dizzjay Reviews

The Family Stone (2005)

Unfocused Mess

[1/10 · 19 May 2007]

This film has an abundance of acting talent. I thought Sarah Jessica Parker was brilliant as the uptight Meredith. But that abundance actually translates into too much. This film didn't know what it was about and tries to deal with so many issues that the characterizations that drive the story are lost.

Basically, the favorite son brings his inappropriate fiancé to meet his family for Christmas. There are two important relationships developed in the film, between Dermot Mulroney and Claire Danes (his fiancé's sister) and between Sarah Jessica Parker and Luke Wilson (Mulroney's brother and his brother's fiancé). Clare Danes gets one scene in which she tells a long story about a totem pole in Alaska to show Mulroney falling in love with her. Sarah Jessica Parker gets one scene to change from a tense, insecure career-woman into Luke Wilson's relaxed party girl. It not enough and the relationships are therefore unconvincing.

Mixed in with the change of partners scenario is a mother dying of breast cancer who deflects emotional moments with inappropriate laughter and talks about the man who popped her daughter's cherry. There is another son who is deaf, gay, in an inter-racial relationship, and is adopting a child. There's a daughter pining for the guy who popped her cherry. There's also Elizabeth Reaser as a pregnant daughter who really has no place in the movie at all; she could have been left on the cutting room floor and no one would have noticed (her performance was excellent, just not necessary in an already crowded cast).

The editors did their best to pull all this nonsense into a coherent story, but ended up truncating the important parts and leaving us with an unfocused mess.

Shopgirl (2005)

Unbelievable

[1/10 · 15 May 2007]

I didn't finish watching this film. I almost turned it off near the beginning because it was so boring, but decided to wait until Steve Martin appeared to see if it picked up at all. It didn't. I didn't believe in the relationship between Danes and Martin, she didn't seem like the kind of character that would be seduced with gifts of expensive gloves by a man 34 years older. It might have been believable if Steve Martin was handsome or charming, but he was neither. There was zero on-screen chemistry between Martin and Danes. The photography, lighting, music and acting were all excellent, just a poor script. One of the signs of a weak script is the use of voice over, like when Danes and Martin are having dinner and suddenly there's Steve Martin's voice over explaining what Claire Danes is thinking. Things like that should be demonstrated in the acting - show, don't tell.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Visually Stunning Moments

[3/10 · 28 January 2007]

This film has some visually stunning moments with shadows from the past overlaid on the present, a good score, and a strong supporting cast. But that's about it.

There is a major weakness in the story: the main characters are not in control of the action, the characters are driven by the plot. The main characters are victims of circumstance rather than taking control of their own destinies. This leaves us with weak central characters lacking the depth that would draw an audience to identify or sympathize with them. Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu is reduced to a talking doll. Not for one moment is she believable as a police officer.

Tom Hanks is equally unconvincing as an action hero on a mission to find an earth-shattering secret. He is given claustrophobia in an attempt to add some dimension to his character, but it is an unnecessary embellishment. If it was meant to give him some vulnerability it is canceled out by the fact that he is completely unfazed after being attacked, shot at, threatened, held prisoner at gun-point and facing several harrowing near-death experiences. When he finally reveals the answer to the puzzle that is the fulfillment of both his personal quest and professional career, there is no excitement, no thrill, no professional or personal satisfaction. The secret of the ages is reduced to an anti-climax.

The resulting film is a long, violent chase through exciting locations. The main carrier of the plot is not, as one would expect, the solving of the mystery, but the violence. The story itself is so weak that they try to spice it up with extra violence, adding scenes of Templars being stabbed and burned to death.

The weaknesses of the film over-balance the strengths leaving us with a forgettable below-average film – and it is not the fault of the actors or the filmmakers, but of the basic story all the technical brilliance is hung on.

Moonlight and Valentino (1995)

Romantic Fantasy

[5/10 · 20 January 2007]

I saw this film shortly before watching In Her Shoes with Toni Collette and Cameron Diaz. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother…" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller, in In Her Shoes is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place. Kathleen Turner at least shows some emotional vulnerability as the stepmother in Moonlight & Valentino.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.

In Her Shoes (2005)

Romantic Fantasy

[4/10 · 20 January 2007]

I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother…" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Loss of Focus

[2/10 · 31 December 2006]

I can't comment on the ending of this film as I didn't watch all of it. The thing that turned me off the most was the whipping and the general cruelty. I was also annoyed with the ragged construction. The Black Pearl starts off with Jack Sparrow's daring escape. Dead Man's Chest also has an escape at the beginning, but the difference is that the escape in the Black Pearl added to the plot and built character. The escape in DMC has nothing to do with the plot or characters at all, it was just exciting filler. And I suppose it was supposed to be funny in a Wile E. Coyote sort of way when the cage full of prisoners falls into the gorge, but when you think about it, it's quite gross to think of men trapped in a cage plunging to their deaths. In The Black Pearl the plot centered around Jack Sparrow's quest to get his ship back and all the other character's motivations centered on that. Dead Man's Chest has four plot lines, they are connected but have four different motivations: Sparrow wants to be free of his curse; William Turner wants to resolve his relationship with his father and save Elizabeth; Elizabeth wants to find Will Turner; and the East India Company wants Jack's compass for their own nefarious ends. So the whole thing has lost its focus. Also missing was Jack Sparrow's cleverness. In The Black Pearl, Jack Sparrow's commandeering of the Interceptor was great fun and very imaginative - there is nothing like that imagination in Dead Man's Chest. Overall a great disappointment.