This movie is both educational and well done. It made me look into the real story that inspired Melville's Moby Dick. It has good production value and tells a compelling story that keeps you watching. It may take some liberties with the historical facts, but is for the most part true to what is known of the real story. The characters are not shallow, but live through plausible emotions. Ron Howard directs his actors, and the whole production with his usual highly competent skills; he may not be a genius of the 7th art, but he will be remembered as an important director of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Overall, I am glad to have seen it and followed up on reading about the historical accounts behind the movie. I was very pleasantly surprised.
Reviews
6 Reviews
England, My England
(1995)
Beautiful and original musical biography
15 October 2005
The first time I saw the movie, after a brilliant opening, I felt somewhat disappointed to see that it was a play within a movie. The more I saw it, however, the more I appreciated the original treatment of this biography. It is, first and foremost, a beautiful movie, both for its photography, historical recreation and the great music. The contrast between the modern and historical periods made possible by the "play within a movie" treatment is actually very interesting. The character played by Simon Callow performs research on the life and times of Purcell, while commenting on our own times. John Elliot Gardiner conducts the baroque orchestra and singers with energy, and the result is first class. I saw and recorded this movie on videotape in the 1990's, and the tape is wearing thin. I am delighted this jewel has finally been released on DVD in 2007.
Troy
(2004)
Homophobic Trash
10 July 2005
The acting is awful, especially Brad Pitt who just postures around. The special effects do not save this movie. The worst insult, though, in this day and age, the beginning of the 21st century, is the perversion of facts through sheer homophobia. Achilles is drawn back into fighting because Hector killed Patroclus. Patroclus was his lover, not his "cousin", as it is repeated every time the character is mentioned. I could understand that a 1950's epic would somewhat obscure the fact that Achilles was gay or bisexual. Nowadays, it is unacceptable. It is not glossed over, but the lie is reinforced at every opportunity, which makes me believe it is not puritanism, but open homophobia. There are other historical inaccuracies, as in many movies, introduced for dramatic purposes. This doesn't hold water here: wouldn't it be more dramatic if Achilles returned to fighting to avenge his lover, not his "cousin"?
Straightman
(1999)
Comparable to Cassavetes and Leigh?? NOT
6 August 2003
I have read comments and reviews that compare this to movies by John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh. It is, and by far, in a totally different league. I believe it takes incredible talent, even genius, to pull off near reality when you let your actors improvise. Cassavetes and Leigh have (had) such talent and I find many of their movies admirable.
Unfortunately, it is my opinion that neither the director, the writers nor the actors who gave birth to Straightman had what it takes to pull it off. The dialogs were painfully empty, incoherent and led nowhere. The characters were not developed, the ending a cop-out. I found the whole thing rather pretentious, posing as "rough trade chic".
Are the reviewers indulgent because of the gay theme? I'm gay and have seen many gay movies. In Straightman, the theme does not redeem the film. Maybe, as Liz Braun (reviewer, Toronto Sun) said: "Straightman is the sort of film people tend to either love or hate." Well, I hated it, except for a few moments, and gave it a 2/10.
Unfortunately, it is my opinion that neither the director, the writers nor the actors who gave birth to Straightman had what it takes to pull it off. The dialogs were painfully empty, incoherent and led nowhere. The characters were not developed, the ending a cop-out. I found the whole thing rather pretentious, posing as "rough trade chic".
Are the reviewers indulgent because of the gay theme? I'm gay and have seen many gay movies. In Straightman, the theme does not redeem the film. Maybe, as Liz Braun (reviewer, Toronto Sun) said: "Straightman is the sort of film people tend to either love or hate." Well, I hated it, except for a few moments, and gave it a 2/10.
The Lion in Winter
(1968)
I can see it over and over and over again
15 December 2002
Even though I am not generally a fan of filmed plays that look and feel like filmed plays, The Lion in Winter (1968) is a magnificent exception. In fact, it is amongst my personal top 5 movies.
The play is excellent: intelligent, witty, cruel ("I could peel you like a pear" - cruel). The acting is altogether outstanding, with a special mention to Katharine Hepburn (Oscar winner) and Peter O'Toole. The filming and music are first class (e.g. Eleanor's barge gliding in, with an effective and haunting chorus).
It is one of the rare movies that I can see over and over and over again, without getting tired of it. I know a lot of the lines by heart.
When I saw that there would be a Made-for-TV remake in 2003, I shook my head in disapproval. Why not let this 1968 masterpiece stand on its own? Remakes of such outstanding movies are usually a disappointment. How can excellent actors like Patrick Stewart and Glen Close not pale in comparison with the originals? Are we so short of quality original material that we are obliged to remake old masterpieces? I would have thought that Psycho gave Hollywood a lesson it wouldn't forget.
The play is excellent: intelligent, witty, cruel ("I could peel you like a pear" - cruel). The acting is altogether outstanding, with a special mention to Katharine Hepburn (Oscar winner) and Peter O'Toole. The filming and music are first class (e.g. Eleanor's barge gliding in, with an effective and haunting chorus).
It is one of the rare movies that I can see over and over and over again, without getting tired of it. I know a lot of the lines by heart.
When I saw that there would be a Made-for-TV remake in 2003, I shook my head in disapproval. Why not let this 1968 masterpiece stand on its own? Remakes of such outstanding movies are usually a disappointment. How can excellent actors like Patrick Stewart and Glen Close not pale in comparison with the originals? Are we so short of quality original material that we are obliged to remake old masterpieces? I would have thought that Psycho gave Hollywood a lesson it wouldn't forget.
The Young Philadelphians
(1959)
A fine 1950's movie
15 December 2002
The Young Philadelphians had all the ingredients to become the most horrid American melodrama, in the worst 1950's style. Instead, it was cooked up to be one of the fine 1950's movies.
William Lawrence III (Adam West) was not, indeed could not be, the father of young Tony (Paul Newman). After William kills himself in a horrible car crash (suicide?), his Mother wants Kate (Diane Brewster) to give up the family name for her and her baby boy. Because she could reveal the reason for this horrid condition (Gasp! Is it possible that the marriage was not consummated because William the third could only "do it" with boys?), Kate secures the Lawrence name, if not the Lawrence money, to give Anthony a chance in Philadelphia society. Can you see the most awful melodrama developing?
Well, it turns out that further developments provide us with a balanced mix of humor, cynicism, drama, real emotions. This movie shows first rate acting and directing, and superb black and white photography. It gives us a glimpse of what appeared to be a pretty gruesome society scene. Apart from the unlikely happy end (I'm not giving too much away by saying this about an American movie of the 1950's), this is an interesting incursion in the period, with a healthy dose of social realism. As a bonus, we get to see Paul Newman out of his shirt in a steamy scene with a frustrated woman married with Newman's much older boss, a delightful Billy Burke in one of her last screen appearances, a tortured Adam West trying to deal with... (Oh! no, I can't say it), and a whole cast of believable, if not overly subtle, characters. We even get a bit of courtroom drama, à la Perry Mason.
This is an excellent way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon...
William Lawrence III (Adam West) was not, indeed could not be, the father of young Tony (Paul Newman). After William kills himself in a horrible car crash (suicide?), his Mother wants Kate (Diane Brewster) to give up the family name for her and her baby boy. Because she could reveal the reason for this horrid condition (Gasp! Is it possible that the marriage was not consummated because William the third could only "do it" with boys?), Kate secures the Lawrence name, if not the Lawrence money, to give Anthony a chance in Philadelphia society. Can you see the most awful melodrama developing?
Well, it turns out that further developments provide us with a balanced mix of humor, cynicism, drama, real emotions. This movie shows first rate acting and directing, and superb black and white photography. It gives us a glimpse of what appeared to be a pretty gruesome society scene. Apart from the unlikely happy end (I'm not giving too much away by saying this about an American movie of the 1950's), this is an interesting incursion in the period, with a healthy dose of social realism. As a bonus, we get to see Paul Newman out of his shirt in a steamy scene with a frustrated woman married with Newman's much older boss, a delightful Billy Burke in one of her last screen appearances, a tortured Adam West trying to deal with... (Oh! no, I can't say it), and a whole cast of believable, if not overly subtle, characters. We even get a bit of courtroom drama, à la Perry Mason.
This is an excellent way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon...
Tell Your Friends