Change Your Image
s-wesner1
Reviews
The Babadook (2014)
The Babadook...What's Next?
My Babadook Movie Review: By Suphie Wesner
Babadook, well, what can I say? It is an interesting movie, no doubt. It has fairy-tale-like elements, as it is all based on a children's book gone sour. Really, it (the actual Babadook creature) looks a lot like a masked robber who has just finished robbing a bank. The old clichéd elements of "combine storybook idyll, serenity, and child-like tranquility" and "utter horror, gore, and vileness" work here to create a spine-tingling horror film. It is chilling from beginning to end: the themes of forbidden knowledge/fruit (from the actual action of the woman reading a children's book that is obviously inappropriate to her seven-year-old son's impressionable imagination) to the actual act of crossing the borderline of reality to the imperceptible really makes for a killer (pardon the pun) horror film that knocks the teeth out of many modern-day competitors. It is really scary, really engrossing, and really intriguing from the get-go; you quickly learn to care about the characters and how they are going to fare in the end, with this horrible monster on the loose.
It is scary in itself, how, an innocent children's book, gets mocked, and in a sense, because this children's book gets mocked, it serves to mock the entire genre of scary children's books by saying that they are not just children's book but they can serve a larger function, representing true evil that lies underneath the world's exterior.
The only parts to me that were reprehensible were the utterly predictable scenes where the crazed woman, possessed by the Babadook, kills the sweet white pooch, snapping its head back. I knew knew knew that that was going to happen. Other than that, it serves as a cheery element of mercy that the boy himself and that the woman herself (whom the second Babadook book predicted would kill herself, with a knife) do not get "killed off" by the Babadook, becoming not easy prey of the ghoulish robber and adulterer of souls, instead surviving, and with an eerie twist of capitulating to the Babadook by feeding him, who now lives in the basement, worms...
Come to think of it, for animal-rights lovers, it would have been nice if the woman had killed herself, for killing her beloved dog, Samuel, who committed no sin except for noticing her odd behavior, but that wasn't in the cards for this film.
I think that the scariest parts of the film were the times when the Babadook character actually showed up on her doorstep, wreaking havoc by his entrance into her holy household, with dire predictions of the bloodshed, vile sins, and unspeakable crimes that would ensue, due to the Babadook's wrath. Whence the Babadook's motives for his torment stem, are hard to come by, the movie does not explain them; he is just a torturer, an evil spirit. We know that the book just appeared on the boy's shelf one day, that is all we are told.
All in all, it is a great film, with some really terrific terror plots, that do not fail to build up a slow-broiling suspense that slowly terrorizes but sucks you in because the overall story-line is built up so interestingly, you really care about the characters and what is fated to happen to them.
This is because from the beginning we are shown the two characters Amelia and Sam, who are drawn closer together, necessarily, by a chain of horrible events which led to her husband's, and his father's, death (he died in a car accident on his way to deliver Amelia to the hospital, when she was pregnant with Sam). They really defend each other and stick up for each other; it is really a vision of true love.
Mientras el cuerpo aguante (1958)
El Cuerpo Aguante: from the late '50's, this FROTHY film doesn't leave much to be desired, in the way of competing with American Movies. . .
This movie, fascinating as it is, because I am an American, is enjoyable, as well; it starts out with a very funny pie scene. This pie scene is so funny and ironic, due to the fact that, it takes place between the bourgeois, or, royalty, as some of these characters are called, and their servants. Funny thing, the pies cream the faces of the vivacious group equally; in other words, everyone does get creamed. So, this is the contrasting way with which we get introduced to the characters of El Castillo Blanco and Maria Victoria, whom I will introduce later. Basically, El Castillo Blanco is like the Mexican version of Marilyn Monroe, who, we can tell, is a diva, a drama queen, and a down-right sexy woman. Even, when it comes to exercise, she "works out" in heels, barely moves a muscle, and does more of what looks like, a slow-moving dance number, than a "work-out." So, this is how we are introduced to this Blond Mexican, who looks more like she stepped out of an American high-class hotel, such as the Waldorf-Astoria, then someone out of Mexico City, granted, that she is from royal background, according to her behavior. Then, we meet another "royal" whose name is Sanchez-something; he has a very long name which I won't repeat here, but its English equivalent probably would include the likes of the words, "esquire."
So, we have all of these kooky characters, Maria Victoria being the least kooky of them all; she is level-headed, it seems, she can sing well, it seems, and has an even, mild, presence. No wonder she has a chauffeur in the house, or, who looks like one, probably just one of the many servants of "La Castilla Blanca"
All in all, the meat of the story, so to speak, revolves around "Maria Victoria" who teams up with El Castilla Blanca, not only to enjoy "joy rides" of money spent lavishly, foolishly, and crazily (including, in a silly manner), but to charm the pants off of all of the members (the servants here are like family) of the household, even stopping in at a mental hospital to cheer up the residents, at one point in their zany escapades (towards the end of the movie). There is one romantic couple in this whole film, the love doesn't spread beyond that; the conflic resolution, and the plot, indeed, are excellently churned out. Their problems are your problems; you feel for them when they have to line up at the "temps" center, for instance, when they are from royal extraction and yet have to line up with the commoners in order to get a job. So, there you have it folks, there are some lessons to be learned from people back then, when you apply those to today. Much to be learned. There you have it folks, the Mexicans are some of the hardest partiers this world has to offer, and this movie helps prove that (though I don't like to generalize); in addition to the "hay-rides" these characters take part in, there are a number of musical sequences that no one should miss if they see this movie. This is an excellent film for those who want some insight into Mexican culture, if not at its finest, at its most entertaining. The characters have a wonderful chemistry, which is uplifting with their theatrical dynamics and "faces they pull" and, even, the music is inspirational. Not to be missed.
Jules et Jim (1962)
Cool Movie: Not Sure if I'd see it a Third Time, though. :))
Suphie Wesner 10/08/2012 Jules and Jim Movie Reviews, all by François Truffaut
These three movies are all hall-marks of Truffaut's classically appealing style; somehow, whether in color or in black and white, Truffaut always manages to "get it right." What we mean by this is, he either chooses really charming characters who win our hearts (and minds), or he has interesting and intriguing (unusual) story-lines, or, indeed, Truffaut just simply has good ideas to write about (let's face it, though, he simply does, sometimes, use a lot of the same themes, about love, married women, and threesomes, though, not in a sexual way)... In Jules et Jim, this interesting, intriguing, film with charming characters, albeit a really downer ending and theme (kind of a Romeo and Juliet type thing; a woman scorned who goes to the last extreme to avenge herself of the death of her lover's love for her, a murder-suicide), really pulls us in with its starting premise; a lonely blond woman, named Therese, must face the facts when her abusive, drinking, though, at least politically motivated (anarchist) husband, screams at her and she considers that the last straw. In general, too, we find that the movie has a lot of good moral qualities: we see that, though this woman basically "shares" these two men, she toys with their hearts minimally, and genuine love is valued a lot. Indeed, we see that she "goes for" Jules, the German-looking Frenchman, while Jim is sort of her lover on the side. It is a complicated piece by Truffaut, set in the 1800's when trains were still all the rage, the can-can was coming to the fore of the entertainment scene, and costumes included hooped skirts, tail coats, top hats, fancy shirt cuffs, stiff bibs, wool rags, and spats... Interestingly enough, though, we see that a woman in 1800's France was not looked down upon simply for seeing two men, this was not enough to label her a "whore" in most people's eyes, or they didn't know about it, and people would not look at this situation in naive shock and disbelief, like they might in more Victorian societies. Indeed, we find that Therese, and, later , Jim's wife, Catherine, enjoys equal respect from both men, something which is indeed unusual and to be cherished by any sweet, rather innocent, and popular object of another two competing people's affection. Yes, we see through this movie, Jules and Jim, the saying "Hell hath no fury like a Woman Scorned" brought to life in no better way possible; indeed, we realize that women like men, but in a different way, really are sensitive to having their feelings or emotions for another, scorned; when she senses this, the main character, decides to try to kill her beloved, though she loves him, right then and there. For heaven's sake, the woman, in fact, did write letters like no other to her lover, Jim, professing her love to him, passionately. He would write back but there seemed always to be the unremitting circumstances which would not permit them to marry and stay together. Jules was always the simpler of the two friends, which can mean great things, that he was less of a back-stabber, for one. So, what is the reason, here? Because he will not have her love-child, as he is in difficult circumstances at the moment, married with a child, or with another child on the way. So, we soon see, that, indeed, she is crazed enough by love and remorse to want to commit murder (she is also, generally, mentally unwell, and suicidal, to boot) with her shot-gun at her side, but, instead, she takes him for a last, eerie ride, and then drives the old Model T-, or early version of a Model T-ford off the edge of a bridge and thus, kills them, both. So we then see that, indeed, their bodies are made into ash (by having their bones ground; this interesting process is shown by the film, no less), and the two lovers love made immemorial, and forced to be made immortal, forever. The film finally ends by showing German-looking Jules (I thought he had to be German when I first saw him; shows how caught-unawares I was when first sitting through this film, I had no idea at the time, even, that Jules was a French name. This took a while to sink in, for me, as the "s" is suspiciously pronounced, in fact). . . . . He is left alone with his love-child from the beautiful Bohemian-woman-turned-crazy-woman, but he looks as though he shall miss his two friends indefinitely, as these were his sole, close, bosom buddies, for a long while, and they taught him a lot about life, love, and joy. The film shows that, alas, life sometimes does go haltingly, but perseveringly, on. This tale of turn-of-the-century Paris, and, indeed, sometimes, rural France, was a real winner, and a period film, at that, not to be missed. It is high drama, and high art, all in one. Acting is done by at least one famous actress, that is to say, Jeanne Moreau, and the part played by Jim, too, at least by French audiences, is relatively well-known, Oskar Werner. Jules was just played by, HENRI SERRE.
Precious (2009)
Amazing Film about Working Class Squalor, for everyone
Nice Movie Review for the Excellent, at least Eye-opening, and educational Film, Precious, of 2010, if Depressing Gabourry Sidibe stars in this eye-opening film about African-Americans on welfare, abusive African –American mothers (and especially fathers; but parents, too), and helpful, inspirational, informative, African American Teachers who Help to make a difference. The thing which strikes me about this film is its color scheme; it appears like it's all in tear-stained blacks and blues, like a crying girl's mascara streaking down her face. Truth be told, it is a tear-jerker, even though "Precious," who is played by 21-year-old Gabourrey, is a fifteen-year-old mess, who is in a lot of trouble, at the hands of her parents, and circumstances/societal woes. Unfortunately, being fat in her 'hood means getting picked on and teased and bullied; but the shocking thing is that she is raped and impregnated by her own father, who later on in the film leaves the picture and no longer stays with her mother, played by Mo'Nique. The father has a bit part, and his face barely even appears in the film, as far as I can tell. I didn't cry though: would you like to know why? It is because I may have missed some parts, and indeed, had to look away at the scene of her incestuous fornication with her father; terrible scene, one must admit, but, the rest of Precious, from the novel, Push, by Sapphire, isn't much better. Her mother abuses her, emotionally, physically, and, indeed, verbally, but that doesn't get Precious down, no. Precious is a master-mind at lifting herself up, because she has to. Precious, even when her mother gets to be so ferocious that she throws her TV at her, and nearly misses her, down the stairs, doesn't get daunted; she seeks help. With friends from people like Nurse John, played by Lenny Kravitz, Precious, or Gabourrey Sidibe, doesn't stay disheartened for long. There are times when it looks as though she's suicidal, but the movie doesn't dwell on those scenes, there is a lot of facial change, indeed, and, indeed, also the plot is thick and rich and she has a lot happen to her in the movie. This film, which features both Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, Paula Patton, who plays Miss Rain, and others as stars, showcases the helpful nature of some of the boroughs of New York, like Harlem, where Precious lives. Everyone comes together to help those in need, and, indeed, Precious is a low-down, dirty film, where help is most sorely needed. It takes place in Harlem, where, apparently, a thriving population of Jamaicans exists, and, people like her class-mate, played by Chyna Layne, a Jamaican-Phillipina sensation, enthusiastically state that what her favorite color is: her favorite color is, "fluorescent beige," as a, Jamaican, and very outspoken and proud of it, I might add. In addition, Paula Patton is a ray of sunshine in her life, as is Nurse John, an almost laughable creation of a character, but, touching, in many ways, as it is he who delivers her two malignant children. John is her ideal, because, as Sidibe states early on in her sharing of her fantasies in the film, she wants to be famous, on the cover of magazines, and, indeed, wants a light-skinned, much skinnier than herself, boyfriend, like Lenny is. Chyna Layne, Xosha Roquemore, who plays Rhonda, as well as Sherri Shepherd, also star, in this intriguing film, set in Harlem, one of the New York boroughs, in 1987. It is a good film, focusing on the hardships faced by certain teens in Harlem like Precious; it shows her boiling pig's feet for her demanding mother, at one point, who, seems not to hate her entirely, since she complies at least somewhat with taking Precious to the welfare agency to get help from the aide-worker, played by Mariah Carey, or, Miss Weiss, the aide-worker. There are also other characters played by others, who have names like, "Tom Cruise" in the movie, and who serve either as her class-mates in the film, or as her peers whom she sees in daily life, in the movie, on the street, perhaps. Anjelica Zambrana plays, "Consuelo," is Anduje Almodovar is the star who plays Rita. Mrs. Lichtenstein is played by Leanna Gordon, presumably Precious' old principal, teacher, or one of the aide-workers, but nobody outdoes Precious, in the film. Then there is Aunt Dot who plays Toosie. Amina Robinson plays Jermaine. Miss Rain is Paula P., and Mary is played, ironically, since that is such an innocent-sounding name, by MO'NIQUE. The movie does get downright gross, at time, giving us insight into how some of the "other half live" in squalid conditions, but, these are survivors whom we are viewing, none the less.
Bride Wars (2009)
SNARKY film for a SNARKY World....:)
Starring: Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson These two FEMME-FATALES, in distress, are desperate to boot. However, they have been desperate as the film notes quite cutely from the beginning of the film, to get married from the time that they were six, and best rich buddies who frequented the Hotel Waldorf-Astoria together with their moms for tea and brunch-time. The two quite adorably played "bride and groom" games, though not with any inappropriate over-tones, in the attic of one of their parents' house, when around the same age; coached by their moms that marriage was the best way to go (as if there were any other way; the film takes an old-fashioned view-point), the two are remarkable in their steadfast belief that, indeed, marriage is the best way to get someone to rely on you, and you on they, forever and ever, 'till death do us part. The quaint old phrase, "something old something new, something borrowed something blue" is used to show the film's exquisitely doll-like vision of marriage; in this day and age, with things not turning out perfectly as they should half the time, it is a wonder that they pulled together this altogether believable, yet somewhat superficial film, for our times. The girls grow up to be somewhat selfish, busy professionals, one of them a supposed lawyer who spends half the time talking on her phone; while the other is a middle- school teacher (Anne Hathaway), and the one friend opines that "middle school is a jungle" sympathizing with her friend who has to deal with rowdy almost-teenagers. In addition, we find that, the two, while tightly bonded in their beautiful friendship, share jealousy issues whenever the topic of marriage, which brought them together in the first place, is broached. When the brunette protagonist gets engaged before her blond one (played by Kate Hudson), then it is clear that there is a storm on the horizon. Besides the fact that both ideally want to get married at once, to lessen the jealous tension, they both know how badly, and, to be honest, how downright desperate they are to prove someone wants to marry them, each other really is. Liv and Emma are the names of these two beauties, who truly want to get married (other aspirations in their lives aren't thoroughly explored; this is a film about weddings, after all); and then we learn who is more desperate when the "friends" cast threatening glances at one another, almost claw at each other's faces to grab the suspected engagement ring away when it appears that one of the girl's boyfriend's has left them a ring in a Tiffany box (it turns out that the ring was a booby trap; set up so that the girl would think that she was about to be asked to be married, her fiancée tricks her later into thinking that he actually wasn't proposing, but then chides her for her "poor faith" because, yes, all along, he had been planning it, but was doubted that her impatience, which wasn't a virtue, would allow her to wait long enough to get into the right mood and the right moment). Is this clear? Anyway, she literally jumps up on him like an "inappropriately in-love" monkey who is showing off that she can do gymnastics for the first time, and then they are officially engaged (with this ring, I thee wed, are almost the words one can hear off into the distance). Anne Hathway's beau plans the romantic event somewhat differently; he creatively offers the girl of his dream her beautiful ring (and her best friend asks her all about it; what carat is it? Is it wide? What color is it? Weight, length, and luster? Brand? Country of origin? And so on...) in a fortune cookie, and after some confusion about who takes which cookie (as she doesn't know the significance of this ritual at this particular time), later on following up the act with the traditional, resounding words to every woman's ears: "Will you marry me?" The two hug then, and, might I add that they are a better-fitting, match-made-in-heaven couple than most, including that of Liv and her beau (they seem ill-paired, and not a good match, at all). So there you have it, two desperate women, who appear to have it all, suddenly both have husbands; now, what's the problem?! What more could they want, right? Therein lies the dilemma of the movie, the plot-line, the very heart of the matter: both of them want to reserve (quite stupidly, in the eyes of many) weddings in the same place, at the same exact time. So, you have two desperate, bimbo-y girls, who won't give in; sounds like a recipe for a cat-fight, to me. Neither one wants to admit she made a mistake, and neither one wants to be later than the other in terms of getting married. It's silly, really, but somebody has to make us laugh. So, then you have the two girls tearing each other down, and an accident happens which makes Emma scream (her hair-dresser has dyed her hair blue). . . . . (She screams bloody murder, wanting to kill the one who made this glitch in her plans, though, in all reality, she can really just simmer down, because, blond dye is available to dye it back, again, honey). In the end, there are plenty more antics where those came from from the two prom-queens from hell, and we find that immaturity never ends, even when you are in your thirties and ready to settle down, apparently. I guess that what makes the film such a winner is that it follows so logically: of course, the two "bride-zillas" would be at each other's throats, because, both of them caught the bouquet at one of their SNARKY, sneaky, and competitive (and backstabbing) friend's weddings, at the very same time!!!!!
Tout va bien (1972)
Tout va bien and la potiche! Combined...
Tout Va Bien: A Movie Review Well, this divisive film certainly has polarized both those for and against consumerism at its finest: capitalism. One understands through the film that there are a lot of disgruntled people out there in "la Belle France" who basically strive hard to change things, from time to time, when times get rough, or things get intolerable in the political scheme of things. We see from the film, certain things that really catch our visual gaze: the eerie supermarket scene, where shoppers are basically targeted for their purchasing large quantities of goods big enough to feed an entire Catholic household by angry "anti-consumerist" revolutionaries who basically seem out of love with the French version of the supermarket, l'hyper-marché. We see that, not only in this scene but in others, there are many disgruntled workers/student activists, who want desperately to weed out the continuing problems in their society that won't seem to go away, no matter what they do. There are, next, the problems faced by the meat-packing workers who work in the meat-packing plant, who are faced with the problems wrought by working at a meat- packing plant, namely, cancer. Though these workers have a boss who is apparently jolly, cheery, and indeed, corpulent, they have nothing to live for as they are all dissatisfied with their jobs and indeed have to sing songs of protest directly in "leur patron's" face in order to get the message across to him that they "ain't gonna take it anymore." In fact, this movie reminds me so much of "Potiche" in its almost comedic look at French workers striking, so unique and unusual, and even creative in their tactics, are they. In Potiche, a movie which I am probably not even supposed to be reviewing on here, we find that a suburban housewife is tired of her banal existence as a housewife and wants instead to be mayor of her small town (her alternative existence is not very good; all she gets in that life is being chased around by squirrels on her daily jogs, washing dishes and cooking in her apron, and getting cheated on by her cigar- smoking husband). So, we find that, Catherine Deneuve, who plays this feisty house-wife- no-more character, becomes the lead striker in that she address the strikers' concerns whole-heartedly, being the former wife of the deceased husband and woman-chaser, and, like a true fiery politician, changes the way things were previously run at their car-producing- factory (or, something like that). So, while some may immediately label Godard as a boring film-producer who only produces film for his own money-making benefit (and, after all, we all have to earn our bread somehow, don't we?), there are those of us out there who have to acknowledge that the man is a prolific film- producer, and we can't just be jealous if there is nothing we can do about it. In addition, there are scenes in Tout Va bien which makes us question whether really, "Tout Va bien" or, "Tout ne va pas bien, du tout." There are scenes of utter chaos, to be sure, in the supermarket scene, which leads the average viewer to believe in miracles; the shoppers eventually catch on that there is enough chaos in the air that they will not be penalized if they take a little extra of the food and other supplies that the grocery store has to offer. The film-makers who are documenting the strike in this way truly believe that they need to change the mechanical way in which the butchers, or, before that, the factory- worker-butchers, are forced to behave; like robots. But, as we human beings are not robots, we must not be forced to act in this way for too long, or else, we will explode. The building in which many of these workers work, singing rather merry protest songs, cheerfully, along the lines of, "let's behead le patron" and things like that to scare him, aren't pacified by his apparent placidness and seemingly sociable manner and willingness to become one with his inferiors, at least for five minutes. We find that, indeed, the workers hate him, anyway, and will line up outside his door for days, weeks, months, if they have to. One unforgettable moment, anyway, is when the boss actually loses, it, technically, and throws a brick to pee out the window; the chants are surprisingly melodious, in fact, and they verge on rounds, which is quite incredible to me that strikers' songs, supposedly created on the spur of the moment, spun out of workers' minds, can be quite so creative. So, this movie, which starts out patriotic enough, advertising "la France" with the red, white and blue of its flag (it puts its letters in this colorful design), spans the years from 1968, when there were great student protests and somewhat violent riots against the police, to 1972, when the fictional, but largely truth-based strikes take place. The director is very revealing in the ways in which he shoots his scenes, he lays everything bare: his voice supposedly is heard calling the shots, literally, like, "Tout Va Bien, part two, cut," or "Tout Va Bien, scene three, take 5, cut," etcetera, etcetera, until the film really begins. Jane Fonda, and Yves Montand, and Victor Capprioli, also star, so no wonder that this was a popular film, at least during its time. Indeed, this is quite a film, a lot of work went into it.
Little Children (2006)
Film Review for a Film with a Creepy Title, "Little Children."
Movie Review for the Excellently Done Movie: Little Children This movie, which ends in a castration scene, begins a bit better. . . Starring, Kate Winslet, Noah Emmerich (of Midnight on Elm Street Fame, who is meanly used in all sorts of "scary" roles), and a handful of other rather famous, and not-such-famous actors, like, Tugman Tookmanlian, and even, Mike Topoozian, this movie has all sorts of messages, not the least of which being the one that says it is okay to leave your wife and happy marriage for a "floozie" or a "hussy" and run away together, which actually does happen in this movie. What I liked the least about it, was, in fact, this very message; the seemingly cardboard-character, played by Patrick Wilson, is not in the least a model husband. . . He is so nice, it seems, that he is "not nice" (William Shakespeare always did say, "Too much niceness borders on not nice," or, something like this).
Indeed, too, is the saying by William Makepeace Shakespeare apt in this case: "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late." For, one of the antagonists, to be sure, in the film, a societal outcast named, "Ronnie McGorvey" is notable to be every suburban mother's worst nightmare: an active, though not outrageous (he has never physically harmed anybody) child-seeker/pedophile. A lonely man who is apparently in his forties and lives with his aging, quickly graying mother, the man is seemingly innocuous, however, he has this minor issue (a little sarcasm goes a long way) of liking kids, boys or girls are not specified (*but the movie hints that he is not gay; he simply can't related to women of his own age, it appears, for he does not get out of the house much. He has one semi-successful date with a woman, semi-successful, it seems, for he plays with himself unannounced in the car with the woman, after ordering her to turn her lights off, and emotionally traumatizes her, who had raised her hopes that perhaps this was the man she had been waiting for) far from his own age. Also, this quote, though it hardly relates directly, to the theme I am talking about here, will suffice in some relevance, "The evil that men do lives long after them; the good that they do is oft interred with their bones."
"How poor are they that have not patience; wounds only heal by degrees," is also an apt, or, relevant statement to this film. As he was valiant, I honor him, but as he was ambitious, I slew him. That, is a fitting statement, not really applicable to this film, but a good Shakespeare quote, nonetheless. Unless, of course, one wants to refer to the castration scene, at the end, in which Ronnie M. gets up from the swing he was on, only for the viewers to hear the "drip, drip, drip" in blood caused by his rising, and, before that, from his following his dear, sweet mother's commands to "be a good boy, Ronnie." He took this literally, adhering to the advice that he no doubt understood from other suburban mothers, that, "he should be castrated." So, this movie sheds some light on pedophiles, in general, that they are not always mentally retarded "monsters" but that they are often just, lost in their own delusional world. In fact, Ronnie says quite pathetically to his mom in one scene that he is "not a Retard." This Is good news, to Ronnie, but his mother worries about him, nonetheless, so much, so that she is a nervous wreck, and when a neighborhood man does nothing more than bat her away, she who tries to take the bull-horn he is using to try to alert the neighborhood to the menace of a "pervert in their midst," she has an obvious fit, a heart attack. Devoted son follows his Mom to the hospital, absolutely distraught, but gets his revenge against the man (who himself has shot a 13-yr.-old boy in his earlier life) who accuses him of being a monster, as well as a true villain who should be locked up, only to find, quite sadly, and unexpectedly, that his mother has died, leaving him with nothing more than her sweet scrawl, saying, "Ronnie." And, one last message, "Be a good boy." My issue with this movie is that it is a bit cold in places, and leaves a lot of things out. What would have happened, for instance, if the movie had completely left out, and left audiences wondering about, whether Ronnie had received his mother's message or not? Given the evil nature of many of our nation's hospitals, this would not surprise me at all that Hollywood might do this; and, in addition, there is the concern of what Ronnie would do now that his mother had died, and had left him to tend to the house, the dishes, and, of course, the cooking (itself being a more complex activity).
Indeed, there are many issues with this film, what with it glamorizing "adultery" but it does show up the hypocrisy that many of us have in our own lives: for example, we sometimes get into the sort of a mood, where, we accuse one another of having faults that we ourselves claim not to possess. This is not a good habit, and the movie shows how we can be punished by circumstances ///
Miral (2010)
Miral Film Review: Fantastic Film, albeit with a Few Glitches
Miral: A Film Review for IMDb Miral Shahini was born in 1973, but she credits her education with the existence and presence of Hind Husseini, her mentor and savior, in her life. Hind Husseini opened the school on Christmas Day, 1947, when she opened Dar el Tefl for the world to see; in fact, it had visitors on its very first day. The daughter of a woman who fooled around, literally, at a dance party and gave birth to an illegitimate daughter, or so it seems, born in 1973, like I said, is a Palestinian refugee who travels between the forbidden settlements, so that she can visit her relatives (and go to school). Based on a book by "Rula Jebreal," the film is immensely entertaining, and is about the power and the value of education over the power and value of war (or peace marches, as the case may be, for Mrs. Husseini doesn't like those, either). A French, Italian, Jewish, and Israeli film, the movie is based on a peaceful collaboration between these countries' film-makers, producers, and directors, but it seems to be mostly about the Middle-East (the school is there, and it takes place there). In addition, it is about betrayal, lies, and secrecy, and about how war ruins more lives than does good: take, the scary event where Miral's friend, "Khadib," is shot by Israeli snipers and is killed on the scene. This movie also tells the compelling, and wonderful stories of a certain Fatima, aka, "the good nurse," Hind, of course, and, in the beginning of the film, Nadia, who is forced into near-prostitution as a result of her intolerance of her marriage with a creep who also shows signs of willingness to bed his own daughter. The discretion on the part of the man's wife, who allows this "near-prostitution to go on" is also notable, in the movie.
Albert Nobbs (2011)
Albert Nobbs: a very Fascinating History
9/23/2012 Suphie Wesner
Albert Nobbs, The Movie: A Review This movie, Albert Nobbs, has the power to appease, to softly entertain, and, yes, even to, "please." While, truth be told, it is a little bit weird, in that, a woman, Glenn Close, who is not a bisexual nor even a lesbian/transsexual, is dressed up to look as though she were a man in sheep's clothing, it does tell a story that most women, would be dying to hear. Cast with other film stars such as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson," "Mia Wasikowska," and others, this 2011 movie, though it was originally foretold to close somewhere in the '90's but didn't have money to finish in time, was a true work of art, in that its setting is glamorous, well- done and believable (time-wise and place-wise). Mary Doyle Flannery played the (amazingly) other lesbian, transvestite woman in the film, who has snagged a lovely wife, "Kathleen" in the movie, and who tries to teach Mr. Nobb the ways of love and life, and how to succeed in attaining them, in this movie. Istvàn Szabò, Gabriella Prekup, George Moore, and John Bantley are the main authors of this screenplay. Directed by: Rodrigo Garcia. Posing as a man to hide the fact that she is "gay," Albert Nobbs, then, works as a butler in a posh family-run inn, run by a bubbly and spry, not to mention, mischievous, older woman, the owner. Indeed, he only finds out that the other "man," a "handsome painter" is a woman when they are forced to sleep together in the same room, and this "handsome painter" gets irritated by his room-mates fiddling with her bodice. Yes, the two learn about each other's histories soon enough, and, befriend each other. Indeed, both transvestites give each other tips and hints and regale each other with their personal histories; while Albert is a "dry, old fellow" seemingly, his counterpart, some other name of a man in the film, "Hubert," is a lively, rough-and-tumble lad of a man, whose swash-buckling style, no doubt, appeals to "dry, old" Albert. While Hubert, however, has had the face of luck smile on him, unluckily, Albert, has not; this is because, while Hubert has found a wife and "miraculously made things work," with her, Albert, has not. He had a mother, who had to give her up for adoption at a young age, making life, in general, difficult to poor Albert. Indeed, "poor Albert" had to work hard to make ends meet, eventually dressing up
In addition, Albert, a.k.a., "Mr. Nobbs" was beaten up by a gang of men, and, literally, "gang-raped" by those thugs. So he dressed up as a man to get the job as a waiter, which he excelled at. . . . .
However, have no fear, for, Mr. Nobbs also has an option in this movie: to get on with his career (a tobacconist) and to find a good little wife of his own ("a Kathleen, of your own" as said by the drag-queen, "Hubert," in the film). Also, Albert, a.k.a., "Mr. Nobbs" was beaten up by a gang of men, and, literally, "gang-raped" by those thugs. So, all in all, this film is about the lives and loves of Albert Nobbs, whom everyone at the party deems a likable, respectable, and an "all-around quiet, if queer, but good guy." Albert, while he fails at a few of his attempts, like the one where he tries to woo one of the lower members of the hired help, "Helen," the girlfriend of "Joe" the rather handsome (read: long, curly hair), dashing, smashing, and action-packed character in the film, and to "sweep her off her feet," Some of the more hilarious quotes of the film include this exchange between Glenn Close, or Albert Nobbs, and Brendan Gleeson, who plays a doctor, in the film: Dr. Holloran (played by Brendan Gleeson, famed Irish actor): Why aren't you in fancy dress? Albert Nobbs: I'm a waiter. Dr. Holloran: Well I'm a doctor. We are both disguised as ourselves. Another important thing about this film is that, though it doesn't over- state this part of the film, Mr. Nobbs has had a very hard life. Apart from being given up for adoption by his own mom (her own father was absent, apparently
), women picking themselves up by their boot-straps, and, generally, becoming independent, was generally frowned upon in Ireland at the time, so, Albert had to take it upon himself (or herself, as the case was) to find a way out, of the struggle, or, to survive, as most people would define the situation. Totally, Mr. Nobbs has an easy time of making it through in his/her queer disguise; though she barely conceals her gender (her feminine looks shine through, and the film rightly portrays a few characters in the movie, including women, peering quizzically at her through her purposely masculine-enhanced, and, putty nose and putty face, appearance), she gets away with being seen, and, at least, as far as we know (the film doesn't get into everybody's heads), taken for, a man. Mr. Nobbs' arduous task (at least it would appear as one to most) in the film is essentially a practical one; to save his own career and therefore life (being thrown out into the street, a fate that is hinted at to be the one certain for mistress Helen, who has just had a baby by fellow-help-meet Joe, but has been dumped by him almost as fast, and whom 'Madge' or Margaret Baker, the owner of the hotel, has threatened with expulsion into the streets, and the delivery of her baby into the hands of the priests, if she doesn't accept the fact that she will be held on for no pay, or for a pittance. All in all, I gave this movie an A+, B+ if I were feeling a bit crotchety or stingy.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
A Humble Review of the Awesome Film: A Shawshank Redemption
Suphie W. 9/13/2012
The Shawshank Redemption Movie Review Though I haven't seen this film since the year of 2004, (it came out in 1994), I seriously remember being moved by it. I remember, quite vividly and with a pleasant vibe, how moved my friend and I genuinely felt when we first watched it together. These were in the days when Blockbuster was still around and when it was more monetarily feasible as well as logical to go out to your local movie store and rent a movie to watch with your friend; this was, with all due respect, before the current and giant economic melt-down that we are all experiencing. So, to set the scene and mood of the period in which we watched this film for the first time, the candles were lit, and my friend and I were seated eating gummy bears, and we stayed up and watched that sucker into the wee hours of the morning, cat-sitting. The economy was better, then, for sure, we all know, but, we were having a hell of a time (now my friend is away, teaching English abroad, in Korea, soon to retire there, though; she's had enough of it, as the lifestyle and the culture were just generally getting on her nerves, and she felt she had achieved what she wanted). Well, basically, the Shawshank Redemption is all about solitary confinement in a small, insulated, but high-security prison in middle-to-Southern Ohio, set in the '50s. Morgan Freeman and his white counterpart in the film (race was a factor back then), partner up to give each other moral support and courage during a very tough time for them both. The part that struck me most about this film, though, was that Tim Robbins, or, the character played by Tim Robbins, was put into solitary confinement, where food was shoved in his little cell in an unsanitary manner, and he was treated, as the proverb or saying goes, like a dog; and where he couldn't see nor hear from anyone for a long, long time; it was verifiable torture. In addition, Morgan Freeman, who plays someone who is, like Tim Robbins, on the death row, plays your average cool-cat gentleman who was convicted for the murdering of his wife or something, but who claims he didn't do it. There are many cafeteria scenes where the two bond joyously over their own jokes and jiving, and where they eventually become better friends. Basically, the two bond over their common suffering, and help each other through their sorrow. Indeed, Bob Gunton also plays in the film, a man who plays the jail-owner, or something. He appears, in real life, to be much older than either Robbins or Freeman, born in October of 1959, and 1937, respectively. Robbins notably graduated with honors from the drama program of UCLA in 1981, then went on to do other great things, such as forming the Actor's Gang Theatre Group, which expressed radical political views as seen through a European lens. In addition, Robbins has received many dramatic awards, and continues to do sporadic work in film. Freeman, of course, is the mighty train who continues to do well in whatever he does, and is well-liked by all, really. Bob Gunton has a tendency for playing strict, militaristic, authoritarian roles when it comes to his film-work, and he plays the role in the notable movie of The Shawshank Redemption. There are several intense scenes in the movie, The Shawshank Redemption, and many of them include the showing of the intense pain of both Freeman and Robbins, as they elude their grief. Robbins, in particular can't take the pain of being "locked-up" so to speak and often shouts, screams intensely out of frustration with having no one to talk to, and out of mental and emotional pain. Morgan Freeman notably cries, which is all the more pitiful as one sees his weary countenance.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A Darling Summary of: The Hunger Games.
Suphie Wesner 9/13/2012
Movie Review for the Hunger Games: Produced in Year 2012 AD Well, actors Liam Hemsworth (current beau/fiancée of Miley Ray Cyrus), Josh Hutcherson, as Peeta Melark (a fictional name, of course), Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, as Caesar Flickerman, and others, including, not to be stingy, (the mother of the protagonist), verified as complete as well as actors and actresses, in the following order: Jennifer Lawrence, who played the role of 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games, a film based in post-apocalyptic North-American, conglomerate, "Panam."
Indeed, this movie is very reminiscent of the types of mind-control that sometimes, people are capable of producing, and, going through, themselves. It is a very scary situation that, the character (our heroine, but, also our victim, must face). The book itself was written by an authoress named Suzanne Collins. Indeed, in the scene, "Very Lethal" one can tell what that chapter of the movie, film, Hollywood production, or just about whatever you want to call it, must be about. It turns out to be about fire-balls being thrown everywhere by another group of simply evil animals, and they choose her as their main target, for some odd reason. The whole point of the movie appears to be, to the lay-viewer, again (this is just my point of view, so, again, don't mind me), showing the desire, or the fear, that one who is avoiding death at all costs must have to go through; it is not pretty, as new hurdles keep getting thrown in her direction by the unkind, non-compassionate, game-show hosts. All in all, though, I do not have time to finish this darling review which is quite near and dear to my heart; the film is quite bloody, though I wouldn't say there is much gore, per se, visible until the end (the movie palpably builds up the gory suspense, as when the panthers eat away the body of a teenaged-boy and the lead-role characters mercifully pierce his body dead with an arrow). But the truth be told, it is a very gory, very violent, and uniquely immoral film; unique and insightful, I say because it supposedly does teach us about the threatening destruction that can be wrought by harmful, by violent, by people-devaluing, horrible societies, and new world orders, so to speak, but it does not teach us anything about how to do something about it. The best moral lesson that this film offers, indeed, is the tried and true moral morsel of wisdom that love conquers all (the girl in it, and the boy in it, Peeta, and the leading actress played by Jennifer Lawrence), sharing is caring, and, indeed, that "thou shalt not kill..." In general, though, if so many of our American youth (it is, after all, an American film, so, this notion is not far-fetched want to kill each other, then this film might be the very reason that people like James Holmes do what they do... Why else would A few fictional elements are thrown into the film, too, to make it more realistic: mocking jays, a bird by whose call one can figure out the time, night-shade berries that are supposedly so venomous that they will kill you "in a minute", and even some huge packs of modern wasps, as well as computers that are designed to conjure up a pack of panthers in minutes. It is all too much to believe, that the new race of humans could have so much hatred, for each other, certainly, but it is the evolution of the human race here. Hatred from man to man, back-biting, and, indeed, lots, and lots of "games-sponsored" killing, and efforts to weed one another out at the expense of their lives, and to save one's own life, is the reality portrayed in The Hunger Games. Gary Ross, was the twisted director. To give one's imagination some clue as to how horrid this film portrays the human race in the year 3,000, or so, one merely has to turn to the praise given by Writer and producer Stephen Spielburg to the movie, whose own books border on the sci-fi, horror, and social engineering to make man more "perfect." Indeed, "perfect" at the expense of cruel devastation and destruction, is what this society has achieved in its own barbarous way; people all look like one another, they all wear weird, outlandish costumes, they wear their hair oddly, and they even wear strange make-up. People who want to participate in the games are told to dress in this Lady Gaga-esque garb, and they even get waxed, manicured, and steamed up, but at the cost that their lives might be spent, later...It is not worth it as producer and director Gary Ross tries to tell us, I think, societal perfection will never be achieved through wearing blue wigs, trying to tell the teen public that they must form districts, clans, and posses, and then try to kill each other, out-maneuvering one another, sneakily, and "out-couraging" each other, if you will. Unity doesn't come from too much destruction, anyway; one simply has to try to use one's judgment, and be discerning... Only then can we achieve, the "perfect society." Not by stealing other people's food, as they try to do in the games, even to the extent of blowing up "apple carts," nor by being so mean to each other that one tries to kill off someone's boyfriend (as happens in the film), out of jealousy of their love, nor by trying to eliminate other teams, simply out of rivalry, nor by killing little children out of cowardice, nor by declaring that "one only" can be the winner. These are all sick fallacies of judgment, and must be stopped. Declaring that one style, one type, one race only can be allowed, these are all perversions of judgment. They are not only highly detrimental to any type of peace-loving society, they are destructive, war-loving, and sick, ill, mentally unhealthy.
The Artist (2011)
A Real Peppy Movie: Bringing back the Art of the Silent Film in the 21st century
Suphie Wesner 9/16/2012
My Film Review of Berenice Bejo/Jean duJardin/certain other stars in Michel Hazanavicius' Oscar-winning film, The Artist..
Among the blockbuster stars in this film include fat-faced, sarcastic-personad, of Roseann's ex-husband in their comedy, Roseanne, as John Goodman, and Uggie, the dog...In general, this cast is so good because they are all extremely talented; also, Monsieur Hazanavicius is excellent as director, told by his award that he won for best director of the 2012 Oscar nominations, and Du Jardin won as best actor, a first- time event for any French actor crossing over into the American movie industry. The film is basically self-explanatory, the dog is really cute, du Jardin and Berenice Bejo (Peppy Miller in the movie), excel as dancers, and even John Goodman is really good as the film's casting- call, director within the film, who calls du Jardin a has-been, namely because he can only do "silent movies" while the industry is heading into the direction of eliminating silent, calling them old-fashioned, and instead wholly doing "sound-based" films. "Uggie," the dog, knows a million well-rehearsed tricks, which is why he was chosen for the role, I suppose, and he must be a springer spaniel, or some sort of a Jack Russell Terrier, or, something. The charming aspect of this film is that most of the characters don't talk, they use their gestures, their faces, their eyes, instead, to relay the message they want to relay. At one point, Du Jardin puts a revolver in his mouth because he chooses to commit suicide, feeling so bad about the fact that he is no longer in demand. Fortunately, or for whatever reason, the revolver doesn't work, or, he no longer has the will to do it; the dog, for one thing, starts barking his head off when he sees his master in distress. Also, the film makes a point to show that Bejo cares about him and loves him, as they formerly were lovers, and she wants to prove the point that she is willing to follow through for him now; indeed, the movie shows that she has him in mind when she drives like mad, tongue literally in cheek, on her way to come save the day. It turns out, that, though she fails to rescue him in the end (it is he who saves himself), she had a thought-process that was correct, that he was in harm's way, and that she herself would make the effort to save him. . . Indeed the film is a lot about "saving grace," about people coming through for others when nobody else will; about faith; about working together to create something bigger, about, well, getting along. It is appallingly long for short-tempered modern-day audiences who might balk at going without sound for over an hour; I myself thought that the film would go on for 27 chapters, but I guess I was wrong. The charming smile of Du Jardin, or, rightfully, George Valentin, and Peppy Miller's dance moves more than make up for that. The uniqueness and the creativity that went into the film, I think, the fact that modern-day actors and actresses can make such a sparkling revival of silent film is this movie's "lucky star." Uggie, the dog, who is able to play dead, seek help (like Lassie), and even, when ashamed or abashed, put his head between his front paws, is also a remedy for people seeking something new out of today's modern-day cinema. But when George Valentin (pronounced to rhyme with Valentino, I believe) suffers smoke-inhalation, I don't believe that he was severely burned, honestly, from a house fire started by his desire to burn off his own collection of personal movie reels he regrets having made with Peppy; things go to Hell and the film winds down. There may be a little bit of professional jealousy within the couple itself; he may have been hurt by the fact that she started winning all the roles with the skills and the talents imbued in her by him. But, all, in all, one has to admit that they work well together as a team on screen, and even come across as your modern-day Bonnie and Clyde, or, alternately, Fred and Ginger. A lot of time and efforts went into hair- dressing and special-makeup effects, too; Peppy herself lands a role in a film entitled, "Peppy's Beauty Spot" or something like that. France 24 also had a hand in this film, and it is clear that a lot of acting parts were used. Johnnie Burke and Arthur Johnston wrote a cute number entitled, "Pennies from Heaven," and Ludovic Bource wrote the musical score. Indeed, Jon-Paul was the gang-leader, so, as you can see, there are many parts in this movie which are technical and skilled, and those often went to the French workers, it is just reality to say, and the parts that were more involved with acting, even small roles/bit parts, went to the Americans. One of the most sinister parts in the film, when Peppy arrive at Jean's mansion only to be hinted at by his maid that he is "occupied" is when it looks like it might be over for them. It is a cute film, rather slow-moving and wholesome, and rated pg-13 and produced by French studios in conjunction with American distributors ( in fact, there is one film studio in the whole thing entitled, "La Class Americaine," but that isn't really a real American studio). It is the most-awarded French film in history, apparently, as said by internet researchers; it came out in 2011, but officially had a 2012 release date in America. It has English inter-titles on it, as well as, it is the first feature-length black-and-white film since the dawning of Schindler's List in 1993, by Spielberg. James Cromwell also plays a bit role as the butler of Jean. It is a great, jazzy little film with a lot of good musical numbers. The End.
300 (2006)
A Film Review of: Though I'm sad to say it, Cleanskin
A Film Review of: Though I'm sad to say it, Cleanskin This disgusting shame of a film is an extremely violent film, and, in fact, opens up promising enough, if one would like to call it that, but, like most movies, fails to deliver. The bad guys and good guys get switched up in your classic "switcher-oo" and viewers get confused with who is who. Good and evil, and morality, in general, get so confused in this film, that deals with the classic old playing-cards of Islam versus other depraved bad-guys made to look good, is so twisted, it shows two nice- looking-Algerian/Moroccan-type fellows (I wondered at first thought how much they got paid to do this?) who cause wanton mayhem when they follow these two thuggish-brute-looking guys who have no more morals than they. Bored yet? And, then, as if it couldn't get any worse, the film commits a big no-no when this same fat man whom the two Muslim-stereotypical men are attacking, is shown in the first scene in bed with a hooker. Now, if that isn't a "sin" in all ways, I don't know what is...But the hooker is Indian which complicates the racial matters of this film all the further. Indeed, I saw for a fact, amidst all the mock-images the film goes through in its intro., to make itself look legitimate, there is a flurry of crosses. Now, that is just wrong, yet, again, to coincide religion or, love (for that matter), or anything remotely positive, with violence. You can't have both (sexual imagery is often compounded with violence in movies because it apparently appeals to the testosterone in stupid males). Produced by "e-one Films" in 2012, as well as by Uk Film studios, it is rated R, is incredibly violent, and, stereotyped/biased. It should probably even be banned by film censors, but it, as far as one knows, currently isn't. A "cleanskin," or the term, as it was used in the film, though it wasn't immediately made clear to me in the film, is someone with no prior record in crime. Apparently, too, the main-man Muslim in the film, called Ash by his friends, has struggles trying to reconnect in the movie with his British main-stream counterparts who indeed try to put him down with little jabs, but welcome him on the whole. . . Indeed, this is a frightening film, if it is indeed an accurate portrayal of our times, which I think it is, albeit with a few twists and turns (lies/misrepresentations)... In fact, Sean Bean, who is made to look (although I am not sure if they achieved it, through their efforts) much younger than he probably actually is in real life; he may have gone through some fitness training to look better in the film, I just don't know. The suspense build-ups in the film are just excuses to make certain people look better, and certain people look better, in my opinion; it is just another sick movie, designed to desensitize the public to violence so that we can persecute those who don't appear to blend into our society (Muslims in this case.