Change Your Image
DuchessOfRoxton
Reviews
The Princess Bride (1987)
One of the Most Overrated Films of All Time
I watch this movie once every 15 years to see if my opinion on it has changed. I started in the late 90s by merely hating it but now my opinion has risen a tad. It's just OK. But there's still glaring problems.
Buttercup loves Westley because they have strong couples chemistry and share a lot in common that makes them bond with one another. Actually no, there is no chemistry between the two and they're in love because...we're told they're in love. A True Love bond. No.
And Prince Humperdinck chooses Buttercup as his Princess because...we aren't told why. Five years after Westley's "death", he just does. And will use her death to start a war with a neighboring kingdom because...again, we aren't given a reason why. Cause he's bored, I guess.
And Westley as the Dread Pirate Roberts decides to mentally torture Buttercup for awhile and threatens to strike her after rescuing her because she dared to try to move on after 5 years of thinking he was dead. Buttercup actually shows strength and spark when Westley is NOT around. Any time he enters the picture she becomes a simpering lovey weakling. And of course is ready to off herself when she thinks Westley isn't coming to save her. Spare me.
I DO like Mandy Patinkin and Andre the Giant in their roles. And even Wallace Shawn is amusing. I would've loved a movie all about THEM! And Billy Crystal and Carol Kane are funny in their cameos. I actually really like ALL the actors involved in other things but this isn't the best vehicle for their talents.
There's too many holes in the script and barely any character development for my liking. Maybe the William Goldman book is better. But after watching the movie and reading and hearing the high esteem it's regarded, I have to be one of the outliers in standing by the opinion that this movie is VERY overrated. Not terrible but not good either. And absolutely not the flawless "classic" most of my generation has made it out to be.
Death Comes to Pemberley (2013)
Dour, Bland, Listless Subpar Austen Pastiche
I have not read the book by PD James so I can't comment on the similarities and differences but I have read "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen and love the book. And this particular sequel completely does a disservice to the wonderful characters created by Miss Austen.
First of all, Elizabeth and Darcy are VERY miscast. The actress who plays Elizabeth is frumpy, physically and spiritually bland and has none of the wit and energy of Austen's Elizabeth Bennet Darcy. And Darcy himself is apparently STILL cold and distant after years of marriage to his "ardent love" Elizabeth. He's also just as witless and bland as Elizabeth. In this sequel, there is zero spark and chemistry between one of the greatest literary couples of all time. There are periodical flashbacks to the events of P&P with these actors and it really exposes how badly they would've been if they'd been cast in a P&P adaptation. There's also a sex scene between Elizabeth and Darcy out of nowhere for no reason other than to attempt to convince us they're in love. Nice try.
Lydia is still annoying, thoughtless and selfish and Wickham is still a rake but now also a war hero that Colonel Fitzwilliam feels an obligation to?? Yeah right. Mrs. Younge, Georgiana's governess from the original novel who plotted with Wickham to marry Georgiana, is now revealed to be Wickham's sister (with an implication of incestual feelings?). Whatever. And making Colonel Fitzwilliam the villain of the piece is a mystery in itself. In P&P he was Georgiana's protector and Darcy's trusted confidante but now he has designs on Georgiana for himself and is in cahoots with Mrs. Younge. Meanwhile the murder mystery itself isn't interesting at all and the final revelation is a deus ex machina.
As others have noted, the biggest failing of this sequel is that it has none of Austen's humor or wit. Unfortunately as the years go by, adaptations of Jane Austen's works and works "inspired" by her have less to do with adapting her masterful story-telling than just slapping her name on a project to get people interested (the recent "Sanditon" is proof of that). Watch it once if you're so inclined but I'd recommend to avoid it altogether. Nothing of value or interest will be missed.
A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
The Sad, Ignominious Ending of the Die Hard Franchise
It seems like a good time to reflect on this last DH sequel 10 years after its release and after Disney, having bought 20th Century Fox, canceled plans for a 6th DH film, along with Bruce Willis's sad health diagnosis and retirement from acting.
Let's go back to 1988. The first "Die Hard" movie (which most people expected to flop) set brand new, higher standards for the action genre that it's rarely lived up to since. Bruce the tv star in the movie-career making role as likable everyman John McClane and Alan Rickman grand slamming it outta the park in his first film role as the mastermind "exceptional thief" Hans Gruber. The second "Die Hard" was in a new setting with new, different villains but still a fun popcorn film. The 3rd was a desperate attempt to keep the franchise going by adapting a "Lethal Weapon" script and the results are underwhelming, despite it being the favorite DH sequel. The franchise should've ended there but 12 years later and a new era of action movies transformed DH and John McClane into a Jason Bourne/Transporter clone. It made money off the Die Hard name but that's it. Then...there's this one.
John McClane (still with the NYPD???) goes to Russia because his adult son "Jack" is on trial for murder, despite his continual claims of "I'm on vacation!" Jack is working for the CIA and there's something about Chernobyl and nuclear secrets and all the "bad guys" double crossing each other and another set of bad guys are really working with other bad guys that they're pretending to work against and the whole thing is just an inane, uninteresting cluster-f...with the Die Hard brand on it.
Bruce clearly didn't care anymore after a time. Even in DH4 he appeared to care more about giving a solid performance and succeeded. Here he's completely disinterested and just picking up a paycheck. Jai Courtney is forgettable as John McClane Jr aka "Jack". He's angry at his father tho no specific reason is given. Mary Elizabeth Winstead has a cameo as Lucy McClane (and if you watch the "director's cut" she's been removed completely). The villains are all thoroughly unremarkable and by-the-numbers. There's one who eats a carrot and tap dances while invoking the first superior Die Hard by saying he hates "everything" about Americans, "especially cowboys". To paraphrase a certain episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Don't reference a great movie in the middle of your crappy movie."
I read that many theaters around the U. S. screened an all day "Die Hard" film marathon in the lead up to the premiere of this one. I can only imagine the disappointment the audiences must've felt as the quality in DH movies steadily declined and ended with this one at rock bottom.
I have mixed feelings on this being the last DH film, at least the last with Bruce's involvement (if you don't count the Advanced Auto Parts commercial). The franchise fizzling out on this truly mediocre, generic "direct-to-Redbox" level effort without a final film to redeem it makes me sad. Or maybe that planned 6th film would've been worse.
At least we'll always have Nakatomi Tower.
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)
Simons Says, "Enough With the Riddles"
I really don't understand how this one is so revered when people talk about superior sequels, and some saying they PREFER it to the first??? Ludicrous.
I understand Bruce Willis is not a fan of "Die Hard 2" and this one appears to wipe the previous installment clean so now we're in another timeline where just the first and this third movie exist. Gone are Joel Silver and Steven E. DeSouza. McTiernan is back but his creative touch is fading (his last truly great film being the vastly underrated "Last Action Hero" which cleverly sent up action movie tropes that McTiernan himself had a hand in).
Despite the happy endings of the 2 previous films where John and Holly go off into the night together, they are now separated (and Holly becomes an after-thought at the end of the film which was re-shot). The absence of Bonnie Bedelia really takes a lot of the heart of John McClane's appeal with it. He's now a bitter, unlikable alcoholic on the outs with the NYPD and has lost touch with Holly and the kids. If this characterization was a result of the post-trauma of the Nakatomi incident (aka "that thing in the building in L. A." as it's referred to here), it isn't explored at all (THAT would've been much more interesting). Reginald VelJohnson as McClane's spiritual sidekick Sgt. Al Powell is now banished from the series. New to the series is Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus Carver, a Harlem resident with a chip on his shoulder who gets involved because it needs to be a white-black conflict buddy-cop action movie. The racial banter and whining gets old and annoying VERY fast. I understand this was being developed into a Lethal Weapon sequel but even the banter in those films was much snappier and original than what we see here with Willis and Jackson. The whole sandwich board in Harlem incident is very out of place for a DH movie but I could see it happening in a LW film, with Mel Gibson's character doing his "I'm crazy" histrionics for the very offended gang members.
McClane, who was sharp in the previous films is now not too bright. At one point he even says out loud, (I'm paraphrasing) "There's a guy with a German accent who wants to kill me for some reason, who could it be???!" Yeah John, who indeed? And the part where John stands at a fountain like a schmuck trying to correctly measure two jugs of water exactly is pathetic and boring.
I really like Jeremy Irons in most other films but in this one he's too flamboyant and ridiculous, the exact opposite of Alan Rickman's steady and cerebral Hans Gruber. The riddles to distract the NYPD and send McClane all over Manhattan get tiresome very quickly. Then there's a car chase across the city, a Subway de-railment, a quick trip to Yankee Stadium and McClane caught in a flooded underground tunnel, all in the name of ACTION. There's a mute female assassin who serves no real purpose and a generic indestructible "big guy" for Bruce to go up against like he's Indiana Jones. And Zeus's nephews being in the middle of danger because they stupidly stay behind when the school is evacuated because Zeus taught them to never trust white cops. It doesn't matter because by this time I've fallen asleep.
The ending itself is disjointed because it was a re-shoot after the original ending where McClane, kicked off the force in disgrace, tracks Simon to Hungary and kills him with a rocket launcher was deemed too dark, I guess. But that ending goes better with this "nothing more to lose" version of John McClane.
I may be the minority in this thought but "Die Hard" should've never been a franchise. The original film was a one in a million event of a day in the life of a "regular guy" NYPD detective trying to reconcile with his wife until a meticulously planned heist got in the way. Unfortunately the $$$ based on name-recognition wins out every time. This isn't a good movie but it really should've ended here once and for all. Instead they had to dredge up the name of "Die Hard" two more times for a cash grab and became like every other action movie franchise.
The BBC Television Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet (1978)
Alan Rickman Gets All 5 Stars
If not for Rickman this would've been one of the most painfully dull productions of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. To watch the entire program I had to endure it in parts so I wouldn't fall completely asleep.
Ryecart as Romeo has so little presence and passion. Saire as Juliet, while age appropriate, has none of Juliet's spark. For co-main characters that is a failure from the get-go. Casting a slightly older Juliet may have helped a bit. Anthony Andrews as Mercutio overacts to the point of annoyance and Benvolio has no gravitas as peace-keeper or as Montague friend at all. The old veterans of the British theater are the best but even in certain parts they seem unsure of how to deliver the text. Now, let's talk about Alan Rickman as Tybalt.
This was Alan's first time in front of a television camera (and 10 years before his masterful first time in front of a feature film camera for "Die Hard") and here as "The Prince of Cats" he is somewhat subdued. Considering the uneven production and performances of the other actors in general I can't say I blame him. He shows flashes of the fire just below the surface and quiet intensity he would become memorable for in later theater and film. Standing to the side wordlessly watching Romeo dancing with his cousin and even as a corpse under a death shroud in the Capulet tomb he has more presence than the other young actors in the production.
Also the production is awkwardly blocked and directed by television veteran Alvin Rakoff. The studio sets seem too cramped and at times there's too many things going on to the point of confusion. The sword play is OK but at times looks TOO choreographed like a well-rehearsed dance. In particular, the duels between Mercutio and Tybalt and Tybalt and Romeo make it seem that Tybalt is not as bloodthirsty and is more cowardly than Shakespeare's text suggests.
This was shown on American television through PBS at the time and unfortunately PBS abandoned the BBC Shakespeare experiment fairly quickly due to the lackluster response of this and the other early BBC Shakespeare productions.
I suggest watching it in parts if your brain can take it. Or if you're a big Alan Rickman fan just fast forward to all of Tybalt's scenes.
Dangerous Liaisons (2022)
"Inspired by..." Doesn't Cut It
I'm a big fan of the book, the play and some of the film adaptations. Every story seems to get the prequel treatment now even when it's unnecessary. In the "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" book and in most of the adaptations, Merteuil and Valmont are bored aristocrats who get their kicks from sexually manipulating innocent people and the harmful consequences of their actions. It was de Laclos's commentary on the apathetic French aristocracy that eventually led to the French revolution (it's said Marie Antoinette had her own copy of the book carefully hidden among her effects).
Here their origin is supposedly two young people living in poverty and forced into prostitution. Totally made up for this tv series. For me, it doesn't work at all. And Camille's reaction to Valmont doing almost the exact same thing and blackmailing his older broken-hearted paramour is reaching in terms of motivation and explaining how Camille will eventually become de Laclos's Marquis de Merteuil. Another thing that I noticed in this first episode is the actors have no chemistry. When the series starts we're told that they're in love, not shown how they fell in love. The audience is supposed to believe that Camille and Valmont are in love because they have sex a few times. Alright then. And Camille's maid servant doesn't like Valmont for a reason we aren't privy to, so she sets about to break them up because the script calls for it.
Also, the historically inaccurate casting decisions are silly. Yes, I understand wanting more "diverse" casting. But here it's very out of place and seems shoe-horned in. Setting it in modern times would've made sense in this respect but period dramas on Starz seem to be hot now so they want to have their cake and eat it too.
It is nice to see Lesley Manville in a prominent role, as she played the original Cecile de Volanges in the RSC production in 1985 with Alan Rickman (RIP) and Lindsay Duncan. And the great Clare Higgins is the brothel madam who is owed a debt by Camille. Christopher Hampton, who adapted the book to the Royal Shakespeare Company production in the 1980s and also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for the film has an Executive Producer credit. I really wonder how much creative input he has on this series.
Now I'm basing this on the first episode of the series. Could it get better? Of course. Will it get better? We shall see. I do hope it will influence more people to read the novel, read the Hampton play or watch any of the other adaptations.
POSTSCRIPT 12/27/22
Well, turns out it got even worse. Reviewer MaryRock90 and several others have nailed all the problems with the series and not surprised Starz went back on their decision to renew for a 2nd season and just outright cancelled it instead. There are entertaining and clever ways to do a prequel series about Valmont and Merteuil but the team behind this one had no idea how to do any of that. If this idea had been proposed 30 or 40 years ago in the heyday of Masterpiece Theatre and A&E period dramas it could've been something really interesting and special with competent professionals behind it. Alas, it wasn't to be.
Willard (2003)
One of the best movies I've seen in a LONG while...
I enjoyed this cinematic masterpiece thoroughly. Glover's performance in this film is one of the best ever and the script itself is terribly witty and psychologically deep. Jackie Burroughs and R. Lee Ermey owe as much to the success of "Willard" as Crispin Glover. Burroughs as the immasculating, insensitive mother of Willard and Ermey as the evil, demeaning porno-net surfing boss. No wonder poor Willard flipped out and turned to the rats as his friends. No human had showed him any kind of affection or compassion, except Cathryn the temp worker. The symbolism, irony and psychology of all the characters and events are very fascinating and worth thinking about. I can't wait to buy the DVD. I give this movie a 9/10.
Longshot (2001)
90 Minutes of my life I'll never get back....
That's how I felt after I had seen Longshot. My friend in college bought it and we watched it and were laughing so hard from the HORRIBLE dialogue, corny story-line, LAME boy band and Trans Con product placements, insipid characters and awkward situations. My friend and I watched it only because we're both fans of members of Nsync. Only watch if you have nothing else better to do with your time and don't spend more than 10 cents to rent or buy. Otherwise, FOR GOD'S SAKE STAY AWAY FROM THIS STINKBURGER!!!