Reviews

Certainly it's lovely to see early work here not only by Firth and Branagh, but several other now familiar faces. And the general set-up is engaging enough, with the old church and the small community. But it's not in the least clear how this is resolving what are presumably underlying issues from the war (and which themselves rarely come out beyond some predictable PTSD reactions). The hint of a romance between Richardson's character and Firth's is as faint as it is predictable. The more open conflict that appears early on and again later doesn't really go anywhere. Very intriguing elements, especially towards the end, are never really given their full value. And I don't get the significance of one character introduced at the last minute. In the end, even having read some summaries of the film itself and the underlying novel, I simply don't know what happened, beyond the outward and ultimately not very edifying facts.

OK, so it opens with beautiful women flaunting themselves. OK, so we learn early on how the protagonist is to maker her way and we have some entertaining vignettes of how a woman is trained to do that particular thing. And yes, there are some vivid views of period Venice. Also the verse contests are entertaining. But at heart this is a slow, somewhat predictable romantic piece about two lovers divided by circumstance slowly coming together. Certainly not, for the most part, very sexy and only predictably romantic. Everybody's very good-looking (well, except for Oliver Platt), if that's your jam. But it's simply not that engaging in the end.

Oh, to see what others see in this movie... Right off the bat, it's important to know it is mainly a Korean movie with subtitles, even if there are stretches in English. This would already be something of an obstacle for me in a more active film, but this one is VERY slow. Lots of long, self-consciously romantic (but static) moments. Whatever passion exists between the two leads is very much below the surface (where I expect a certain kind of viewer will just see it). The huge temporal gaps between several different sequences don't help. It's hard to feel an enduring thread across these various separations and if anything it's tempting to get a little irritated at two characters who let such inconclusive strainings go on for this long. The two leads are both attractive and engaging and even communicate a certain measure of emotion. But emotion that so far as I could tell goes nowhere. Over a very long time.

This movie is fun, if dangerously close to slapstick at times, and astonishingly violent at moments (not that the opening doesn't warn you). There's some wonderful quiet satire, as when a woman caught with another's husband insists on making it clear she's a feminist and that she only helped him cheat because... well, after that start, does it matter? It is a bit cringe-making to see Colette's character over-whelmed with rather raw lust, and the forays into feminism and female-empowerment seem more formulaic than inspiring. But overall one tends to go along for the ride and not question too much, and to cheer the right people on. Not a great film but it will probably make you smile more often than not.

The movie, as numerous posters have pointed out, is VERY slow. But finally we get the basic set-up. We see the inevitable set in place and put in motion and then - no surprise - something goes horribly wrong. Prompting different reactions from the three main characters. After that, the likely outcome is only too clear, and familiar from far more conventional fare. The follow-up is indie-obscure and just underlines the fact that really nothing much happened in the film, beyond the few telegraphed bits, and what we're supposed to get from the whole journey - except perhaps for the not very original point that activists of various sorts can be arrogant and oblivious to the consequences of their careless idealism - is not in the least clear.

This film keeps touching on some fairly powerful possibilities but then presents them in such an allusive way that the sudden bursts of emotion or reference to strong feelings and dilemmas come a bit out of nowhere. The protagonist is a pretty unique person and has a strong back story, but her interactions with her love interest hover between predictable and unmotivated and what is apparently meant to be a spiritual crisis seems like dilettantism more than profound exploration. Never mind that her main crisis here makes no particular sense given the unanchored quality of both her romantic and her spiritual questings. Really, the best part of the film is glimpses of Oxford and the excellent older British character actors playing the dons.

It's not surprising that this film brings you to tears and quite often; what is more striking is it does it at very still moments, largely through Rossum's wonderfully felt and understated responses, even as she's still coming across as a bit of a hedonistic brat. The basic set-up is not unfamiliar: a slightly out of control rebel who comes into the life of someone far more disciplined, often with some difficult condition (in this case, ALS, the progress of which Swank renders expertly and exquisitely.). The off-screen grandmother who inspires the young student is not an unfamiliar character either (think Sheldon Cooper's "Meemaw"), nor the exuberant sufferer of the same condition who refuses to abandon joy, nor for that matter the overbearing mothers (yes, there are two) who feel they know what's best even as they're late to the party. But above all what carries this film is the deeply felt interaction between the two leads, which is compelling and touching even when it hits some of the standard marks. The core of the experience is their mutual tour de force. The very end is on a par with the central performance, moving gracefully into the credits in a last blossoming of exuberance.

I get something of a chuckle when I see people straining not to give a "spoiler" for a near-incomprehensible film. I THINK I get the larger metaphor here, but if so, it's not terribly original, hidden as it is under something like avant-garde filmmaking. It's probably simplest to say that if you liked "Eyes Wide Shut" and "Birdman", you'll probably really sink your teeth into this one; if you're looking for anything like overt plot, you'll be out of luck, though I suppose one could draw a rather simplistic line to Dionysian rituals and to other links between violence, sacrifice and fertility. The leads are strong of course and Wiig and Pfeiffer commit admirably to unfamiliar roles. So you might want to watch it just for the acting. But really there are other ways I would have preferred to spend my time.

This is NOT a comedy, even if it includes wry observations on a chaotic world and certainly shows the kind of resigned humor one finds in many doomed to suffering of various sorts. The theme that emerges is how hopeless it can be to try to do good in a bad place, exemplified at one moment by of all things possession of a basketball. Yet, "Waiting for Godot"-style, "I can't go on, I must go on". The fact that so much will come to naught, largely because of infuriating bureaucracies, is not reason enough to give up. And so the protagonists here persist despite having the rug pulled out from them within sight of success; it's what they do. Much of the violence here is beautifully understated: a line of men watched by soldiers awaiting an unknown but unpromising fate (we don't see what we understand is very likely to happen); an abandoned car packed and ready to go, the key in the ignition. We only really get a close-up of one victim and by the end of the film he doesn't yet know how much of a victim he is. Meanwhile, one of the central problems of the film is resolved in an unexpected and humorous way that could come out of one of the more ironic Eastern European films of the Sixties. A strong and graceful film, but certainly not for everyone.

It's hard to say why this movie keeps you engaged since it is largely talk and despite its sci-fi premise not the least technology-centric. As one person said, it IS like a movie-length "Black Mirror" episode. Which in part means its strength comes from human issues and interactions, not the sci-fi elements. What is interesting from another perspective is that, like "Sex, Lies and Videotape", it is a textbook example of how to make a compelling feature using a few fairly ordinary spaces and a tiny cast. All budding filmmakers wondering how to make that first feature with almost no funding should watch and study it.

Here's the thing about Diane Keaton: she can be one of the best actors out there, but she also has a comic tic she falls into of getting into a tizzy and acting borderline ditzy. She does a lot of that here and it doesn't help that the story is virtually telegraphed from the start - only it takes FAR longer to get where it's going than such a flims set-up warrants. Sam Shepherd is beyond wasted here, just a ROM-COM style good-looking stud, but really the worst thing is Keaton continuing, with various nuances, to do her confused sophisticate comic shtick. Maybe the most interesting aspect of this film is to see a very young James Spader, barely recognizable. Otherwise, you've basically seen this film in various forms before, only without actors of this caliber wasting their talent.

The main reason for watching this is simply that it is the first film by an actor who has proved to be one of the top in the field. And she shows from the start that she has always been one to watch. The character goes through a variety of changes, largely, but not only, of maturation and Chastain virtually plays different characters across the film, exuberantly traversing a range of incarnations, beginning as a plain, abused yet naive country teen and going through more than one form of sophistication, largely fortuitously. The story itself is somewhere between the Perils of Pauline and Candide; structure is not a big concern here, just that the protagonist go through many trials. The then unknown Chastain plays these changes like a musical prodigy given successive pieces by very different composers and playing through each flawlessly. One physical note might seem to focus more on her appearance than her talent, but in fact is slightly uncanny. Early on, she shows her breasts, which are small, uninviting, those of a naive, half-formed young woman. Yet later, in an erotic sequence, she shows those very same breasts - physically unchanged, in no way augmented - and they are suddenly entrancing, womanly. The only change is internal, in the character's sense of her self at each moment. Not all of the story makes sense or is gracefully developed; Chastain is, in a word, better than her material here. But she is already the major talent now known to all.

This is a step away from a Movie of the Week, with little claim to be High Art. But it does what you would expect, and then some. It helps that Howard is one of those actors who suggests integrity, even when his character crosses a line. You're kind of willing to find his character on his journey. Bernie Mac's character is something of a cliché, but Mac himself does an excellent job. Tom Arnold gamely embodies the squeaky clean, basically corporate racist who is one of the main adversaries here; you really WANT this guy to lose. The orchestration of obstacles both external (racism, short-sighted municipal planning) and internal (the players' own attitudes) is no revelation but credible enough. The scene where a woman who has read the protagonist the riot act realizes how real his contribution is beautifully played out. A nice touch is the inclusion of a young woman, showing that not all the prejudices in play are racial. Is it formula? Sure. But well-played and with heart.

This mini-series about a female TV host in the Sixties has many strong points, with a few surprising weaknesses. It's certainly watchable and even fun up to a point. Setting it at just that junction has a number of advantages - the predictable sexism, the intrigues of the OAS, De Gaulle's over arching presence, the tentative dance of the French with the Americans. There is one almost caricaturally evil schemer, sometimes too predictable (she notably recalls a recurring villain on "Law and Order: CI"), but with some surprising wrinkles as well. The fact that the father, sometimes a mushy corporate pawn, is also an ex-Resistance fighter adds some texture. There are hints of "Eyes Wide Shut" - lite. Those who track wardrobe will enjoy the under garments, etc. (and the lead's hairdo is virtually a siganture in itself). The story is a little shaky morally, cutting despicable people a little too much slack and blithely gliding over at least one real crime. But it does move along well and, if not really "Mad Men" in tone, does share that series' ability to recreate an era little known to many today.

Yes, there are some wonderful actors here and they are completely natural and believable in what they are doing. But - what IS that? We get glimpses of actual dramas in their lives, interspersed with banking pipes, overheard but incomprehensible dialogue, slow pans of possible plumbing problems, lots of almost black screens. Well into it, there is a wonderful scene between Jenkins and Schumer that leaves you hoping more moments will be that emotionally direct and even a bit humorous. But for much of this you might as well be watching Samuel Beckett, with slightly more natural dialogue. There are scattered fun touches, as when the gadget-loving fiancé plays with a mini-projector only to end up projecting a homey image of a fireplace - in context, an ironic touch on several levels, but also a pretty funny comment on how some people tweak reality. Mainly, though, I was completely lost.

One problem with a satire on modern Christians is that so much of what they actually do is pretty close to the satire shown here, so it's hard to know sometimes what is taken from actual Christian attempts to be up to date and wha is real satire. The mean girls theme here is fairly predictable, the best aspect of it today being watching Mandy Moore in righteous bitch mode. McCaulkey Cauklin's role as a disabled student would probably be unthinkable today, but it is fun to see him play this really snarky character who beats people to the punch with sharp jokes on his own disability. Parker Posey plays in a straighter mode than we usually see and of course do so well. It gets a little messagey at the end but chrages past that to a gleefully over the top ending. But it's a little formula overall.

This is very in keeping with a certain part of Holly Hunter's more indie range, though Melissa Leo probably could have played the part just as well. Lots of aimless conflict, understated - to the point of being shapeless - emotion, confrontations that ultimately prove pointless. Hunter's emotional reality is always strong, it's just that it has to stand in here for plot and development. In its own lowkey way, the film is fairly predictable, hitting marks you've seen in more than one indie road flick. None of this is bad, just not, for anyone who's seen a wide range of films new or particularly compelling.

Funny that I watched this pretty much along with "Somewhere in Time". Both are time travel based romantic tales. This one is better, if marginally, maybe because the overt slapstick adds to a slightly more structured story. And of course Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman have a comic charm less apparent in Jane Seymour and Christopher Reeves. Plus, there are a few flimsy but diverting sub-plots, so it doesn't feel as shapeless as the other film. Arguably, there is a bit of a moral message tacked on here as well. The ending in one sense is neat and predictable but to my highly analytical mind didn't really tie up at least one important loose end. So I find much of it charming but ultimately not very satisfying.

I don't mind that this is romatic and sappy. Or even that it is a little more unbelievable than it has to be even for the genre. The main problem is that for a long time not much really happens, and what does happen is trivial and silly, a step away from slapstick. When something DOES start to happen - it takes a while - , it's mostly pretty predictable. There are some nice touches, as in how he prepares for his planned time travel. But other than a pretty predictable forward movement and some expected (if long in coming) obstacles, you have to REALLY really care that two good-looking people are connecting to take any real interest in this tale. The most interesting thing about the piece is how the score seems to reference earlier classics like "On the Street Where You Live" without quite copying them. Someone had fun with that.

This is pretty much the romp it set out to be and it has some good set pieces. But it doesn't even bother trying to be believable for much of it and there are some long, loose stretches which don't live up to the taut adventure promised. Belmondo is not really an action star, even if he faked one in the carefully choreographed 'Cartouche' and his best physical bits here are more comic than combative. The film is also careless about tone, since harmless encounters alternate with actual killings in a disconcerting way. There are some nice views of Paris and even better views of Brazil (including a long stretch of the hyper-futuristic Brazilia). At times you can see where "Indiana Jones" might have been inspired by, but greatly improved on, it. It may have been high budget for its time, but it feels somewhat low budget today. It doesn't help too that some of the more compelling minor characters are casually jettisoned along the way.

The period color scheme here with the Technicolor/Kodachrome view of an earlier small town American life sometimes make this feel like it's warming up to be a Wes Andersen film. And there are a few really clever, striking lines. But an awful lot of it comes down to a familiar tale of a woman in an earlier time seeking to make her mark despite the weight of family and an unhelpful, even abusive husband. The highlight of the film is Woody Harrelson's incarnation of the latter, well out of his usual range, wonderfully played with his drunken and abusive behavior palpably underlaid by his mute hurt at not living up to his wife's accomplishments and being all he would like to be as a father. Otherwise, much of the story is predictable and even cursory. Laura Dern's sequences are barely cameos and add little to the dramatic thrust of the whole. But then overall there isn't much, really. Which makes it a huge surprise how moving the very last moments and closing credits prove to be, underlying all at once the true victory of this self-effacing yet triumphant and accomplished mother. But these last moments far outshine most of what comes before.

Did he really kill the kid? Dpes his father care a whit for him or is he using him for a book? Is there any deeper meaning to Cheadle's character's (utterly banal) philanderings? Whata about the drug use? - A potpourri of different important themes, aimless characters, possible mysteries (or red herrings?), a sudden plot twist... It felt like someone used William Burroughs' cut-up technique to take bits of deep meaningful indies, chop them all up together, put them in a bag and pick them out at random and create something resembling a linear narrative (with numerous flashbacks) only where it's all ultimately going is utterly unclear.

As a lover of Patchett's novel, I hesitated to watch it brought to screen (I didn't realize she was one of the producers). But I found this engaging and emotionally true to the novel, if, as almost inevitably happens, not quite the complete novel. The essential themes of people discovering each other under unpromising circumstances and the universal power of art (albeit a tad idealized here) come through and the evolution of the various relationships is developed believably. The savagery in the novel is all the more vivid here for being on-camera, but so is the fun and the complicity that devolops. I honestly can't say how effective it would be for someone who hasn't read Pathcett's (wonderful) book, but I found it satisfyinf overal..

This actually develops into a touching and complex story. But it takes a while to clarify the lines, so that if feels like nothing is quite happening for a little too long (despite some very original pieces right at the start). I'm not sure how much the unresolved confusion is meant to put the viewer off the track and how much is failure to think through the exposition, but I almost bowed out early a number of times. The story as it shapes up touches on some important themes of grief and recovery, but then it becomes a little predictable as well. It's also true that the moment Katherine Turner comes in she is so much stronger a presence than anyone else that it puts the otherwise engaging indie actors at a disadvantage. There is some good music, well-placed, but it only comes in and out. It never quite defines the tone.

I've seen at least one doc on porn life and more than one film that shows it, so there wasn't much here that would shock me. I think the most striking thing about the film is how much of what we see could be true across the film industry - women cheapening themselves more or less willingly in hopes of getting ahead, a progressive surrender of idealism, some unpleasant surprises, decidng to work past them until one or does not decide the price is worth paying to get where you want to be. Much of what we see is the maturation or hardening - depending on your point of view - of someone coming to terms with the requirements of a predatory world (and porn is far from the only such world in LA) while - possibly less realistically - questioning the price of her own ambition. Apparently many of the performers here are actual porn performers, which mainly shows in their ease in certain scenes. But there is a lot of good emotional life in their work as well. Anyone who watches this mainly for the sex is likely to be disappointed - there are non-porn related films with more overt sexual scenes - and some might find it simply hard to watch at times. But it's a real story with a real progress and real relationships that happens to be set in the world of porn.