Change Your Image
Letswrite
Reviews
For Colored Girls (2010)
High Art...
I'm not shocked at the reviews of this film for the simple reason that it is high art. High Art in the academic sense, means it's not a mass product, mass produced in the factory that formulates today's popular culture. And as one reviewer already said, I'm certainly not a fan of Tyler Perry's "low art" films, and his depiction of the African American female in particular. HOWEVER, the beauty of this film is that he transcends his normal texts. I have not read or seen the play but any writer, who writes often, knows, to use poetry as dialog is not at all easy. In For Colored Girls, I'd like to say Bravo to Perry, poetic dialog is so beautifully scripted and weaved into the progression of the story. One of my favorite scenes is between Whoopi Goldberg and Thandie Newton when they confront each other after an unfortunate incident with the character who plays Netwon's sister and Goldberg's daughter. How each character speaks over the other and only listens to the other when she says something that validates her existing negative assessment of that person. I thought that was quite profound. There were so many scenes that I loved and none of them were disjointed, all of them built one upon the other to form one very cinematic story. Actually one OVER, dramatic story. And that would be my one criticism--and I think it's a major fault.
Every plot point cost so much. There was such an imbalance of the tragic and the non-tragic. And I think this one fault could be the shot in the foot, he didn't foresee. But nevertheless, those who appreciate high art, will appreciate the masterful use of poetic dialog in this film. I was extremely impressed.
Love & Other Drugs (2010)
Hoping for More
I was hoping for more but I actually left the theater after an hour into the movie when I realized we were back at square one, and the two main characters (already forgotten) had fallen back into bed to have sex again for the umpteenth time. I do agree with the first "real" reviewer that I read, this story is not built scene by scene into a one cinematic story--driven by a tight cinematic PLOT. As a matter of fact, that's what I said, before I left the theater, this movie -- not film -- is not cinematic. Yes, it certainly is comprised of a series of disjointed scenes which some are quite entertaining but after an hour of sitting in a dark room looking up at the screen, you certainly do question whether or not this is the perfect use of your time at the moment...And once again, this film proves that in Hollywood it really is all about who you know (this script should have never made it out of development like that) ...but Jake G is cute, so for that I give it 1 star (I know, how shallow of me)--but even after an hour, his appeal wore off. Oh, and star (#2) is given because at least they tried to make it about something--a critique on the pharmaceutical drug industry--and I agree with its discourse.
A History of Violence (2005)
Not Well Written
I'm not sure if the last commenter and I saw the same film. This film began bad and ended worse. The opening scene was not needed and lent no use to the story as a whole. It went on too long and it's pay off was so quick, it was anti-climatic. Character development was terrible. Without "spoiling" the film, I'd like to say the characters behaviors were inconsistent throughout the film. The wife would fluctuate. The son grew this super strength late in ACT II. The writer relied mostly on pulses of climatic moments to carry the film out, not story development. What I mean by pulses of climactic moments are gun fights and death of characters that we construed as major characters. Speculatory sex is used, that is sex scenes not written to advance the story wherein after the act the characters reach another plateau of growth or story progression. Sex in this film was just constructed for "gazing" as what Laura Mulvey would call it. The things they did. Shame on the writer and director! And I'm not a prude. But, here's why this film made it to the big screen. It relied heavily on known conventions of it's genre. Like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces laid out on the table but not put together. We know the nose goes here, the mouth here and the eyes here but all the stuff in between just doesn't fit or is in the wrong place or belongs to another puzzle. But the audience can make a face out of the fog if they look hard enough, and say, "oh, I saw it. But...". Also, some dialog could elicit a laugh here or there. It's the sort of humor that captures the male audience 18-49 (hmm, maybe the reason for the speculatory sex scenes). The humor in a sticky situation. But again, it wasn't consistent, just the mark of bad writing. If I could only spoil the movie (this doesn't constitute being called a film), I would provide a very in-depth analysis. But, all in all, BAD WRITING.