. Despite my reservations, I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this flick.
Amy Adams is a delightful person, pert and perky with a sweet speaking voice -- and she was completely miscast. You can't imagine her swearing like a sailor or being the least bit bitchy — and yet the script maintains that she was that way. But we don't see it on the screen. She's so fey and childlike that when she has her little "meltdowns" when the cooking goes awry, all you want to do is dust her off and give her a lollipop. The movie clips her talons in the service of . . . what I wonder? Oh, yeah, to give the mass market audience what it wants, a cute Meg-Ryan-like persona. Verisimilitude is sacrificed to the god of the box office. Meanwhile, a couple of Julie's woman friends ARE portrayed as bitches in small roles that, as written, are little more than caricatures.
I did appreciate the Queens setting, though. Hollywood usually depicts apartments that are far too glamorous for young working people to afford; the art direction in this movie is spot on. And may I also praise the couple's wonderful little red tabby cat who just owns that role!
The Tucci-Streep dynamic! One hardly ever sees unbeautiful people on screen who enjoy sex and a loving marriage the way they do. That seems pretty evolved! Then again, it's such a perfect marriage that the script must have been very much prettified. There are also some delightful scenes in a subplot involving Child's sister; the two are portrayed as paragons of sisterhood. Those scenes delighted me with their benignity but seem very much idealized in retrospect. I like movies that allow me to chew them over afterward for meaning and nuance and this foodie movie gives one very little to chew on.
The Ephron touch is what got the movie made and what made the movie sugary — and in a movie about cuisine one also wants a touch of the sour, the bitter, the spiced.
Overall, though, here is a movie about the grownup pursuit of happiness and few movies have dealt with this core piece of the American ethos. Despite my reservations, I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this flick.
The Great Debaters
(2007)
Triumph ... and Treacle
10 January 2008
Sometimes you can enjoy every second of a movie, every frame, and be phenomenally moved by it, and cry a happy tear
and yet, when you ponder the film afterward, you feel disappointment, a sense of "why couldn't this film have been braver?" For me, this was that kind of film. There's just no subtlety in it and situations are stock.
Best things: the design of the film, the cinematography, the casting of the primary characters, and, most importantly, the inspirational theme of debating, of speaking well as a way out and up. I hope it inspires young people of all races to clean up their bad speech habits, speak up and be heard. As the Samantha character says at one point, in wonder, "I didn't need weapons, I had words!"
Worst things: predictable plot line, the fact that the speeches themselves, while well delivered, are not always well formulated, and the deliberate decision to end with an unalloyed triumph when the actual situation was less glamorous and more poignant; other postings here have explained why. As someone pointed out, the white characters are demonized (I would say "stereotyped") and not only by cretinous pig farmers in Texas but by the young Harvard debaters whose delicate features and snooty bearing make them seem like Stepford Scions. Oh, well black characters in films have often been stock but one must ask, if that was wrong then why is this right now?
Oprah is a soft-hearted person with an aspirational dream for her people. That's nice but it doesn't necessarily lead to great art.
Best things: the design of the film, the cinematography, the casting of the primary characters, and, most importantly, the inspirational theme of debating, of speaking well as a way out and up. I hope it inspires young people of all races to clean up their bad speech habits, speak up and be heard. As the Samantha character says at one point, in wonder, "I didn't need weapons, I had words!"
Worst things: predictable plot line, the fact that the speeches themselves, while well delivered, are not always well formulated, and the deliberate decision to end with an unalloyed triumph when the actual situation was less glamorous and more poignant; other postings here have explained why. As someone pointed out, the white characters are demonized (I would say "stereotyped") and not only by cretinous pig farmers in Texas but by the young Harvard debaters whose delicate features and snooty bearing make them seem like Stepford Scions. Oh, well black characters in films have often been stock but one must ask, if that was wrong then why is this right now?
Oprah is a soft-hearted person with an aspirational dream for her people. That's nice but it doesn't necessarily lead to great art.
My House in Umbria
(2003 TV Movie)
A Very Modern Fairy Tale
3 April 2006
Too many reviews here and in print misinterpret My House in Umbria as another sweet movie in the Big Scenery genre, too few emphasize the film's essential theme of fictions and illusions. And yet, are they really illusions when you are aware of weaving them? Emily Delahunty has just experienced something absolutely horrific and over the course of the film, we learn too of her early losses and calamities. Somewhere along the line, she chose happiness; in fact, she chooses it time and again. Her foil in the movie is the Chris Cooper character, a cold man whose scientific mind brooks no illusions. She's persistent with him. She wants to draw him out and draw him in, seducing him into her enchanted world view. She may succeed a little. She'll certainly succeed with anyone who mindfully watches this tale unfold. If this is a fairy tale, it's a stunningly contemporary one. We who rise every morning and meet each day's challenges with some enthusiasm, we who continue to love, work and create in a world threatened by terrorism, live this fairy tale too.
Must Love Dogs
(2005)
A comedy lacking wit and laden with clichés
4 August 2005
A heavenly cast, yes, but even the charismatic actors can't overcome the flaws in this sodden tale of dating after divorce. What there is of plot is tired: girl and boy meet, girl and boy get off to a rocky start, girl and boy click, girl and boy get waylaid by various misunderstandings ... it's so ho-hum. The dialogue is wooden and even darlin' John Cusack doesn't come across as cute. There's just no spark between him and Diane Lane, no love scene worth watching. A protracted sequence in which the two go hunting for a condom in the middle of the night is just irritating to watch.
Frankly I was shocked to read so many raves here on the board -- till I realized most were from first-time posters who were treated to a sneak preview. How did so many of them find their way here, I wonder? As for me, I don't even recommend renting the eventual DVD. "Must Love Dogs" is just a big commercial for a particular online dating service.
Frankly I was shocked to read so many raves here on the board -- till I realized most were from first-time posters who were treated to a sneak preview. How did so many of them find their way here, I wonder? As for me, I don't even recommend renting the eventual DVD. "Must Love Dogs" is just a big commercial for a particular online dating service.
We Don't Live Here Anymore
(2004)
The Sorrows of Young Couples
16 September 2004
I just came home from seeing this movie and feel a little shell shocked, perhaps because the acts of adultery portrayed seem borderline incestuous. The two couples are not relatives, of course, but their friendship runs deep. This is dangerous erotic territory, a movie not just about adultery but about complicity, and, as it plays out, free will.
The characters seem trapped; their small kitchens and offices hem them in. Even outdoor scenes seem cramped: a small steel bridge bears down, trees branches are like the mossy bars of a cage. Like the gorilla Edith speaks of watching in a sad zoo, these people have been wrenched from their own essential natures. Jobs, responsibilities, marriage itself have locked them away from their own vitality. How desperately they want that vitality back!
When the characters indulge in sex play, with lovers or spouses, they seem frantic, even "carnivorous," as one character aptly puts it. But their love affairs only sap their vitality; they're ephemeral and ultimately unsatisfying. Yet there is a suggestion, at the end, that the characters break free of whatever it is that has held them hostage.
The is a literate and thought-provoking movie.
The characters seem trapped; their small kitchens and offices hem them in. Even outdoor scenes seem cramped: a small steel bridge bears down, trees branches are like the mossy bars of a cage. Like the gorilla Edith speaks of watching in a sad zoo, these people have been wrenched from their own essential natures. Jobs, responsibilities, marriage itself have locked them away from their own vitality. How desperately they want that vitality back!
When the characters indulge in sex play, with lovers or spouses, they seem frantic, even "carnivorous," as one character aptly puts it. But their love affairs only sap their vitality; they're ephemeral and ultimately unsatisfying. Yet there is a suggestion, at the end, that the characters break free of whatever it is that has held them hostage.
The is a literate and thought-provoking movie.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
This is an art movie
10 March 2004
Since I am interested in contemporary understandings of biblical history, which credit the Romans for the execution of Christ and place the passion story in a wider context, I expected to dislike this movie. But it soon became clear that Mel Gibson's intentions were less about literal history--or even the literal gospels--than about portraying the passion with the same artistic license used by painters, playwrights, the authors of meditations, the writings of visionaries, and even other filmmakers. In other words, The Passion of the Christ is what's called an ekphrastic work of art, because, essentially, it draws on other works of art. (A couple of us are discussing just this issue on another site, and the context we found there just seemed like a revelation!)
Gibson's art direction provides many references to classic paintings, more, I suspect, than I could possibly appreciate. He also draws on medieval passion plays: literary works of art. He give us hommages to Bergman and Hitchcock and perhaps other directors I didn't detect. All this impresses me -- and isn't it a despair when so many of our film critics ignored these elements? Gibson himself is part of the problem here, for he hawked his movie shamelessly before evangelicals and even the Pope, and this put his film in the context of Biblical veracity. But we needn't fall for it. There is so much in this film to appreciate beyond the doctrinaire.
Gibson's art direction provides many references to classic paintings, more, I suspect, than I could possibly appreciate. He also draws on medieval passion plays: literary works of art. He give us hommages to Bergman and Hitchcock and perhaps other directors I didn't detect. All this impresses me -- and isn't it a despair when so many of our film critics ignored these elements? Gibson himself is part of the problem here, for he hawked his movie shamelessly before evangelicals and even the Pope, and this put his film in the context of Biblical veracity. But we needn't fall for it. There is so much in this film to appreciate beyond the doctrinaire.
Monster
(2003)
Metamorphosis of a Goddess
10 February 2004
Charlize Theron has always struck me as Hollywood's new goddess, tall, blonde, regal, gorgeous, a shtar. Her beauty, alas, was working against her, pigeonholing her in glamour roles of secondary consequence, in most cases. Clearly, she decided to take matters into her own hands and play against type. It was a good career move, certainly. But after seeing her performance today, I'm convinced she chose Monster not only to further her career but to fulfill herself as an artist. I had thought she wanted to be the new Grace Kelly when all along it was to follow in the footsteps of Streep. Huzzah.
In Monster, Charlize looks like some kind of Joni Mitchell on Skid Row, all washed out and unkempt. She seems not to be playing Wournos so much as channeling her. I've seen that kind of body language in unhinged people before--ramrod spine, jutting jaw--and I accepted it totally. It's one of the things that makes the character so real and so frightening. Still, the screenplay does provide an arc to this character. At first, she just seems like an outcast, with an outcast's armored bearing, and her first murder is executed in self-defense. Then she just loses all semblance of humanity as she gets swept up in the pursuit of easy money and vendetta for a lifetime of abuse and exploitation by men.
(A subtheme in the movie has to do with cops. One cop, who once arrested her, forces her into a sexual act; one of the johns she kills is a retired cop. This all rings pretty true. The New York Times Magazine recently did a cover feature on prostitution slavery--girls and children abducted to this country, kept against their will, and forced to turn tricks for their keepers. They have nowhere to go. One was quoted as saying that cops and child psychologists have been their johns, so they trust no one. What is wrong with this country?)
I don't know what to make of Christina Ricci. I tend to think that she ruins almost every movie she's in, The Opposite of Sex and Ice Storm being exceptions. To me, she usually seems to just sit there like a blob and read her lines. This movie was no exception. They already had Charlize, they could have given the Ricci part to a gifted newcomer. Or had someone else play against type, like Julia Stiles or Anna Paquin. That bit of casting is my one gripe. I recommend this movie, for its dark honesty, it's seamless, nearly invisible direction, and for Charlize Theron's stunning work.
In Monster, Charlize looks like some kind of Joni Mitchell on Skid Row, all washed out and unkempt. She seems not to be playing Wournos so much as channeling her. I've seen that kind of body language in unhinged people before--ramrod spine, jutting jaw--and I accepted it totally. It's one of the things that makes the character so real and so frightening. Still, the screenplay does provide an arc to this character. At first, she just seems like an outcast, with an outcast's armored bearing, and her first murder is executed in self-defense. Then she just loses all semblance of humanity as she gets swept up in the pursuit of easy money and vendetta for a lifetime of abuse and exploitation by men.
(A subtheme in the movie has to do with cops. One cop, who once arrested her, forces her into a sexual act; one of the johns she kills is a retired cop. This all rings pretty true. The New York Times Magazine recently did a cover feature on prostitution slavery--girls and children abducted to this country, kept against their will, and forced to turn tricks for their keepers. They have nowhere to go. One was quoted as saying that cops and child psychologists have been their johns, so they trust no one. What is wrong with this country?)
I don't know what to make of Christina Ricci. I tend to think that she ruins almost every movie she's in, The Opposite of Sex and Ice Storm being exceptions. To me, she usually seems to just sit there like a blob and read her lines. This movie was no exception. They already had Charlize, they could have given the Ricci part to a gifted newcomer. Or had someone else play against type, like Julia Stiles or Anna Paquin. That bit of casting is my one gripe. I recommend this movie, for its dark honesty, it's seamless, nearly invisible direction, and for Charlize Theron's stunning work.
The Human Stain
(2003)
Ponder-worthy Movie
10 November 2003
I'm a little fed up with the some of the glib dismissals of this movie I've read here. And I can't help but notice that many critiquers are simply echoing what has become a boring truism: that the movie is "miscast."
It isn't miscast. Anthony Hopkins' character passes himself off as a white man. Ergo, he can do this easily; he looks white. I also disagree with those who say he "looks nothing like" the actor who plays him in his youth. Does the Frank Sinatra of 1945 look like the Frank Sinatra of 1995? Does the Mickey Rooney of 1940 look like the Mickey Rooney of 1990? When a man ages, and he gains 50 pounds, his face widens and he look very different from his attenuated youthful figure. I did not have to suspend my disbelief to accept Mr. Hopkins in this role.
Nicole Kidman as "white trash"? Well, first of all, she isn't white trash. According to the script, she is well born, from a rich family. She ran away at the age of 14 because her stepfather was abusing her. By the age of 14, she would have had some pedigree. The Kidman character has low self-esteem and keeps referring to herself as downtrodden, rough "white trash"--but she isn't. She simply isn't well-educated in the schooly sense. I believed her as well, though I didn't expect to, given all the critical complaining I'd read ahead of time.
She's a terrific actress. Here, she reminded me of the young Jane Fonda, in her Klute phase. She's soulful and brash and brooding. Her skinniness is obvious, of course. But here is a hyper character who smokes constantly and works three jobs. It is likely that she would be thin. Her brown hair and worker's hands round out the picture. What other major Hollywood actress could have played this part? No one.
And they both do a bang-up job.
I was impressed by the structure of the movie. There is much jumping around in time and yet it all comes together. From the very first shot, viewers know what will befall these characters -- so it's not a melodramatic pot boiler, it's a think piece. Critics here and in the media have been implying that the "back story"--the story of Silk's youth--is the better story, but actually those are the parts that tilt toward soap opera. Anna Deveare Smith disappointed me here. Perhaps her heart just wasn't into this rather stilted story. Or perhaps her own part just wasn't written well, or fleshed out.
All in all, though, this is good filmmaking and marvelous acting. It's worth your ten bucks. Ed Harris alone is worth your ten bucks.
It isn't miscast. Anthony Hopkins' character passes himself off as a white man. Ergo, he can do this easily; he looks white. I also disagree with those who say he "looks nothing like" the actor who plays him in his youth. Does the Frank Sinatra of 1945 look like the Frank Sinatra of 1995? Does the Mickey Rooney of 1940 look like the Mickey Rooney of 1990? When a man ages, and he gains 50 pounds, his face widens and he look very different from his attenuated youthful figure. I did not have to suspend my disbelief to accept Mr. Hopkins in this role.
Nicole Kidman as "white trash"? Well, first of all, she isn't white trash. According to the script, she is well born, from a rich family. She ran away at the age of 14 because her stepfather was abusing her. By the age of 14, she would have had some pedigree. The Kidman character has low self-esteem and keeps referring to herself as downtrodden, rough "white trash"--but she isn't. She simply isn't well-educated in the schooly sense. I believed her as well, though I didn't expect to, given all the critical complaining I'd read ahead of time.
She's a terrific actress. Here, she reminded me of the young Jane Fonda, in her Klute phase. She's soulful and brash and brooding. Her skinniness is obvious, of course. But here is a hyper character who smokes constantly and works three jobs. It is likely that she would be thin. Her brown hair and worker's hands round out the picture. What other major Hollywood actress could have played this part? No one.
And they both do a bang-up job.
I was impressed by the structure of the movie. There is much jumping around in time and yet it all comes together. From the very first shot, viewers know what will befall these characters -- so it's not a melodramatic pot boiler, it's a think piece. Critics here and in the media have been implying that the "back story"--the story of Silk's youth--is the better story, but actually those are the parts that tilt toward soap opera. Anna Deveare Smith disappointed me here. Perhaps her heart just wasn't into this rather stilted story. Or perhaps her own part just wasn't written well, or fleshed out.
All in all, though, this is good filmmaking and marvelous acting. It's worth your ten bucks. Ed Harris alone is worth your ten bucks.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Future Imperfect
5 July 2001
Welcome to a future which is so far-out, so mind-boggling and so forward that husbands go to work for large corporations and wives stay home and do the laundry.
Welcome to New York where noble skyscrapers are submerged 3/4s of the way due to the melting polar ice caps, yet people work there and the electricity is on.
Welcome to the high-tech realm of tomorrow where computer robots can be programmed but not de-programmed.
Such factors made it impossible for me to 'suspend disbelief' and care about the plight of little David the Mecha robot. Still, the first half of the movie - which stays in the human realm - is effective. The second half of the movie is a brain-dead hodgepodge of standard futuristic images and ideas, however well executed. More skinny aliens: just what we need.
But the core of the movie is nonsense. The robot is supposedly designed as a substitute son who will love his 'parents' unconditionally yet David is programmed to love only one parent, his mother. Right off the bat, he doesn't do what he is designed to do! The rest of the movie hinges on this wobbly foundation. And the Pinocchio connection - like the puppet, David wants to be a real boy -- is interesting up to a point, but, dear lord, instead of functioning as a nice association one can mull over, it is all but smeared in the viewer's face when the Pinocchio story becomes central and the Blue Fairy a literal reference point.
And, oh yes, if they are going to quote the poet Yeats, can't they get it right?
Spielberg fell into the trap of special-effects overproduction and overwriting when really, at core, this is a simple story that ought to have been simply told. Kubrik would have strangled it too. The story needed a director with a light touch, Sayles maybe, or Ang Lee.
Welcome to New York where noble skyscrapers are submerged 3/4s of the way due to the melting polar ice caps, yet people work there and the electricity is on.
Welcome to the high-tech realm of tomorrow where computer robots can be programmed but not de-programmed.
Such factors made it impossible for me to 'suspend disbelief' and care about the plight of little David the Mecha robot. Still, the first half of the movie - which stays in the human realm - is effective. The second half of the movie is a brain-dead hodgepodge of standard futuristic images and ideas, however well executed. More skinny aliens: just what we need.
But the core of the movie is nonsense. The robot is supposedly designed as a substitute son who will love his 'parents' unconditionally yet David is programmed to love only one parent, his mother. Right off the bat, he doesn't do what he is designed to do! The rest of the movie hinges on this wobbly foundation. And the Pinocchio connection - like the puppet, David wants to be a real boy -- is interesting up to a point, but, dear lord, instead of functioning as a nice association one can mull over, it is all but smeared in the viewer's face when the Pinocchio story becomes central and the Blue Fairy a literal reference point.
And, oh yes, if they are going to quote the poet Yeats, can't they get it right?
Spielberg fell into the trap of special-effects overproduction and overwriting when really, at core, this is a simple story that ought to have been simply told. Kubrik would have strangled it too. The story needed a director with a light touch, Sayles maybe, or Ang Lee.
Bridget Jones's Diary
(2001)
Chocolate Fudge Sauce from the Jar
18 April 2001
Delectable movie up to a point, but then it cloys, just like one of Bridget's snacks of chocolate fudge sauce from the jar.
Two gorgeous men vie for the love of our hapless heroine -- how's that for a female fantasy flick? They even duke it out for her -- how's that for trite? The Darcy relationship relies on a sequence of annoying-to-watch misunderstandings so protracted one wants to fling one's buttered popcorn at the screen.
On the plus side, a sexy plump heroine on the screen is long overdue. With her spilling brassieres and full thighs, Renee looks luscious. Her ditsy sincerity is charming, though one wishes she didn't have to be so stupid sometimes; at one point, she demonstrates a total ignorance of some big-deal front-page trial in which her would-be boyfriend is a key player!
Also on the plus side, a nice subplot involving her mother and father. The seniors get their moment.
A romp of a movie, enjoyable but ultimately witless and about 15 minutes too long for its own good.
Two gorgeous men vie for the love of our hapless heroine -- how's that for a female fantasy flick? They even duke it out for her -- how's that for trite? The Darcy relationship relies on a sequence of annoying-to-watch misunderstandings so protracted one wants to fling one's buttered popcorn at the screen.
On the plus side, a sexy plump heroine on the screen is long overdue. With her spilling brassieres and full thighs, Renee looks luscious. Her ditsy sincerity is charming, though one wishes she didn't have to be so stupid sometimes; at one point, she demonstrates a total ignorance of some big-deal front-page trial in which her would-be boyfriend is a key player!
Also on the plus side, a nice subplot involving her mother and father. The seniors get their moment.
A romp of a movie, enjoyable but ultimately witless and about 15 minutes too long for its own good.
Miss Congeniality
(2000)
A Light, Breezy Comedy
5 January 2001
Lighten up, all ye naysayers -- this isn't Citizen Kane, it's a breezy comedy and one well worth your time.
Sandra Bullock won me over as an actress in Hope Floats; since that movie she has done good work in Gunshy, 28 Days and now Miss Congeniality. Though she doesn't have much of a speaking voice (I do wish she'd work on her shrill tones), she throws herself into her roles, doing admirable work even when the script is so-so. Even her voice is perfect in Miss Congeniality, where, as a dorky FBI agent impersonating a beauty contestant from "New Joisey," she nails nerdiness to a T. Her snorty laugh alone is enough to elicit snorty laughs of your own. And wow, can she kick ass!
This is a fun flick, the best movie about pageants since Smile (though Smile is more of a "meaningful" comedy). No meaning here, just a light entertainment that will give you a well-deserved therapeutic break from your stressful job, the American electoral process, or whatever. See Sandra play the water glasses while dressed like Heidi, see Sandra be transformed from nerd to goddess, see Sandra feed pizza to reluctant anorexics, see Sandra rock!
Sandra Bullock won me over as an actress in Hope Floats; since that movie she has done good work in Gunshy, 28 Days and now Miss Congeniality. Though she doesn't have much of a speaking voice (I do wish she'd work on her shrill tones), she throws herself into her roles, doing admirable work even when the script is so-so. Even her voice is perfect in Miss Congeniality, where, as a dorky FBI agent impersonating a beauty contestant from "New Joisey," she nails nerdiness to a T. Her snorty laugh alone is enough to elicit snorty laughs of your own. And wow, can she kick ass!
This is a fun flick, the best movie about pageants since Smile (though Smile is more of a "meaningful" comedy). No meaning here, just a light entertainment that will give you a well-deserved therapeutic break from your stressful job, the American electoral process, or whatever. See Sandra play the water glasses while dressed like Heidi, see Sandra be transformed from nerd to goddess, see Sandra feed pizza to reluctant anorexics, see Sandra rock!
Pollock
(2000)
Infantile Expressionism
30 December 2000
I loved the ambience of this movie. It recreates a lost bohemian milieu of cramped apartments with tub-in-kit, a time when money was scant in the art world and artists were more purely motivated (though still ambitious and pettily jealous of peers). In mid-flick, Pollock and Krasner move to Long Island where they still live like poor bohemians but where shoreline and field provide deliverance from the choking grubbiness of the lower east side. Again, great ambience.
Women will be especially drawn into Lee Krasner's story. She comes across as the smarter of the two, and the stronger. She's the practical one, the deal maker, and for a while she gives up her own artistic endeavors in order to nurture his. Yet she doesn't seem pathetic; she's in charge of her choices and knows how to set limits. Marcia Gay Harden inhabits the role, gives it vigor and heart; it is a joy to watch her performance and listen to her Brooklyn twang.
This is a warts-and-all portrayal of Pollock as an infantile man who decompensates when his mommy moves away or his mommy-wife takes a vacation. A drama prince who makes scenes, especially when sucking on alcohol's pap. His dedication to his art is absolute, however. Were his drip paintings worth all the angst? Ed Harris learned the technique pretty quickly for this movie. I think Pollock's paintings are awful, but de gustiba....
Women will be especially drawn into Lee Krasner's story. She comes across as the smarter of the two, and the stronger. She's the practical one, the deal maker, and for a while she gives up her own artistic endeavors in order to nurture his. Yet she doesn't seem pathetic; she's in charge of her choices and knows how to set limits. Marcia Gay Harden inhabits the role, gives it vigor and heart; it is a joy to watch her performance and listen to her Brooklyn twang.
This is a warts-and-all portrayal of Pollock as an infantile man who decompensates when his mommy moves away or his mommy-wife takes a vacation. A drama prince who makes scenes, especially when sucking on alcohol's pap. His dedication to his art is absolute, however. Were his drip paintings worth all the angst? Ed Harris learned the technique pretty quickly for this movie. I think Pollock's paintings are awful, but de gustiba....
Quills
(2000)
The Folly of Sexual Repression
29 December 2000
Quills is a rare example of intelligent movie-making, a film featuring fearless acting, fine direction, eye-riveting cinematography, and, most importantly, meaning and idea.
A lot of pretentious critical ink has dripped on this film, claiming that it is about the "plight of the artist." It is not about the plight of the artist. It is about what happens when a society represses sexuality. What happens? All hell breaks loose. It is about what happens when an individual represses sexuality. What happens? That person's sexuality rechannels itself into acts of warped sado-masochism. That sado-masochism often wears a pseudo-noble mask: cruelty is excused as "therapy" or "justice" or "penance." Quills exposes these lies and shows us the folly of sexual repression and high-minded censorship.
The writer and director have chosen to use a real person to explore this idea, the Marquis de Sade, and they have taken much license in doing so. Hats off to them; their embroidery works. Hats off to all the actors too, especially Geoffrey Rush who gives a fully-drawn, piercing and incredibly brave performance. Don't take your grandmother, don't take the kids, but see this movie.
A lot of pretentious critical ink has dripped on this film, claiming that it is about the "plight of the artist." It is not about the plight of the artist. It is about what happens when a society represses sexuality. What happens? All hell breaks loose. It is about what happens when an individual represses sexuality. What happens? That person's sexuality rechannels itself into acts of warped sado-masochism. That sado-masochism often wears a pseudo-noble mask: cruelty is excused as "therapy" or "justice" or "penance." Quills exposes these lies and shows us the folly of sexual repression and high-minded censorship.
The writer and director have chosen to use a real person to explore this idea, the Marquis de Sade, and they have taken much license in doing so. Hats off to them; their embroidery works. Hats off to all the actors too, especially Geoffrey Rush who gives a fully-drawn, piercing and incredibly brave performance. Don't take your grandmother, don't take the kids, but see this movie.
Tell Your Friends