Change Your Image
Davalon-Davalon
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Tu me manques (2019)
Could not get through it.
My husband and I were at first excited that we stumbled upon a gay-themed drama, one we had heard nothing about. Our excitement soon faded as the film bombarded us with dialogue.
We meet the Bolivian father of a deceased young man who calls the man's lover who lives in NYC. Within moments there are tears, screaming, yelling, crying, shouting, accusations and more. It was a lot to take. Then the character of the deceased ("Jorge") was played by a number of men who had a similar look. At first it was intriguing, but then it became confusing and ultimately stopped working.
While the father seemed to understand the assignment, the other characters seemed involved in a sort of "Look! I'm in a movie!" fantasy. I didn't buy any of their performances.
One scene in particular stands out. Jorge wanders into a high-end fashion store to buy a black shirt for his new (?) catering job. Sebastian is the salesman. Although they first speak English to each other, they soon "clue in" that they're from Bolivia. Then, by virtue of the fact that they're from Bolivia, they both seem giddy and touchy-feely and huggy. I thought, "Okay, you're both from Bolivia. Are we supposed to break out the champagne?"
Then Jorge, without a thought in the world, sees a black shirt he wants (in this extremely high end store -- why did he go in there for a shirt for catering job?), takes off his shirt (no undershirt underneath) and puts on the black shirt on his bare torso. I thought, "I'm sorry... what?" And Sebastian says nothing, although there's a flicker of shock/surprise on his face. Also, Jorge and Sebastian are going on and on as if it's old home week. The manager finally pipes up and tells Sebastian to get back to work, which he really doesn't do.
All during this scene it was wall-to-wall chatting. And then Sebastian invites Jorge to a rooftop party where everyone seems to be a screaming queen, except Jorge, who says he's not gay. There's another young man at the party who suddenly becomes the star of the scene, and tells Jorge in no uncertain terms, the 7 reasons why a straight man isn't really straight. While some were interesting, we didn't need to hear all 7, but Jorge (and we) are forced to hear them.
There was more talking, more similar "Jorges," and finally we thought, "Why are we watching this? Not engaging at all, but we did like the father, who seemed to understand what the role required.
Wuthering Heights (1992)
"I wish it were over."
That makes two of us, girlfriend!
This was absolutely dreadful. Dreadful. Unbearable. Intolerable.
A wealthy man brings home an orphaned boy, who is immediately and viciously deemed a gypsy by the man's son. But the man has decided the boy will become part of his family.
Little does the boy know that he and his new sister will fall in love and become soulmates.
Or at least that's what this movie would like us to believe.
Since I have never read the book, I do feel a bit out of my depth, so my comments are strictly on the film itself.
The orphan boy (named Heathcliff by the wealthy man) is introduced to us as blond and dirty. But by the time he becomes an adult, he has dark hair, which just wouldn't be the case.
Although the two stars (Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche) are wonderful actors, which they ultimately proved when they co-starred in "The English Patient," their star power does not make this film resonate.
I feel almost every element of this was handled sloppily. Almost wall-to-wall music (and despite me worshipping Ryuichi Sakamoto, I do not feel he was the right composer for this), endless talking, doors opening and closing in big dramatic booms and slams to signal yet another character entrance.
I felt the direction was pedestrian or graduate school level at best. The giant houses looked so vast that it was impossible to light them well. I felt like I was watching a cheap soap opera based on "Dark Shadows."
Also, the way that Heathcliff and Cathy connect, especially on her side, does not make me feel any sense of undying love. At a certain point Cathy confesses her feelings about Heathcliff to her maid, and says, "I am Heathcliff." I started howling. I would have been thrown out of a theater for laughing so hard.
Some of the casting was atrocious. When Cathy's brother's wife dies in childbirth, the child grows up to look like an Oompa Loopa. The poor boy was being yelled out and marched off and looked extremely uncomfortable. Also, Heathcliff's "son" has distinct Latin features and did not look remotely connected to any person in the film.
Because "circumstances" conspire against them, Heathcliff and Cathy cannot be together, Heathcliff spends his entire life gaining revenge on every person in his circle, including Cathy. Which brings me to the casting of Cathy's daughter: "Catherine." Played by Juliette Binoche, with Anne-of-Green-Gables hennaed hair which does not look natural, no matter how pretty Juliette was when she was young.
Yes, the moors are vast and cinematic, but the movie was an unendurable bore. Also, there is a fair amount of violence against women, and I winced and shouted each time I saw it. Here we are in 2024, and that has not seemed to change and it deeply saddens me.
I feel compelled to see the original with Laurence and Merle. I really hope it's better than this misguided mess.
Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Borderline pornographic
I have been aware of this film for years, and basically, because it popped up in a list of rental options, hubby and I chose it.
I honestly had no idea what the film was about, although I was well familiar with the stars.
Glenn Close and John Malkovich play impossibly rich society people in a period right before the French Revolution. It seems they have little to do but come up with cruel games where they try to hurt each other (and others) with sexual conquests.
The first half of the film was so much talking that we almost turned it off, but then it got better quickly and we were glued to the screen until the end.
Here's the thing: the young women in this film (Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman) are treated with the absolute vulgar insensitivity one would expect from a righteous upperclass man who answers to no one. There were times I thought I was watching a soft S&M flick because of the flashes of nudity and the numerous acts of cruelty and violence.
Yes, there were very rich, very funny lines. And yes, the lead actors were very good, although Glenn Close does not convey anything feminine, and John Malkovich looked like he walked off the set of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" with his mask still glued to his head. Michelle Pfeiffer fares the best. She has a movie star face and she looks radiant throughout, except for the moments she is being attacked by Malkovich. Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves are both very young in this film and neither fares that well. Uma looks like she just graduated from high school, and Keanu has that dumb, innocent look that he managed to parlay into superstardom.
As the film finally picks up speed and hurtles toward the end, there were definitely surprises, and I will say Glenn Close's final scenes were Oscar-worthy. The costumes, art direction and script were great.
But now, in 2024, the treatment of women in this film is chilling and while there were titillating moments and some highbrow humor, I can't give it a higher rating.
Emily in Paris: All Roads Lead to Rome (2024)
Best episode of the 4 seasons
"Emily in Paris" was something that hooked me in quickly. I never felt that Lily Collins had a riveting presence, but she was cute and petite and could easily wear all the amazing Paris fashions that the fashion department find for her. She does have a bit of a (sexless) girl-next-door appeal, and she has a bit of spunk, but not too much. In many ways, "Emily" might be the star that drives this train, but there is no question that both Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu as "Sylvie" and Ashley Park as "Mindy Chen" steal each episode away from Lily. I think Lily Collins is smart and she realizes what she can and can't do. She is surrounded by beautiful, talented, funny people and she can float by in gorgeous fashions and deliver smart patter, and all of it seems to work.
This episode finally brings together not only Season 4, which was, in general, a meandering disaster, but ties together all 4 seasons in fun, exciting and unexpected ways. It's the type of episode that "Emily" should be aiming for every single time.
The beauty of having watched every episode of all 4 seasons is that everything pays off in a great way in "All Roads Lead to Rome."
The joy of EIP is that it's frothy and fun and sexy, cool and fashionable and Insta ready. This is not a deep show that is going to make you sob or think about what life means. But it should bring you lots of laughs, and sometimes that's enough for me.
There is a lot of eye candy among the men. The three romantic leads all have great appeal, with Lucien Laviscount ("Alfie") vying for sexiest man on earth. Samuel Arnold and Bruno Gouery as "Julien" and "Luc" have a sort of "Laurel & Hardy" energy and they are quite the comic relief. And Julien gets to wear the most amazing fashions.
If you need a break from your day and you don't mind fluffy, frothy and fun, this is great entertainment, and this episode made up for the lackluster episodes that preceded it this season.
The Everlasting Secret Family (1988)
Two thumbs down and run for the hills.
A fair amount of money was spent on this film, including on huge set pieces that seemed to serve little function. When the judge dies of a heart attack after some S&M play with the young man at the center of the story, the young man ("The Youth") goes to tell "The Senator" that the judge has died. But he does so at a sit-down dinner for at least 100 people. Meaning 100 extras needed to dress in their finest and dinner needed to be served to them. It was one of several examples where tons of money had to be spent for a few seconds of screen time that could have been achieved much more simply. It was absolutely insane. Someone clearly had money to burn.
The story is bizarre and disturbing. It asks us to believe that there is some sort of "secret family" where essentially young men are apparently trained to be sex slaves until they are no longer useful, after which they might be made chauffeurs. And some group controls them and this goes on from generation to generation. It's quite sick.
This was the oddest film I had ever seen. Dennis Miller as "The Chauffeur" does not have the type of eloquent voice he should have had, had he in fact been the Senator's lover when he was young. He sounds like he comes from the outback and there is not a hint of anything he says or does that remotely suggests homosexuality. That said, he was the only one in the film that seemed to have acting ability and I felt sorry for his character.
There are odd and squeamish scenes throughout and I found some of it borderline revolting. I don't know how this got greenlit, I don't who invested in it, and I simply cannot imagine what kind of "wide release" this had. It is a curio and one-time viewing was more than enough.
Agatha and the Truth of Murder (2018)
Downton Abbey-lite
This was awful. Just awful. The entire score sounded like it was lifted from outtakes from Downton Abbey. Ruth Bradley as "Agatha" sounds like her entire acting education was based off watching Michelle Dockery as "Mary Crawley." I can just hear her sitting in front of her telly, a cup of tea by her side, mimicking every word that passed through Michelle's lips.
While the idea for this film was interesting (based on Agatha having gone missing for 11 days in 1926), the attempt to create some kind of "Death on the Nile" drama fell flat.
Pippa Haywood as "Mabel" would have easily fit in as a closeted lesbian maid or cook in Downton Abbey (a character they never had but should have), and watching her bug-eyed reactions to everything was fun. And Ruth's voice made me nostalgic for Michelle Dockery, who was letter perfect in her role as Mary Crawley.
But this so-called movie must have come about when someone said: "I've got a friend with a big ol' manor that's collecting dust. Why don't we use it to make a TV movie?"
There were so many characters and names and stories that my husband and I just sat in slack-jawed boredom as we desperately tried to connect the dots.
Luke Pierre as "Zaki" offered a bit of eye candy and Seamus O'Hara has a bit of hotness hidden by his police uniform and seems like he could be extremely interesting.
But otherwise, we were counting the minutes until it ended. And the chatfest at the end between Agatha, Mabel and Det. Dicks (Ralph Ineson) sounds like it was written specifically to kill an extra three minutes while the producers desperately tried to figure out how to end the movie.
Two thumbs down.
Twilight of the Gods (1996)
Shocking and sad
War. Two cultures with nothing in common. A Caucasian man from one culture survives. A Maori warrior finds him, initially intent on killing him. But a "spirit bird" advises him otherwise. The Caucasian man finds himself strongly attracted to the warrior, despite the fact that the warrior clearly wants him dead. But the warrior, too, finds himself attracted to the Caucasian man. And for a short time, they find a unique way of life, living and loving, in a tropical paradise.
All of this is shattered when members of the Caucasian man's army or Caucasian marauders (not entirely clear), inexplicably descend upon this patch of paradise and destroy everything.
A lot of this short film is quite shocking. There is blatant frontal nudity and more. Both lead actors were either incredibly brave or insane to take part in a film where their lives seemed to be in constant danger from the creepy crawly things that live in such an environment.
At first I thought it was some daring film made in the 1960s, because it's black and white and looks really poorly shot. But, no; 1996.
Nonetheless, it feels like we've been thrown back in time and were perched in a tree, like the "spirit bird" watching his doomed, daring romance unfold and die.
Not an easy watch and the ending was incredibly abrupt and tragic. Nonetheless, one could imagine that something like this could, under the right circumstances, happen, which is why it was so shocking.
Nicholas Nickleby (2002)
Entertaining if not entirely engaging
I must say that I have not read this Dickens's novel. As such I cannot say whether this film captures the spirit of the novel or not.
However, despite moments of slowness and an inconsistent voiceover to help "explain" things to people that the producers think can't understand, this was still an entertaining film.
Charlie Hunnam as Nicholas is very pretty, as are his sister Kate ((Romola Garai) and his eventual love interest Madeline (Anne Hathaway).
And when we don't have pretty, we have horrid Mr. Squeers (Jim Broadbent), his monstrous wife (Juliet Stevenson) and the biggest monster of all, Nicholas's Uncle Ralph (Christopher Plummer).
When we don't have pretty or horrid, we have funny: Nathan Lane (Vincent Crummles) and Tom Courtenay (Newman Noggs). Both of these seasoned actors basically run away with the movie.
There is a moment when Nicholas's young, physically challenged young charge, Smike (Jamie Bell) is essentially shanghaied into being in a stage play, where he must deliver one crucial line. When he finally does, the director (producer?) of the show, Nathan Lane, gives the most hilariously funny sigh of relief I've ever seen. It was worth watching the movie just to see that.
The film has plenty of rolling English countryside, but it also hints at a lot of darkness, dirt and tragedy, especially at the boys' school run by Mr. And Mrs. Squeers, where Nicholas has a teaching position, courtesy of Uncle Ralph -- who always has ulterior motives. I'm surprised they got away with showing the incredible amount of abuse visited upon those boys and that part of the film could easily be turned into a series.
Both Anne and Romola are extremely pretty and play virginal young women well.
There are other tidbits and cameos which bring humor to a dark story, so, ultimately this was entertaining, and sometimes that's enough.
Sunny (2024)
Convoluted, bizarre, talky and predictable.
I really would like to rate this series higher. It's clear that a lot of attention went into the opening graphics, and the selection of songs was also interesting. There were many great shots of Japan or Japanese-like settings, so, tons of eye candy.
But the story is nearly impossible to follow. I have a Japanese husband, and he endured 9 episodes before he couldn't stand it anymore.
In brief, the story is about "Suzie" who learns one day that her husband and son might have died in a plane crash. This is woven together with the story of a robot named "Sunny," built by Suzie's husband, designed to protect her in case anything happened to him. Apparently he coded "Sunny" with the ability to violently attack someone. The yakuza want that code. When the husband and the son "die in a plane crash," Suzie sets out to find the truth about her husband's death and encounters nightmarish episodes with the yakuza as a result.
The worst of Japanese acting is on display, especially in the last scene, where two yakuza thugs are literally screaming commands at the top of their lungs at their victims (in this case, the series' star, Rashida Jones as "Suzie," her "friend" (?) "Mixxi" (Annie the Clumsy-who on earth would want to be named that?), Suzie's son "Zen" (Fares Belkheir), and "Yuki" (Jun Kunimura), the "real" father of Suzie's husband "Masa" (Hidetoshi Nishijima)).
It's hard to understand, but I think the entire 10 episodes play out as if they occur over just a few days. Suzie seems to teach English online, but that idea was quickly abandoned, and she apparently has plenty of money and time to do what needs to be done in this series.
The character of Suzie cusses a blue streak throughout the show. It becomes irritating and vulgar, and despite Rashida's talents, evident in other movies/TV shows, in "Sunny," she comes across as one-note, desperate, angry, and flat. But the cussing finally pays off in the last 10 minutes of the final episode. Nonetheless, it did not make Suzie's character more likable.
There are many "flashbacks" to Suzie saying goodbye to Masa and Zen at the airport. But when she does so, she gives the husband the finger. Smiling. Incomprehensible.
I also do not understand how/why Suzie casually allowed Mixxi to waft into her world. It made no sense at all.
Also, Suzie's weak reason for "wanting to go to Japan" comes across as completely fake: "anime, food, culture." None of which she enjoys or acknowledges for the entire show. In fact, even when she is with Masa or her child, she seems to be bitterly angry or frustrated or disappointed. And yet, the woman lives in the most amazing house I've ever seen in Japan; she has a hot husband and a sweet child. And yet, she seems miserable. We don't really learn anything about her life prior to coming to Japan, but we do sense that she is one of these "nut gaijins" that come to Japan to "escape" whatever is not right in their lives "back home."
Hidetoshi and Rashida had a moment of chemistry, but it took a backseat to everything else, including a bizarre backstory of how a robot named "Sunny" (San = 3, Ni = 2, in Japanese, and the 3-2 is supposed to be a symbol or mean something, but because it was part of yet another tortured explanation, it lost meaning, if it ever had any) came into existence. I will say, though, that the robot grew on me. But Suzie was routinely cruel and dismissive to Sunny, and this, too, made no sense to me.
When Suzie finally finds Zen alive, as some other reviewer wittily pointed out, it was like he had come back from a questionable weekend at Grandma's. There was no hysteria, tears, none of the huge emotions one would go through about finding one's child alive after being told he was dead. The poor boy playing "Zen" didn't have much range and/or (more likely) was not directed to do that much.
There is lots and lots of talking. There is lots of running around, and there are definite fish-out-of-water moments with Suzie as she tries to figure out what happened to her husband. The best moment was when Suzie and Mixxi infiltrate a men's sento (bathhouse) and find out the true price of belonging to the yakuza.
There is also a connected story about the daughter of the head of the yakuza that is trying to track down Sunny. She is violent, disturbing and gets away with killing a man, but maybe that story is resolved in a second season? Who knows.
The majority of the series is in Japanese. Rashida's character probably speaks 5-10 words of Japanese in a 10-episode series. That makes no sense to me. If she had married Masa and had a child with him in Japan, she'd know more Japanese and the people around her would expect her to speak it. It's the "Emily in Paris" syndrome where all non-English speakers must kowtow to the one lazy foreigner who simply can't be bothered to learn the native language.
There were fun moments, funny moments, shocking moments, and deeply disturbing moments (the dead bird-you've been warned). But all of them together did not add up to provide an entertaining, satisfying viewing experience.
At the very tail end of the show, I correctly guessed two events that eventually took place. The last one, in particular, must have been put in in case the series gets renewed. I hope it doesn't, because, quite frankly, it was a rambling mess.
Justice est faite (1950)
Unique, but long, rambling and dated
The best thing about this film is getting a glimpse of what life might have been like somewhere in France in the late 1940s, after the war. It was another world. Very few people, farms, animals, everyone was French, no foreigners in sight. It looked like everyone had come from the same one or two families.
The woman who is convicted of murdering her lover has a face reminiscent of a young Meryl Streep. She conveys a lot of emotion with her eyes.
Because this is a story of the jurors who decide the woman's fate, there are multiple threads and way too many people to focus on. There must have been a healthy budget for this film because there was one brief ballroom scene that required a small orchestra, men and women dressed in their finery, and a huge flower arrangement. But the scene itself couldn't have lasted more than 90 seconds.
Lots of talking and talking. The sound quality was poor, especially the voiceover at the end, which suddenly jumped up in volume.
The most interesting thing about this film is seeing humanity in a window of time after the war. There was not the threat of Hitler anymore and people were living their lives. The particular story of euthanasia at the heart of this film must have been definitely shocking at the time. There are points of interest, if one can wade through the ocean of dialogue from multiple characters.
Umberto D. (1952)
Deeply moving
I watched this film in Japan, with Japanese subtitles. My Italian language ability is about 3% and my Japanese reading ability is about 25%. It didn't make any difference. Even if no one had said anything, this small, but powerful story would have been clear.
I have read some hateful reviews about this film. I don't understand why. It's clear that director Vittoria de Sica was chronicling the sad end to the life one Umberto D. Whatever his life was, is now behind him. Each day is a struggle to survive in an apartment that the landlady rents out hourly when he isn't there. The landlady is hateful, obnoxious and horrible. Umberto's only friends are his faithful dog, "Flick" and the apartment building's maid, "Maria." Both Carlos Battisti (Umberto) and Maria (Maria Pia Casilio) were first time actors. They bring a brutal honesty to their performances that would be hard to achieve with more seasoned actors.
It's true that the story zigzags a bit, i.e. It spends time on a pointless scene with Maria trying to strike a match on the wall so she can light the stove. But I think the larger picture is that Vittorio was trying to show us the harsh circumstances of these peoples' lives, especially that of Umberto.
When I was young, my grandmother's boyfriend was in his 80s. He would always dress in a suit and tie, no matter what the weather and no matter where he was going. I know that him putting on that suit and tie gave him a sense of purpose. I felt for Umberto, who also always put on a suit and tie, although he had nowhere left to go.
This film follows the sad journey of Umberto's increasingly desperate attempts to try and off himself, because he couldn't see the point of living anymore. Does he jump out the window of his apartment, timing it to when the train passes by his building? Or does he jump in front of a train, with Flick in his arms?
Along the way he meets people from his past. Some are doing better than others. But except for the obnoxious landlady and her rich friends, no one is doing that well. Everyone is just pretending to be part of society, even though their lives are falling apart.
There is one absolutely horrific scene where Umberto goes to the "dog pound" to see if Flick might be there. We see trucks pull up and captured stray dogs being yanked out by these inhumane collars and sticks by horrible men that round them up in a cart and literally put them into a container where they will gas them to death. As soon as I saw that, it felt like I had just witnessed the history of man's cruelty to animals. How we have completely underestimated their intelligence and their ability to feel. It was devastating and nauseating. I have a dog and I understand more and more each day why people pamper their pets. Why shouldn't they when we all know what the alternative is?
As the film goes on, Umberto grows more and more desperate. It is unclear how he is going to be able to carry out his grim task. But as the film grew to a close, I was grateful the director chose the ending he did, because even if for one brief moment, there was a sense of joy, even though we all know what's waiting around the corner for Umberto and Flick.
The Last Bus (2021)
Touching but unbelievable
Timothy Spall does an outstanding job as the aged Tom, whose wife has died, and who is going to fulfill his promise to travel to Land's End to bring her ashes. Now, that information was not 100% clear to me until about midway through the film. There is a lot of time spent whizzing back and forth between present and past and the viewer is left trying to piece things together.
Finally it becomes clear that this will be a "road trip" of sorts as Tom fulfills his final promise to Mary (Phyllis Logan) and go back to where they first started as a couple (I guess).
A lot was unclear to me, but I had to let go of a lot of questions I had and just try to go along on the journey. The writer decided that adding a social media element would elevate this story, turning Tom into a "mini-celebrity." But the story did not need this element at all. And in fact, I think it cheapened the story.
We are asked to believe multiple scenarios that make no sense at all, mainly ones that include complete strangers putting Tom up for a night at their homes, or inviting him to parties. I don't doubt that there are kindhearted people in the world, but they all seem to have ended up in this movie.
We see one moment with Tom and Mary where they must be in about their 60s and most likely looking like what they look like in real life. I'm not sure why this scene was needed, but perhaps the director wanted us to see the excellent make-up work on Tom that made him go from 60 to 90.
The one takeaway for me from this film are the harsh realities awaiting older people. There will be no one to help you, no one to share your time with. Nothing. You will be expected to muddle through and figure out how to survive and if you're lucky, you might have some social welfare programs. If not, you might end up like Tom did, where some nutcase woman tried to steal his suitcase and some obnoxious hoodlum started to bully him on a bus.
It's easy to imagine how horrid it might and could be for an elderly person. And now that I'm 70, I'm not looking forward to being treated like garbage. Of course, it won't necessarily happen.
At any rate, there is one very, very, very powerful scene that I will not give away near the end (not the ending, but near the end), which was worth waiting for and showed what a great actor Timothy Spall is.
Uneven, awkward, unbelievable and sometimes predictable, this film still touched my heart.
Le samouraï (1967)
Staged
I'm unclear what I just saw. Alain Delon, at the height of his beauty, woodenly steals cars, walks through many doors, puts on and takes off his fedora, kills people with as much passion as he orders a drink at a bar and other fun stuff.
It's great that there wasn't that much dialogue, but even if there had been none, every scene felt like it had been carefully staged. None of it felt natural.
Cathy Rosier is a bright bit of color as a nightclub pianist who doesn't exactly see Alain ("Jeff") killing the nightclub owner, but could have easily have put 2+2 together and fingered him in the line-up. But she doesn't. In fact, on a different night she drives him back to her home. But why? It's not like they have a hot make-out session.
Also Cathy "plays" the piano for long stretches while she stares at Alain who sits moodily/woodenly at the bar. I'm a pianist. Pianists don't do that. Also, Cathy "plays" the organ while wearing spiked heels. I'm sorry, what? She's going to pedal the organ with spiked heels?
Everything is grey and overcast and slightly dull. The idea that Alain is being followed by a series of undercover detectives (two women, in particular) seemed odd. Everyone seemed to know where everyone else was.
There is no true emotion expressed between anyone. Technology is, on one hand, ancient; on the other, a police car had a phone in it, which for 1967, surprised me.
The Citroen, the Camaro and the Peugeot cars were the main fun of this movie.
Moon Rock for Monday (2020)
A tragic mistake
If your cup of tea is borderline cutesy, homespun, fake heart-tugging yarns that don't strike a single true note, then this disaster might be for you.
We are asked to believe that "Bob" (Aaron Jeffery, suitably dad-like and caring) has given up everything to care for his sick daughter "Monday" (Ashlyn Louden-Gamble, pretty eyes but very little natural acting ability) who has some kind of immune system disease. He doesn't seem to have any discernible source of income and so apparently lives off the fat of the land. Apparently Monday can't go out and play with the other children, and so is homeschooled by Bob.
Monday has got it into her head that the "moon rock" (wherever that is) will "heal" her. I cannot remember how or why she thinks this, but her belief in this is unshakeable. She wants Bob to take her there (suddenly, out of the blue), but he tells her it's impossible; it's too far and it's too expensive.
A series of convoluted events that include a runaway pet rabbit unfold that put Monday in proximity with "Tyler" (George Pullar, who shows promise and actually looks like Hugh Grant's son), a man who has killed an officer while trying to rob a jewelry store because he believes that a ring in the window belonged to his dead mother. Why believes this no one knows.
Monday inexplicably decides to take off with Tyler instead of just getting off at the next train station so she can go back to her now worried-sick father. From this point forward we go on a bizarre road movie through Australia and must endure a bunch of godawful and unnecessary scenes where Tyler steals cars, steals medicine (to give to Monday, despite the fact that she doesn't know what kind of medicine she takes), and becomes a surrogate older brother who isn't a bad person but just happened to kill someone.
This is the majority of the film. We can view the vast land mass of Australia and we can enjoy some amazing scenery (that's why I gave this 2 stars), but the story itself is horrid, everything is manipulated and nothing at all is believable.
I am sure the filmmakers felt like they had hit upon something totally amazing that was going to bring tears to peoples' eyes and get standing ovations around the world, but I found it to be pretentious, unbearable and poorly written throughout.
The ending was totally unacceptable. Some nutcase detective who can barely keep his belly from spilling out of this pants, comes running around a corner with a gun aimed at Tyler. He screams at him to put his hands up. He does. The detective screams, "He has something in his hand!" Yes, he had his mother's ring in his hand. It is very clearly not a gun. But that didn't stop the detective from basically murdering Tyler in front of everyone. What a sad, tragic, pointless, cruel and unnecessary way for this film to end.
Shadow Dancer (2012)
The hint of something great
I cannot give this film a higher rating because I think it failed on multiple fronts. Although Clive Owen Andrea Riseborough ("Collette") and Gillian Anderson all did great jobs, the screenplay, despite dramatic moments, lacked clarity.
There were numerous characters to follow, Irish accents were super thick, everything was awash in a cloud of muted sad colors, and relationships were not crystal clear.
There is violence, death, tragedy and dark secrets which remained so.
I am sure that for people that lived through "the troubles," this type of story resonates. This must be the 5th movie I've seen regarding "the troubles," but it is the last. Not because the actors weren't good; they were all good. Not because there wasn't a strong sense of realism; there was. It's because the story was confusing and what people were saying was unclear.
Also, there is no joy in this film except for a brief moment when Collette's son receives a bike for his birthday. Every other moment is sad, depressing, filled with anger. I do not recommend it unless you are doing a thesis on "the troubles" and need every bit of info you can find.
Oranges and Sunshine (2010)
A hard watch with powerful moments
It took a while for this film to grow on my husband and me, but it did. Emily Watson is a consummate actress and her face is very expressive. She plays the real life Margaret Humphreys who, it seems, seemingly single-handedly took on the British government to hold them accountable for the forced migration of poor children to Australia (and apparently other places as well).
One cannot fault the filmmakers in pursuing this moving story of children torn from the parents, and the cruelty of the government in sending them off to God knows what kind of horrors abroad (some of which are explained in harsh, painful, emotional scenes). That said, the story is supposed to yo-yo between England and Australia. Oftentimes I had no clue where Margaret was. The "sunshine" was definitely a clue that "we're in Oz now," but it was still difficult to know exactly. Also, there are a large number of characters that we are asked to follow. There is a danger in this in that we simply cannot keep track of them. We were deep into the movie when Margaret and a lawyer are basically confronting a British governmental group and we weren't 100% sure if the lawyer was Margaret's husband or not until the next scene.
Also, people ask many questions to Margaret and she often doesn't answer. She just stares back at them, and I guess the idea is that they should be able to intuit what she was thinking, but that didn't always work for me.
I think the challenge in doing these "real stories" is that on one hand, one wants to be true to the real-life individual's story; on the other hand, in making a movie, sometimes things have to be fictionalized and/or amped up to make moments really powerful.
There are indeed powerful moments, and Hugo Weaving, as one of the children who wants to reconnect with his mother, is really excellent as a deeply conflicted man. Hugo's got the goods, as does Emily, and their few scenes together were really excellent.
I would love to give this a higher rating, as a lot of the scenic vistas captured were really great and we could sense that Margaret felt compelled to help these people, even though she may have caused problems within her own family.
But there were so many people and I didn't know who half of them were, and as a result, I couldn't fully invest in this film.
Fruitvale Station (2013)
A very flawed film with some powerful moments
I am not going to lie. I really had trouble getting through this. I could not understand most of the dialogue (except when the fabulous and brilliant Octavia Spencer was speaking). I couldn't understand a lot of the scenes (why did we need a close-up of Grandma's gumbo), and I didn't understand why we were supposed to care about an extremely angry young man (Michael Jordan, excellent). Yes, we can see that he loves his daughter, and yes, he seems to love his girlfriend (Melonie Diaz, outstanding), but he operates on a different level than most people and then gets furious if other people don't overlook his mistakes (like being fired from his job for showing up late, then assuming that two weeks later that the manager would just give him the job back).
The idea, the last day of Oscar Grant's life, is a powerful one. Ryan Coogler (writer/director) tried to pack it all in, but not all moments were riveting.
It's not till we get to the altercation on the Bart train that the movie starts to fall into place. I could still not understand what the issue was between Oscar and some angry white gang member, because his speech patterns were even worse than Oscars.
The last fourth of the movie is very powerful and almost makes up for the first three-fourths -- save for the "flashback" scene of when Wanda (Octavia) goes to visit Oscar (Michael) in jail. Each of them had to access their emotions in split-second intervals and they both did so superbly.
The movie is all filmed with a hand-held camera. I personally do not like that endless jerky feeling and find it irritating and distracting. But finally I got past it and could appreciate the story for what it was: the last day of the life of a troubled young man who did not deserve to die.
Flawed but powerful.
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Great moments obscured by a multitude of mistakes
I saw this movie shortly after it came out. Like many, at the time, I thought it was great. I got swept up in the drama of it all and, years later, only remembered a few key scenes.
This time around (tonight), I couldn't help but notice how poorly this movie was made. There are several completely unnecessary scenes, such as the two between Hortense (Marianne Jean-Babtiste) and her friend Dionne (Michele Austin). If they were meant to shed more light on Hortense's life, they achieved nothing. Also, when Hortense leaves her office and has minor exchanges with the receptionist (twice), they had no purpose. Later there is a big dramatic scene with Maurice (Timothy Spall), a photographer, and Stuart (Ron Cook), the man Maurice bought the photography shop from. We've already established that Maurice is a kind, loving man, troubled, but kind and loving. I don't know what Director/Writer Mike Leigh hoped to achieve with this scene, other than introducing us to his assistant Jane (Elizabeth Berrington), who could have easily been cut from the entire film. Also, why was it necessary to dredge up the oddest-looking people on earth to show what Maurice's regular photography job was like? A ton of time was spent on that scene, and one in particular, where he keeps getting closer and closer to a woman who had received a garish scar across one side of her face, bordered on deeply creepy.
Also, the music was incredibly loud and irritating. It sounded as if a few annoying "sad" cues were recorded, and then they were repeatedly plunked into the movie willy-nilly. It was loud and sounded cheap, like a junior college orchestra. I had to keep turning it down every single time it surfaced, which was often.
There are a few great moments, some that were extremely funny, some that were supposed to be dramatic, but which I howled over.
The actors were all good, but you have to wade through about 110 minutes of chatty scenes, usually with Cynthia (Brenda Blethyn) crying or sobbing or breaking down, before you get to some great moments of truth in the last 10.
One of the main problems that I had was that I found it extremely difficult to accept that Hortense could have possibly been Cynthia's daughter. Hortense did not look like she had a drop of white blood in her. Children of mixed race unions (White/Black) almost always inherit the dominant gene of the Black parent. But there is usually a hint that one of the parents wasn't Black. So, while Brenda and Marianne worked very well together, I didn't entirely buy their relationship.
One of the highlights was seeing a pre "Downton Abbey" Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan) as Maurice's barren wife. She spent the whole role as if she were on her last nerve -- until the end where she finally softens.
Again, great moments, some honest laughs, but some over the top melodrama that had me howling instead of crying. I wish the entire music score could be scrubbed from this film and entirely redone, along with excising the numerous pointless scenes that did not remotely move the story ahead.
Hunger (2008)
Extremely dark and brutal
For certain people, this film may no doubt be a realistic portrayal of what some men had to go through in the 1980s as IRA prisoners. There is very little dialogue, except for an extremely long-winded (though effective) scene between prisoner "Bobby Sands" (Michael Fassbender) and "Father Dominic" (Liam Cunningham).
I certainly am aware of the "troubles" that took place in Ireland, and have seen other films that cover this time period. But this one goes to an extreme to make its point, and I don't understand what actor in his right mind would be willing to nearly starve to death "for the cause."
As an "outsider," these are the problems I encountered: except for the long-winded scene between Bobby and Father Dominic, I could not understand Irish English. What was spoken was spoken either too quietly or too quickly. Also, before we meet prison Bobby, we meet several other characters: other prisoners, a police officer, and other sundry individuals. I felt like the initial focus was on another prisoner "Davey Gillen" (Brian Milligan), but somewhere along the line, the focus became "Bobby."
In order to draw attention to his plight of being imprisoned and to get the Thatcher-led British government to back off, Bobby goes on a hunger strike. To make this realistic, Michael Fassbender went on what must be the most disturbing transformation on screen (and yes, I saw Matt Bomer in "The Normal Heart").
There were times that my husband and I were staring at the screen and saying, "He couldn't have! He wouldn't have!" But he did. It's his stick-thin body there. It was deeply disturbing, which was obviously the point.
There was a great deal of brutality against the prisoners, body violations, beating, outright cruelty. Living conditions were unbearable, although at one point they were updated. But the prisoners quickly destroyed everything because they didn't want better "living conditions"; they wanted their demands to be acknowledged.
I did not know what to expect from this film, but for me personally it was too dark and too brutal and almost unbearable to watch. You have been warned.
The Book Thief (2013)
Could have been a masterpiece.
I saw the trailer and decided to watch the film. It is clear a lot of money was spent on making this look like it took place in WWII in Germany. The score, by John Williams, is excellent, as is any score he writes.
Geoffrey Rush (Hans) and Emily Watson (Rosa) are superb as the parents who adopt Sophie Nélisse (Liesel) when her mother is forced to give her up. (Although the reason she is forced to give her up seemed to be clear to many, I did not understand why.)
Sophie has a beautiful face, and her eyes are very expressive. But I felt she was a bit limited as an actress, despite having to carry the entire film on her shoulders.
Basically, this movie tells the story of how this young orphan Liesel becomes part of the childless home of Hans and Rosa shortly before WWII breaks out. She is quickly befriended by Rudy (Nico Liersch, charming, intelligent, and a picture-perfect version of what Hitler imagined Aryan youth to look like) and we follow their lives as they are impacted by all the damage the Nazis did. This is one ongoing story. The other two stories are when Ben Schnetzer (as Max) shows up at Hans and Rosa's doorstep. Despite being a Jew, they must take him in, because Max's father saved Hans's life in WWI. He becomes a big brother character to Liesel.
The other component of this film which I think just about sunk it was the voice of the Narrator (Roger Allam). Roger sounded almost exactly like Geoffrey Rush, and for about three-fourths of the film, I thought it was, in fact, Geoffrey. The Narrator is supposedly "Death," and "Death" shares his observations about the great ugliness and beauty that human beings can create.
But this component was one hundred percent not needed. The voiceover is forgotten about for vast swaths of the film so that when it reappears, it's jarring. Then near the end, suddenly we hear Liesel's voiceover. As soon as she speaks, you realize that if there were to be a voiceover at all, it should have been hers.
Although the title of the film is "The Book Thief," and while Liesel does in fact steal (or as she tells Rudy, "borrow") books from the Burgermeister's wife (who she later befriends), reading the books, telling stories, writing words on a mock blackboard in the basement - it is not done in a transformative way. It's just something that Liesel does.
Despite great acting from Geoffrey and Emily, and despite touching upon important themes, this film does not seem to have a solid center, as it vacillates between Hans having to join the Nazi party, Jews being thrown out of their businesses and treated like animals, Rosa trying to keep the family fed, the hint of a romance between Liesel and Rudy (but mainly all from Rudy's side), many moments where the young actors are saying lines, but not really living them - it all added up to not being sure who to focus on. I think these things brought the film down.
Also, a lot is asked of the Liesel character, and indeed Sophie does the job, but she doesn't have all the tools she needs to do it.
There was a lot of money spent on big set piece scenes that were relatively brief (the opening of the train traveling through the snow - dramatic, yes, but the pay-off didn't have the impact that the filmmakers were certain that it did) and gathering a choir of children to sing a pro-Nazi song for a few minutes. Chilling, perhaps, but the pay-off wasn't enough to warrant it.
The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it offers a clear window into what happens when a psychopath takes over a country and makes everyone bow down to him. It is terrifying, and it has happened throughout history, and is happening at this very moment. What's sad is that people do not seem to learn everything. They forget. This movie, in its uneven way, reminds us that there is hell to pay for putting our faith in leaders that think they are God. For this reason alone, I gave the film a higher rating than it actually deserves.
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
Flawed, but some scenes make it worthwhile.
There are many things about this film that have not aged well. The beginning goes on and on and on, with Katharine Hepburn (super wealthy and nutty "Violet Venable") babbling nonsense about her closet case dead son, "Sebastian," while Monty Clift, who looks like hell throughout the film, a semi-permanent dazed look in his dilated eyes, is forced to listen to her. I mean, she was incredibly irritating. Her main thing is to hire Monty (as "Dr. Cukrowicz") to perform a lobotomy on her niece Catherine (Liz Taylor), because Catherine knows shocking truths about Sebastian (his face is never seen) and how his penchant for shirtless young street urchins or any other hot young thing (male) that turned his very rich head is what brought about his untimely and horrible death. Catherine saw it happening and ended up in an asylum, where Violet hopes she stays and where her own mother (Mercedes McCambridge) is happy to let her stay because she and Catherine's obnoxious brother George stand to gain 50k each if they sign the papers to allow the lobotomy to be performed.
I understand that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz and screenwriter Gore Vidal felt compelled to set it all up so we can have some understanding of what's about to happen. But it still went on too long.
The movie doesn't really come alive until Catherine has had her hair done and is wearing a new frock (that Sebastian bought for her in Paris). When Catherine turns around - we see Liz, the glorious movie star. That amazing, amazing face. Those dreamy violet eyes (yes it was in black and white - who cares), and that, as we would say now, banging figure.
From this point forward it's basically going to be a showdown between Liz and Kate, and Liz wins hands down. Liz carries the majority of the film on her gorgeous shoulders. And while yes, there are definitely some moments where you will burst out laughing, there are basically two scenes that are worth watching and where you can really see that Liz had the goods.
Again, despite its flaws, if you are a fan of Liz or Kate or even Monty, and if you can wade past the first 45 minutes or so, you will be rewarded with some wonderfully dramatic moments and close-ups of Liz and a wholly unique story for its time.
Unbroken (2014)
Brutal
Going into this film, I didn't realize this was based on a true story. As it unfolded, I realized that it had to be, because it seemed that the filmmakers had to follow certain points or make sure that certain scenes from the book were featured in the film. I can't say that for a fact, but that's how it felt.
Jack O'Connell carries the entire movie on his back. He was excellent. That said, at 2 hours and 17 minutes, the film feels entirely too long.
In essence, this is the story of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic contender whose chances are taken away because of WWII.
We are with Jack (as Louis) in a plane over the Pacific with his buddies. It goes down, only 3 survive, and then only 2 survive. They apparently survive by catching and eating raw fish. This goes on for 47 days and in the movie, it feels like it. Next the men are captured and taken to a Japanese POW camp. Here they meet Watanabe (played by Miyavi), a sadistic captain whose entire raison d'etre is apparently to make Zamperini suffer. He essentially tortures him for a good two-thirds of the movie and he is never, ever punished for the monstrous things he did.
There were a large number of prisoners and it was made very, very clear to us that war is hell.
And then suddenly, the war is over and Louis returns home, looking just as perfect as he did the day he left, without a scratch on his pretty face. I think the more interesting story would have been to show how this man survived PTSD, but then that it would have veered into a religious story - although anything would be better than the brutal hell this movie puts you through.
Actors did good jobs; the music was very stirring, but the experience was horrible, in that it made you feel you were "right there." I can see that there is value in sharing these stories, and perhaps most importantly for the people that lived through them, perhaps these stories are healing. But since Watanabe got away with all of his sadistic beatings, I'm not sure where the healing was supposed to start.
A one-time watch, and only if you truly enjoy seeing people brutally hurt; I don't and frankly I'm sorry I watched it.
The Trip to Italy (2014)
Waste of time.
In this movie, we have two self-involved men blabbering to each other almost non-stop as they are motoring and boating their way through Italy. As to why they are there, the details are dispensed in a phone call early on in a way that was completely unclear to me. Then, suddenly, Coogan and Brydon are zipping down a road in sunny Italy, doing impressions and on rare occasions, saying something witty.
I thought it might be interesting.
I was wrong. It was a talkfest and an excruciating one. The main issue I had was that these two individuals start dining in a beautiful Italian restaurant. You could tell that the staff had great pride in their food, but these two were more interested in doing their impressions than ever commenting on the beauty of the cuisine. I kept looking at the food and thinking, "Aren't they going to at least acknowledge the epicurean masterpieces sitting in front of them?" But no, because whatever they were talking about was so incredibly entertaining and interesting to them that to take a nanosecond to admire the food, the view, the kindness of the staff would have ruined it for them.
I started to fast forward. Another restaurant, more eating, more talking, more impersonations.
I did laugh a couple of times, but overall the movie became an endurance test. The next time I want to know about Italian cuisine and the beauty of the seaside, I'll either go there myself or rent a travelogue.
Rebecca (1940)
Interesting, but terribly dated.
Despite being 84 years old, "Rebecca" has a few charms. It's in black and white, which automatically gives it a sort of dark, mysterious quality. The leading woman (Joan Fontaine, only 22 at the time) is never given a name other than "Mrs. De Winter." She is an orphan and is clueless about how to handle her new responsibilities as the wife of the most important man in town, and absolutely no one helps her. We watch her grow a spine as the movie unfolds, and it's thrilling to see her stand up and make it crystal clear that "I am Mrs. De Winter now." Laurence Olivier (as Maxim) only needs to stand and look at the camera for us to revel in how gloriously handsome he was. Judith Anderson (as Mrs. Danvers) was great as the lesbian-esque housekeeper who obviously worshipped the ground "Rebecca" walked on.
There were tons of great character actors, from Florence Bates as "Mrs. Van Hopper," an overbearing, obnoxious "society lady," who is cruel and judgmental toward Joan but all gushing and girlish when she sees Maxim, assuming he'll have remembered her from "Monte Carlo." (If he did, he was clearly trying to forget her.) There was Gladys Cooper as "Beatrice," Maxim's sister. Although she was supportive of Joan, she was still dismissive, i.e., "It's clear from what you wear that you don't give a whit about your appearance." And... "what are you going to do about your hair?"
Poor Joan suffers for three-fourths of this film trying to understand Maxim and his motley crew of servants and relatives. She really carries the entire movie on her very slender shoulders, and probably the best part of the movie is watching her grow up and clue into what's going on.
That said, as others have pointed out, the film goes on much too long, and the last fourth is simply unbelievable. It's fun watching everyone figure everything out about what "really happened" to Rebecca, but it also feels like we are watching it in real-time, meaning it starts to drag and becomes unbearable.
Other things that have not aged well: Hitchcock's "miniatures." It's crystal clear that we are not looking at a "real" Manderley. Also, when the little sports car drives off (or to, I can't remember), it looks like a toy - because that's what it was.
The score does not work at all. The "otherworldly" organ sound, used throughout, might have worked great for a late 1950s TV soap opera, but it is absolutely wrong for this movie.
So, it's worth watching once, but I can't see how it won the Oscar for Best Film.
Wonka (2023)
Funny and sweet moments, but overall, it doesn't work.
I truly hate to be cynical, but this movie just doesn't cut it. While Timothée Chalamet, as Willy, certainly brings enthusiasm and charm, it doesn't really matter, because there are long, slow sequences where I kept saying, "Get on with it!"
This "origin story" of how Willy ends up with his chocolate factory actually sounded like an interesting idea. But this movie is all over the place. It's vaguely British, and yet, Timothée has no English accent, nor do other notable actors in the movie, whereas many of the other notable actors are British. In the producers' fever dream to be "diverse," they have gone overboard, and it doesn't work; the characters just do not ring true.
Calah Lane, who plays "Noodle," a poor girl that ends up in a laundry establishment run by Olivia Colman (who seems to be playing a parody of an evil laundress), has no English accent, yet having spent her whole life living in indentured servitude to Olivia. Also, she seems flat and lifeless through the entire film until the end, where she has one great moment which I won't spoil here.
The accents start to become jarring after awhile, as does the forced racial mix of individuals which, in this particular type of world, would actually not be in it.
Hugh Grant (beloved Hugh Grant) plays the Oompa Loompa man. The thing is: Hugh is naturally funny and he was actually one of the few entertaining things in it.
The original songs all fell flat; every single one of them. The only song that still holds up is "Imagination" -- which was first sung by Gene Wilder in the 1971 version of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
So: wonderful graphics, many fun moments, a few good laughs and a few (very few) touching scenes, and Timothée Chalamet does his best to make things magical, but somehow the film as a whole sadly does not work.