av_m Reviews

A Simple Plan (1998)

This production is just gorgeously done on all levels

[10/10 · 18 January 2024]

This film is just superb every way you look at it.

Actors - Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton as the two main character are absolutely outstanding - their synergy in playing their respective roles is breathtaking - every key scene between them is loaded with nuance and going beyond what you think you're expecting. It's gorgeous to watch.

Cinematography - the camera work is flawless - it's completely under control and never intrudes into the frame itself by which I mean it never tries to be "arty" or "edgy" it just flows and is beautiful.

Music - perfect, unobtrusive but thruout perfectly underscores the narrative.

Storyline - Perfect - you'll be completely engaged from beginning to end.

Direction - well, obviously the direction is excellent, since all the other stuff is excellent.

In sum - watch this one - yes, it's a "noir" but it's a beautiful noir.

10 thumbs up.

The Letter (IV) (2012)

OK - my beef is with the hair pieces

[1/10 · 13 January 2024]

Well, hard to pile on anything more in the way of making fun of this thing.

So, I'll tack on my two cents regarding the various characters' hair pieces - which, for me were atrociously distracting and took up all my concentration.

For example, Josh Hamilton - as a younger but nonetheless middle aged man, why is it so horrible to just show his naturally receding hairline - why add a "piece" on top and then comb strands of that piece down over his forward such that all you spend your watching time doing is trying to figure what he'd look like without the piece.

And James France - again, understandably - and quite comfortably, naturally - thinning on top - but, oh no, let's first, stick a hair piece on top and - brace yourself - hot curl that sucker into "boyish" twirlicues. And, to add insult to injury, his whole head of hair - real and toupe - is dyed a shiny greasy shoe polish black - every time he leaned back on any of the stage furniture upholstery I pictured a big black stain residue.

And the women -first, I don't know if Katherine Waterson just naturally has a lot of hair, but if they did add extensions then they way overdid it - she often looks like nothing else so much as "Thing" on the Addams family.

And does Winona escape this hair piece Armageddon? Oh no, - there is one chunk of a very strangly strand of wiry hair that is consistently combed from sort of the top of her head down over the middle of her forehead down over her eyes - like more of a forelock of some sort rather than just bangs - it's quite bizarre - not sure what cosmetic effect it was intended to achieve. And, btw, Winona's various dye jobs are also way too dark - more shoe polish.

Well, you get the idea - of course, there's all the other stuff that makes this thing utterly insufferable - the plinking piano notes score, the ever pretentious in-focus/out-of-focus shots of random New York City tree foliage, the claustrophobic "Greenwich Village theatre scene denizens" of it all, the incredibly tedious dreamlife, and incessant articulation of and fixation on, Wynona's character's dreams, etc etc.

In sum, this thing is mainly a joke on itself. I mean with dialogue lines like "And then I heard birds" delivered with absolutely breathless self-awareness, how can you not do a spit-take of your popcorn laughing out loud. Lol.

Save the Date (I) (2012)

Yup - this s*cks

[1/10 · 12 January 2024]

There is no redeeming value to any aspect of this thing.

Let's start w. Direction and cinematography - how much do you like to look at people's dirty after-meal sinks, tables and other slovenly housekeeping - not much?, so too for what the director and camera crew choose to splay before your watching eyes.

OK, next up, audio - musical scoring - so very very predictable, adult men still doing adolescent garage band "cool".

Script and dialogue - omg - how much do you like HEARING people have sex while, at the same time joshing with each other about their farts - WITH their pet cat crawling all over them in the same bed - oh yeah, it's that disgusting - and, again, somehow didn't catch how very repulsive that visual is - not the director, note the cinematographer, not the editor, not the producers - the the team aesthetics on this one.

The characters - not any one of them - NONE of the them - anybody you would ever ever want to know, stuck working with, live in the vicinity of, or even have to wait behind in the grocery store line - just miserable self-centered non-descripts.

SKIP THIS ONE!!!

Ruby Jean and Joe (1996 TV Movie)

Under all the ha-ha snark dialogue, this thing has a very weird vibe

[2/10 · 26 December 2023]

OK - ya got Tom Selleck playing Tom Selleck playing the Wagnerian cowboy - and then ya got Jo Beth Williams playing Jo Beth Williams playing the retired ho with the heart of gold, and then ya got new-comer Rebekah Johnson playing the wise-cracking "Tatum O'Neil-alike" third wheel.

Ok, so what's weird vibe about that - over and above just odd - well, it's because the Rebekah Johnson character appears to be about 16 years old and the Tom Selleck character is a 50 something drunk drifter who picks up the 16 old hitch hiking and takes her on as his dusty road-traveling companion - but, oh no, there's no "lolita" vibe there, right? Wrong, there is, it's creepy.

Well, that's the problem with this one - the premise is way hinkcy and no amount of Tom Selleck mustache charm or Rebekah Johnson quirky wise-cracking, or Jo Beth Williams in jeans that were apparently painted on her changes what is basically a story about a Mann Act violation.

So, one word summary - icky.

The Happy Ending (1969)

This is for grown-ups

[10/10 · 25 December 2023]

This is not a thriller, not an action film, not a comedy, not a rom-com, not suspense, not a mystery, not a history flick.

It's a drama - a drama of contemporary - well, late 1960's contemporary - grown-up life.

As such, the film is just really well done.

For starters, the cast of actors is superlative, and they're all at the top of their game - Jean Simmons, Nanette Fabray, John Forsythe, Teresa Wright, Lloyd Bridges, Shirley Jones, Dick Shawn, Bobby Darin - whew!!! That's a boatload of talent.

And the writing is similarly superlative - the script dialogue delivers one notable quotable after another - witty, insightful, nuanced. And you give that to this cast of actors and you just get one perfect stream of performances each one of these consummate professionals balancing with, blending with, and playing off of each other with exquisitely perfect timing, tone, all of it.

The film editing is interesting, and deliberately a bit of challenge in terms of story line flashbacks and correlate character development understanding - which is also why the film is for grown-ups, you have to concentrate, engage and think along with the narrative and exert some intellectual effort to put it all together.

That said, fear not, this is not an offshore "art house" auteur "cinema" piece of work - it's all American - technicolor, straightforward, entertaining (Shirley Jones and Lloyd Bridges in the Bahamas segment are, as you will see, very easy to gaze at, lol :-))

And, wonderful Michel LeGrand's musical score is exquisite - The theme song sung by Bobby Darin has become the classic chanseur ballad "What Are You Doing for the Rest of Your Life?" And all the rest of the musical scoring underlying the narrative trajectory is pitch perfect both in terms of composition and performance.

So, kudo's to the director, and writer, Richard Brooks - Jean Simmons' husband at the time - for having the directorial talents and moxey to know what to do with this veritable cornucopia of talent and deliver all the way to the audience fine final product.

By the way, a note about Jean Simmons' performance. She was about 40 years old at the time of this film. As most reading this may know, she emerged on the British theatre scene like a comet and rose to the heights of popularity, with serious acting creds, at age 16 (e.g., per her performance as the young Estella in David Lean's 1946 version of Great Expectations. She was dubbed "the Rose of England" by the PR buffs - beautiful, intelligent, hard-working, and seriously professionally gifted.

But instead of staying stuck in her young adult persona - perky, cute, youthfully witty and ever popular fan mag approval-seeking - Jean moved to LA and immediately choose to travel in only the classiest of Hollywood's kaleidoscope of circles.

And she choose to mature than marinate in a hazed persona of perpetual indolence - this film is an example of the wisdom that professional decision. In this role, Jean plays a grown up woman - a woman with a loving nature crosscut with very naturally human flaws, conflicts, faults, and regrets - but ultimately hopeful, hope for better times being what, at some level, being what keeps all us grown-ups going despite "life happening" as randomly as sometimes does.

The current crop of talented "beautiful things" like Emily Blunt, would do well, imo, to take serious note of Jean Simmons as a professional role model in this regard - in sum, grow up, don't keep playing the same juvenile ingenue that brought you into the limelight - look at yourselves, really, and let the humility that that sort of introspection brings us all to, infuse the roles you choose to act as your careers mature.

End of sermon, lol - bottom line, if you seek the pleasures of grown up actors playing a grown-up narrative in a grown-up managed film - put this one at the top of your list. - enjoy! :-)

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011)

This ain't no "The River Runs Thru It"

[4/10 · 23 December 2023]

Why, oh why, can't Emily Blunt get cast into a role where she's plays a grown up woman and not a 13-year old who jumps on every man in sight and smootchie faces them and then retreats with a winsome lippy smile?

That asked, this thing is really mind-blowing, almost offensively, stupid and patronizing vis-a-vis Yemen culture. It really is basically just another manifestation of the classic Brit Gunga Din mentality - here Gunga Din is a fabulously profligate supposedly Yemeni Sheik who, nonetheless, needs the ever charming, witty and superior Brits to give that Brit hand up on his local aspirations.

That said. As for the other "characters", Ian MacGregor is just Emiiy Blunt's standard male foil mesmerized by her lens-enhanced big blue peepers and Kristin Scott Thomas apparently chose to model her role on some repulsive abrasive caricature of Princess Anne melded with Hilary Clinton - quite bizarre.

The locations - Scotland and Yemen - are both CGI enhanced for the story line - so what natural beauty there may have been captured by just straight forward cinematography, is somehow suspiciously poisoned with artificiality.

And last but not least - a/la Emily Blunt, the eternally bubbly 13-year old, it's - brace youself - boy band stuff, except for the occasional Bach-esque chamber music interludes just to give the Britain based scenes that authentic Harry Potter wood-paneled library feel.

Bottom line - this thing is juvenile, in a bad way.

So unless you just can't get enough of little ole Emily Blunt - Britain's post-2000's Mary Pickford - I suggest you skip it for something else, anything else, lol. :-)

Disclosure (1994)

Wow, Barry Levinson sank pretty low with this one

[1/10 · 3 December 2023]

I love Barry Levinson - his lyrical Baltimore- area films are simple, nuanced, often humorous, lyrical classics with thought-provoking depth of expressed insights.

This thing is a piece of soft porn trash.

Demi Moore gets more pathetic the older she gets - instead of playing a maturing woman of dignity, she opts for the "hot" aging cougar stuff and does a lot of on screen sex of every sort - the more louche the better (or worse).

The story is banal - it's fighting social culture battles of the 1990's and so doesn't age well.

The production values are professional - this a pretty big budget Hollywood-slick operation - top stars of the time so also camera work, sets, lighting, costuming etc.

Bottom line - this is Barry Levinson just grabbing the Hollywood bucks and then doing what gets a wider audience - groveling sex.

Btw, hate Miller's character in this - but, then, i don't like Miller on screen - ugly nerd kid grown up by still mouthing off too much to compensate for, well, nerdiness in a mean way.

So, my advice - skip this piece of dated trash.

Soulmate(s) (III) (2021)

Yes, this one's really bad

[1/10 · 24 November 2023]

OK, it's really hard to express all the ways in which this utterly stinks.

First, it's a total caricature of "small town Vermont" where everyone is SOOOOOO cutesy and happy and phony.

Second, the music - omg, make it stop - so unrelentingly, you guessed it, cutsey

third, the "romcom" storyline - cityslicker comes to town woo's local gal even tho cityslicker is there to wipe out local homegrown farms and businesses a/la Walmart kind of corporatism - oh, how, cutesy - so much cute-si-ness

fourth, the relation between the two grown over-30 something women - so "just childhood friends" - really, now? Oh yeah, they both promised as kids to get "married at the same time" - ah, yeah, think about that. Com'on, let's have some honesty - but, no, that wouldn't be cutesy.

Well, I think that hits the minimum character limit, thank goodness.

Don't even think about wasting your time on this stinker. :-) lol.

Hope Gap (2019)

Something between Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff and Lifetime's A Woman Scorned

[4/10 · 22 November 2023]

Ok, in case you may not know, America's cable television's Lifetime Network had a blockbuster two part made for TV movie name "A Woman Scorned: The Betty Broderick Story" staring Meredith Baxter.

Betty Broderick was a real San Diego, CA woman who back in the day - 1989 - decided she would not let her husband, in their Catholic marriage mid-life and after raising 4 children and supporting him to success as a lawyer, leave and so she shot him and his 2-soemthing mistress/new wife in their bed. (no, that's not a spoiler for this one - nothing here as stimulating as a red-blooded homicide).

It was quite the famous event because, basically, there was divided opinion about her motive and whether there wasn't some sort of justification given the circumstances. Also, like the wife character in this film, based on the evidence presented at trial, Betty Broderick was quite the harridan - screaming, cursing, pummeling the husband, manipulating the children, throwing and breaking things, trespassing, stalking him relentlessly as the knock-down-drag-out divorce proceedings dragged on, etc etc

Anywho - imo, Annette Benning is rather inspired by that story - and real-life Betty - as the "Woman Scorned" in this flick.

Also, of course, there the obvious similarity to the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton "Who Afraid of Virginia Woolf" flick - nastily bickering over-educated types nattering, nattering, nattering at each other beyond all reason.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that this is just a rehash of the old marital split-up drama - wifely angst, husbandly escapism, too much yaketty, yaketty.

Benning is, of course, quite the professional as is Bill Nighy - altho it must be noted that Benning has trained up for some sort of Brit-like accent which she only seems to able to pull off by lowering her voice tonality by a couple of registers a/la Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos infamy - but they can't really seem to bring anything new to this old story - Benning so like Betty Broderick and Nighy so like Burton's mousy university professor frozenly fending Elizabeth Taylor's drunken Amazonian chain-smoking hausfrau in hyper-high-gear dudgeon.

The third main character - the adult son - is quite the afterthought - he's going thru the situation with all the petulant victimhood of a good, card-carrying infantilized millennial, i.e. It's all about him and it's quite all right for a full grown man to act like an aggrieved seven year old whose mommy and daddy have split.

Just for the record, the thing is set by the White Cliffs of Dover and the copious drone-captured "location" shots of that topographical wonder are plugged in for pretty much every scene transition - there must be a municipal tax deduction for the production involved in that - along with plaintiff seagull squawks galore just for the plaintiveness of it all.

The music is quite the usual swelling and ebbing and swelling orchestral sort of thing - banal at best, tedious and pedantic at worst.

And, oh, there's a lot of breathless poetry recitations - bu the less said about all that vis-a-vis haute bourgeois pretentiousness the better.

Bottom line - there must be something better of a night for you to watch - even Lifetime's "A Woman Scorned: The Betty Broderick Story" - it's on Youtube and actually more entertaining, and wonderfully less haughty.

Lol, :-)

Erasing Eden (2016)

A lot of this flick hinges on the makeup - and the makeup continuity is non-existent

[1/10 · 20 November 2023]

OK, to say this thing is totally implausible is an understatement.

First, writers apparently use the phrase "self-sabotage" instead of the accurate phrase "alcoholic" - so right there you know you're dealing with a story line that has a messed up moral compass.

Next we have a female lead who is apparently super-human - she can guzzle down a entire fifth of some sort of hard liquor in about 90 seconds, go bar hopping, get in a car with strangers, wake up on the desert with a broken jaw, a major head laceration, a broken ankle and a black-eye - all on the eve of her wedding to a fiancé who's apparently oblivious to the fact that she must have been throwing some major red flags on the field of romance.

She then goes thru a series of meandering experiences which I won't "give away" - but suffice it to say she carries on down the mean streets of somewhere with no one noticing that's she's in a hospital gown and has her mouth wired shut.

And now I come to the piece de resistance - the makeup. I've recounted enough of this gal's escapades to indicate that the xtremely beat-up makeup is all the director offer to garner sympathy for the character - but in one scene she has a black eye and a laceration down her chin, and next she doesn't, and the next scene she does again, one scene she has the broken ankle limp, next scene she doesn't, next scene she foot pedaling a scooter, next scene the limp's back - and so on. Pathetic continuity management.

Oh, and somewhere along the line she manages to acquire a new weeding dress from a thrift shop with no money - again, all after being left in the desert half dead, getting her broken jaw wired up in an ER - with no ID - scootering past evil looking street gangs with a on-again, off-again broken ankle and in less than a 24 hour story line.

And meanwhile during all this, what's up with the waiting wedding party? Well I won't give that away.

Oh wait - did I remember to mention the tattoo she gets, on her wired broken jaw - oh well, who can remember it all.

Well, so it goes - unless you you like watching screwed up messes - both the character and the film - for 90 minutes, don't bother with this one.

Hope Springs (2003)

Mary Steenburger was very bad in very many bad movies, and this is one of them

[1/10 · 19 November 2023]

This is a very "turn of the century" - 1999/2000 turn of century - film - at the time Mary Steenburgen was very hot because of her rumored "close relationship" w. Bill and Hillary Clinton. Yes, that, at the turn of the century, qualified one for Hollywood casting in a lot of B grade flicks, tossed off like so many precocious NYU film school junior projects.

Indeed, quite often at the time Steenburgen is a cast as as salt of the earth American blue collar gal whereby she was depicting characters for whom in her "real" life - together w. The political elite of the time - she likely profoundly despised and so played as supercilious caricatures rather than actual human characters.

That said, apparently this is meant to be a thirty-somethings rom-com albeit it is neither romantic - just some sex scenes and a running theme about Colin's underpants habits - nor comedic, not even mildly witty - just snide and snarky. And, of course, they're also playing their parts with an stereotypical "tut tut, these Americans, oh so bemusingly inexplicable" Brit thing just for good measure in terms of sinking to below mediocrity in terms of creativity.

Likewise Colin Firth and Minnie Driver are quite bloodlessly flaccid in this this thing - Firth exudes all the male lead charisma of a quite limp cold plate of fish and chips - while Minnie Driver is rather creepily playing some sort of a drag queen Cher look alike imitation - kind of disorienting.

And, like all such concoctions of the time, there is a lot of loud, blaring rock band music of the times scoring - in a word, cacophonous - or aseptic little acoustic guitar riffs, as deemed appropriate, by somebody.

Add in a lot of wise-cracking but so so cute 'n luvable "small town America" supporting cast "characters", and, well, it's all quite distasteful.

I've concluded these sort of things were actually some sort of vehicles for production financing money laundering - there's just no other reasonable cinematic explanation why so many of these tediums were churned out - to rave reviews - at the time with exactly this sort of crowd of "it" actors of the time. Lol, not lol.

Well - my recommendation - absolutely don't waste 90 minutes of your life on this cringeworthy sub-mediocrity - its not even "bad-funny" - no entertainment value whatsoever - none - zero.

The Swimmer (1968)

Saw this years ago & thought is was a cool idea - now it's tragic

[10/10 · 19 November 2023]

Years and years ago I first saw this fillm - my recollection of it - which I was now and then reference in conversations was the idea was that Burt Lancaster "swims" across an affluent swath of Long Island (wrong - it's a wealthy county in Connecticut) reflecting the various people whose home pools he traverses.

Of course it's not about the people he "swims" by - it's about him - about the phases of his life - about that worst of all Western consumer culture experiences - a fall from financial grace - a precipitous fall thru layers and layers of social stratification from top - to bottom.

Lancaster is terrific - you can see what is reported, that he got physically fitter as the film progressed by doing a lot of continual fitness exercises every day of the filming. At 52 he "is" Rodin's "Thinker", or one of Michelangelo David. A "male human" making his way through the world around him, both physically and spiritually.

And he is quintessentially "Burt" in this film - a decent man's man but at the same time a selflessly gracious charmer with women.

The production is perfect for the storyline - actually not too challenging, just find a bunch of mansion swimming pools and pool party cast to match - but still, there's nothing that seems wrong and fills the bill.

And, for all the sensuality implicit in the poolside scenes - this film has virtually no coarsely sexual component at all - only the sexual as one part of human nature.

The film is a masterpiece for two reasons - Cheever's story - and a deft adaptation - and Lancaster's performance, which is operatic in its scope and depth of expressiveness.

Bravo, Mr. Lancaster, Bravo.

Chapter Two (1979)

I always think I don't like James Caan and then I do

[5/10 · 18 November 2023]

Ok, first the story line - banal emerging romance between mature upper middle class, white, sophisticated-urban, divorcee/widower plot - neither engaging or particularly interesting - it starts up, comes to fruition, there are bumps, riding into the sunset

Next, production values - aren't any notable achievements in this regard - looks like a "made for TV" kind of thing - lots of scenes in New York restaurants, shopping at deli's and street markets, playing baseball and football in the Park - the usual, New York upper West Side lifestyle depictions.

Characters - again banal - so tired of Valerie Harper as "gal pal" and Joseph Bologna as wacky "brother" sidekick. The two main characters are framed as pretty much what you would expect given the story line

Music - unrelenting wave of waving and receding orchestral swells punctuated by piquant piano touches to signal how cute it all is in the "dating" phase replaced later by salacious bass saxophone riffs to cue they're "getting it on" - overall, very "elevator", very not-good bad

Performances - Mason and Caan are very good actors - this thing is very "chatty" - since that's really all it's got - and Mason and Caan deliver their lines - poor as they are - with excellent timing as between them and skillfully natural delivery of each line's potential. And there's a nice little "grown up" romance "chemistry" between them. So there's that.

Bottom line - unless you really just need something to let run before your eyes of a otherwise boring eveving, skip this one as a waste of time. :-)

Carnage (2011)

Such a pleasure to watch 4 superlative actors in an ensemble preformance

[9/10 · 17 November 2023]

This really is a rather brilliant a a "situational" societal class portrayal/commentary.

John C. Reilly, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, and Christoph Waltz all give bravura performances.

This could have been incredibly claustrophobic since it all occurs in a nice well-educated bourgeoise apartment living room. But the performance are so strong and spontaneous that the setting is just a neutral frame.

The direction and cinematography is impeccable - given that it all plays out in one living room and the 4 characters are in constant dialogue and physical interaction, the camera could have gotten either static or dizzying from one character to the other - but it doesn't, instead as the spectator you don't feel that the camera is intermediating, but that you're in direct contact with the characters.

So, all in all, give yourself a very rewarding viewing experience and watch this flick if you get a chance.

Bravo!

The Lovers (I) (2017)

OK - The "son" character is an infantalized dork - is that a spoiler?

[4/10 · 14 November 2023]

This is what used to be called a "set piece".

There is no action - except for some rather embarrassing unsexy sex scenes.

It's all about the "set" situation in which the two main characters - Debra Winger and Terry Letts - go thru the motions of their character roles. (I've already said all there is to say about the "son" character, in my title, lol.)

I think "dreary" is the word that comes to mind about the whole thing - sad and dreary.

Likely, the director/writer et al didn't mean for it to be dreary - but that must be how their view "regular" folks' lives - very dull and very dreary.

There's no depth in this thing - but it's all set up for an indepth character interaction, that just never happens, the thing just glides from nowhere, thru nothing, back to nowhere.

My guess is that the director/writer had a couple of alternate endings that they played before family and friends and then chose one, which gives the ending a rather "tacked on" feeling.

As for the production - cinematography, etc - non-descript I think is adequate to say.

So, all in all, wouldn't waste your time on this one - it's just good enough not to be comically bad as some sort of entertainment value, and not good enough to make any claim on your time as having any meaningfulness.

So, there is it. :-)

An Imperfect Murder (2017)

Empty Pretension, thy name art THIS MOVIE - AAAARGH

[3/10 · 13 November 2023]

Whew - were the crew on this a bunch of elitist snobs or what?!

OK, first, the film editing - wow, if you think maybe the odd split-screening is just a lead in from the opening credits, you be wrong - whoever edits this thing had that then "new" digital editing feature and they just don't their grimy little editorial fingers off that button.

Next up, the audio and musical scoring - the dialogue is tinny - I think they may have done all the audio recording on a 2013-era flipfone. As for the musical score - omg, the "operatic" pretentiousness is UNRELENTING - it is laid on whether it's apt to the narrative, whether it obtrudes over the actual dialogue, whether it's just plain annoying - it's there, and makes no sense.

OK, the dialogue - senseless - really, the dialogue by and large makes no sense - as a viewer, you wait for it to perhaps start making sense, but it never does - I don't think that's a "spoiler", it's just a warning - it's not you, it's the dialogue.

The acting - well, when you have a script that makes no sense, a plot that makes no sense and are stuck in one set - a New York, pretentiously decor'd loft and local environs, of course - what can you do - just speak the lines and collect the paycheck, which is pretty clearly all that going on in terms of character "motivation" discernment.

Honestly, this thing is so preposterous that it's comical - so, my suggestion, is, take it for that and nothing more, literally, nothing more. Lol :-)

btw. The only reason I'm giving this thing 3 stars rather than just 1 it that the film color saturation is pretty delicious and the cinematography is - much I hate to say it - not at all bad qua "eye candy" altho, even there, they overdue it with the "blue tint" - and, moreover, as I concluded above, it does have some comical value. Lol.

Seeking Dolly Parton (2015)

At 1 hr 38 min, this is just about 1 hr too long

[3/10 · 12 November 2023]

Whew - this one is a slog to sit thru.

Wonder if we'll ever move thru this tedious millennial generation of upper middle suburban kids thinking they can make "gritty" real-life films just because the parents footed the bill for them 1) to go to film school and 2) mount their first "indie".

The narrative on this one is thin - the self-induced and fixated upon angst of "alternative of lifestyle" challenges. I think the suburban film school kids thing this is cutting edge stuff - or else they're $$$ cunning enough to ride "The L Word" wave" for as long as it curls.

Of course the "cinematography" is very studied - the director seems to have quite the penchant for placing the actors to either the far left or far right of the screen frame - it's interesting the first couple of times, but after dozens and dozens of instances of the techniques it get more than a little predictable.

And, of course, again de rigeur for the well-heeled film school suburban kid, there's lots of "gritty" settings of down and out dusty small towns and urban laundromats and 10-table "cool" neighborhood eating parlors. Ahh, yawn ...

And, of course, even the characters are supposedly very edgey independent gals, there's the intrusion of the unwitting affluent suburban parents - always the parents - in a showcased scene.

Well, by now, you must have the drift of my assessment of this thing - it's awful, it's boring, it's just so bourgeoise.

And, btw, the music is awful and edited in with atrocious awkwardness - the the dialogue, which I fear, is much ad libbed is banal par excellence.

There it is. :-)

The Great Buck Howard (2008)

"I love this town!" - & I LUV John Malkovich in this movie!!!!!

[9/10 · 12 November 2023]

OK, clearly this whole production was a set piece for Tom Hanks' son, Colin Hanks - and don't get me wrong, he's very sweet and authentic in the role he plays - sweet and touchingly authentic must be in the Hanks genes.

But Malkovich is BRILLIANT as The Great Buck Howard. So often, Malkovich comes off as rather weird and off-beat, but in this role he totally embodies that most wonderful of all American entertainment types - the "Music Man" sort, the bigger than life guy we all know is likely a con but we so luv his enthusiasm and the fact that he - or she - really does "love our town!" and just wants to entertain us of an evening, that we just sit back and willingly let him work his magic on us, and for us.

And Malkovich actually takes that persona to a higher level - he isn't a con, he's an artist - a mystical as much as a magical figure - it's a brilliant performance, imo, one of the best of his storied career.

The supporting, sort of "cameo" play well too - Emily Blunt flits in and out and, as always, ably plays her wise-cracking, flighty, funny face, gal-pal thing.

And the quality of the production is top notch - filming, costuming, script - professional and polished and entertaining to watch.

So, yeah, enjoy this one - it's fun, and, has some meaning. :-)

Your Sister's Sister (2011)

Geez Emily Blunt accepts some crappy films

[2/10 · 11 November 2023]

OK this is one of those self-indulgent indies where the real life indie directors, producers, writers, etc. Basically cast themselves and their personalities because, geez, they're so cool.

Well, of course, they're not - they're just solipsistic upper middle class self-centered twits. (Of course, the "cabin" which is the main set is, in fact, some sort of mini-mansion in the woods.)

And this is mostly painfully inept "ad lib" dialogue - every line is "improvised" with incredibly self-aware smug self-satisfaction - am I not SOOOO witty and - well, cool.

Why does someone actually talented participate in something as noxiously solipsistic as this? Quite the mystery.

Well, save yourself a lot of nauseating tedium and skip this one. (For example, do you really want to watch Mark Duplass and Rosemarie DeWitt - who have no "chemistry" whatsoever - act having sex and then "ad lib" talking about it afterwards in clinical detail - or, worse, endure Emily Blunt and DeWitt doing "witty" ad lib repartee about Emily's "bush"? - or still worse, watch Mark Duplass dumpster dive for a used condom? I think the answer's, uh, no and which way is the bathroom, since I have to throw up just hearing about it ...

Cheers! :-)

Deadly Whispers (1995 TV Movie)

For a made-for-TV, this is remarkably well done & acted

[8/10 · 28 October 2023]

OK, narratively, this is a heartbreaking story - just a huge tragedy.

That said, all the actors do a great job including Tony Danza and Ving Rhames in lead roles - but in particular, Pamela Read just give a superb performance in all respects - she captures the character pitch perfect - her demeanor, her costuming, her dialogue accenting, her character development - all of it.

So, this is a tear-jerker as well as a bit of a thriller - even the underlying music scoring is fine-tuned and sensitively nuanced to enhance the story build and accent the narrative key points - but well worth watching as a notably well-done production.

Sudden Fear (1952)

Alternate Title: All about Joan or Oh, if this could have been Hitchcock

[5/10 · 25 October 2023]

No question, at the outset, this was a "class" production - director, cinematography, actors, sets, costuming, but ...

Seems to me Joan Crawford was probably a little too much in the mix in terms of "owning" the production and, in the end, her reach exceeds her grasp (or is it, her grasp exceeded her reach? Whatever, you get the idea ...

Why do I say that? Well first of all, I don't think Joan should have cast Joan as the lead character. Imo, she brought much too "strong woman" to the role - to make this woman you have to feel that he lead woman character is vulnerable, and then horribly threatened - Joan is never vulnerable - and her portrayal of "threatened" is, well, a tad over the top melo-dramatic - much much eyes-wide-open full face close-ups - and I mean WIDE open - and, then, rather cringe-worthy amounts of "sweat" beading up over her face in as the "fright" action gears up. We get it, she's scared. She almost reaches a "Sunset Boulevard" Gloria Swanson level of silent screen hystericality, but Joan lacks the masterful nuances of Swanson and her version o hystericality just seems almost comical.

Second thing, the narrative line is several beats too long and one or two too many plot "twists" - past the point of climax to where, as a viewer, you're not sitting on the edge of your seat anymore, you're just thinking, OK, enough already, let's wind this up.

I will say both the main supporting characters are excellent - Jack Palance and Gloria Grahame. Of course, Grahame's role is the smaller of the two - she's just sort of a pixie vixen - but Palance, wow, he just fills up the screen in a overpowering way - astonishing.

So, I have to wonder, who would I cast as instead of Joan as Joan? Well, kinda of thinking Audrey Hepburn - of course, she's have to play it as the "mousy" heiress - but she would be so fragile in the face of the "Sudden Fear" plot development - especially teamed up against the huge, towering, Frankenstein-stone-faced, mad, Palance - that, as a viewer, you would be truly scared to death for her just in terms of the physicality mismatch.

And I also wonder, what if Hitchcock had directed this film. Well, I've already alluded to the my opinion that the narrative does too many twists and turns to the point that as a viewer you just get tired of trying to keep up with the plot's machinations. I think Hitchcock would have done a lot more with the cinematography - and I think he would have inserted some intermittent pauses of witty ironical touches here and there.

So there it is - well worth watching, not a waste of time, certainly a notable "Joan" thing and fun as a first look at the young Jack Palance.

Enjoy!

A Walk in the Spring Rain (1970)

OK - this really couldn't have been more mis-cast

[2/10 · 20 September 2023]

Anthony Quinn as the ignorant Ah-like-mah-wommen-barefoot-and-pregnant Smokey Mountain Man Redneck buck?

Ahhhhhh, no.

Ingrid Bergman as a mousey Professor's wife driven to sexual roll-in-the-barn-hay abandon in nekked craven lust for the Smokey Mountain Man Redneck buck?

Ahhhhhhh, that's another, no.

Sexual chemistry between Bergman and Anthony Quinn qua actors - Zero.

So you've got two actors mis-cast for their roles and whose personal chemistry is so low that all the "hot scenes" have to be staged in the dark and accompanied by strenuous crescendo's of orchestral music to signal passion-in-process.

Add to that concoction. Another gigantic mis-match of a musical score - we ain't talkin' Appalachian Spring, or even blue grass we're talking Hollywood studio "westerns" orchestral gallops = and it just add insult to injury.

And, last but not least, a preposterous overall production quality that looks more like a toney Napa Valley vineyard party venue shot in glaring blaring over-saturated grand hooray for Hollywood Techi-ni-color than a gray, coal begrimed, hard-scrabble Appalachian town - and, well, the whole thing's just a mash - and not the good kind (i.e., white liquor).

And as for the script - well, Bergman seems to think she's doing a reprise of A Doll's House while Quinn is, of course, doing Zorba the faux Greek goes faux Redneck.

Additionally, there are the little touches - like the randy baby goats Bergman cottons to right away - get it?

Oh well, 'nuff said - this thing's not worth watching.

Full of Life (1956)

So many way to do a post-modern critique of this - but .....

[10/10 · 16 September 2023]

So many way to do a post-modern critique of this - but if you wasted your time doing that, then you've missed the point.

This is just a lovely simple story and Judy Holliday is just radiant in it - no, it's not that Elizabeth Taylor/Spenser Tracy sort of upscale East Coast suburban thing - this is a California version where the grandpa is a working class ethnic guy and there's actually a sincere religious thematic element.

But the key is Judy Holliday - wow, she was great - just as comedic as Lucille Ball, but so much more natural - in fact, effortlessly natural on camera - all of her reactions and interactions just flow - and, yet, her performance is never trite - there are always surprising little twists, for example, in domestic mixup scenes where the wife character is typically expected to become an antic shrew, Judy just plays it sweet and easy and always with a gentle kind humor that could not be nicer to watch.

All of the supporting characters are very good as well - some might dismiss as "type casting" - but everyone seems comfortable in their roles and given the space to express their characters with their own level of nuance - it all rings true enough for a relatively simple narrative, that is nonetheless sincere.

And this is easy to enjoy - Judy portrays her part as a very intelligent woman - which she was in real life - she wise-cracks some, does it a little silly at times - but always also as a loving woman - and all without the slightest whiff of salaciousness or snidely pretentious innuendo of any sort.

So relax on this one - its a true "feel good" watch - and, sure, we all know "real" life can be a lot more harsh - but, at the same time, people can "really" be loving and sweet.

As the song says: So it goes like it goes, like the river flows, and time keeps moving on - and maybe the good gets a little bit better, and maybe the bad gets gone.

So why not choose to think like that? :-)

House of Cards (1968)

The camera work is good, actors good - but gawd the script stinks

[4/10 · 4 September 2023]

First and foremost, this is not a "thriller" - there are no "thrills" and the thing is neither enigmatic nor engaging - you'll basically just find yourself enduring it.

That said, this is a very stylish visual production - the sets, the camera work, the Paris venues and views, the actors are quite good, even the music is OK and heavily relied on for whatever narrative mojo this thing tries to gush out.

But, oh, the script - it stinks to high heaven.

I can't go into detail so as not to be a spoiler - but suffice to say, the thing is charmless despite all it's eye candy - not only is the story completely muddled but the dialogue is clumsy and stilted. The narrative pacing is atrocious, it goes along nicely and then takes a huge turn, speeds up, then slows down - it's all just insufferable.

Peppard is Peppard - beautiful, bloodless, and wise-cracking in a suave sixties hip way - and the other cast - including. Orson Welles - are all present and accounted for - but there's just nothing for them to do really, except walk thru the thing.

So, if you watch this, enjoy the Paris style of it - but that's all you're gonna get. :-)

The Passionate Friends (1949)

OK, sorry, but movie Brits can NOT do "passionate" - even as friends

[4/10 · 1 September 2023]

For the life of me I don't understand the romantic allure of either Ann Todd or Trevor Howard qua upper class movie Brits as a "type"

To suggest that Ann Todd was the "little Garbo" is pathetic - where Garbo smolderded red hot sexuality - Todd is Little Miss Priss with a constant sort of constipated look of petulance and a very weak little girl "blonde" look.

And as for Howard - altho he was great as an older "character" actor because then he was interesting - as a young "romantic" lead he's just a Brit caricature - weak chin, tail and frail, puppy like Brit let's-go-our-side-rugby team sort of enthusiasms over absolutely nothing, always buttoned into some part or all of the seemingly same seedy three-piece suit (at tea, on the go, in the loo) & slightly mungy tie etc.

And together - Todd and Howard - omg. His idea of a "kiss" is to sort of repeatedly smash his face against Todd's upturned dissatisfied Cupie Doll side cheek or to engage in oh so suave Brit repartee - e.g., breathless Ann Todd: "it's getting veddy dark, veddy early, isn't it"- whereupon in reply, oh so fondly, Trevor Howard: "oh yes, but remember, we had a veddy long lunch" - or, Howard: "I've been thinking", Todd: "Yes, I know" - The description of this sort of dialogue - and sexual chemistry - that comes most readily to mind is "treacle."

Well, that's my curmudgeon critique - can't recommend the thing unless one takes it as camp and gets a laugh out of it. Lol :-)