Reviews

The Tall Guy is one of my all-time favorites. One's taste in comedies is a highly personal thing, and not everyone will find this movie to their taste, but if you like the inimitable flavor of British humor (as I do) and enjoy Jeff Goldblum and Emma Thompson, you will probably find this movie to be extremely rewarding -- that is, hilarious and, perhaps, a bit touching.

It's got its flaws, of course. There are plenty of spots where nothing really happens, the music is pretty uneven, and a few gags fall flat. There are one or two key plot points that are a little hard to follow (especially the scene with Emma Thompson on the television). And surprisingly, the last quarter or so turns a bit grim, and comes a bit close to losing sight of the whimsicality which is so much of this movie's charm.

But I'll gladly put up with all that for what this movie has to offer. It's incredibly hard to make a good comedy, and all too many comedies nowadays are either too tame, or too scatological...too cruel, or too meek...too earnest, or too smug in their irony. The Tall Guy proves that there is ground between these extremes, and what fertile ground it is! I don't know if one could make this movie in America; the entire film is permeated with a uniquely British sensibility that makes it irresistible. And in the midst of all this, Jeff Goldblum is absolutely spot-on as the bemused American; his facial expressions and reaction shots in this movie are priceless. It's a pity that so many of his recent roles have been in action movies; at his best, Goldblum is a fantastic comic actor, and this movie depends completely on his charm, wit, and expressiveness.

One of the centerpieces of the movie, by the way, is a musical based on "The Elephant Man". It's a tour-de-force of parody, brilliantly satirizing the tastelessnesses and mediocrities of modern musicals; indeed, I wish we could get to see even more of it.

I recently revisited The Tall Guy for the third time, watching it side-by-side with There's Something About Mary, and I can't begin to tell you how much the latter movie suffered by comparison. They have a few traits in common -- both movies revolve around the pursuit of a beautiful woman by a misanthropic-but-oddly-handsome male Jewish lead, both have a strong sexual element to their humor, and both feature a prominent handicapped character (a blind man in the Tall Guy, a man on crutches in Mary) whose misadventures are played for laughs. But where There's Something About Mary is coarse, mean, and obvious, The Tall Guy is witty, absurd, and completely good-natured -- and in my opinion, far superior.

I suspect there are a fair number of people who won't "get" The Tall Guy, and that's a shame. But if it sounds like it's on your wavelength, rent it if you can find it. It's an incredibly sweet and funny movie that is well worth the watching.

This movie has much that one would expect to enjoy, not the least of which is the lovely Kate Winslet. Many things about it are good, and all the performances are quite strong (again, including Ms. Winslet's).

But I didn't enjoy it. I'm all for long, slow, understated movies, but this one didn't make the grade. I suspect the problem was either the direction or the editing; I'm not sure which. Permit me to explain:

Movies that have a leisurely pace need to allow their events to "breathe" by surrounding more "dynamic" moments, if you will, with more tranquil ones. (Any of the better Merchant-Ivory films will provide an excellent example of this.)

This movie, however, suffers from being perpetually caught between calming down and taking wing. There's not enough happening to make it exciting in a moment-to-moment way, but there's too much happening to give one the same sense of scale that one gets in a true "leisurely masterpiece". Sometimes it's the soundtrack (which gets a bit much in places), sometimes it's the direction, sometimes it's something one can't quite put one's finger on. To put it differently, I don't think the film ever finds its rhythm, and as a result, the problems with the narrative and character motivation become far more of an issue than they would have been had the movie been better paced.

In any event, throughout the entire movie, something is amiss, and it's never put quite right. As a result, what could have been a great movie comes out muddled and jumbled, and leaves one feeling oddly unsatisfied and apathetic.

Within ten minutes of the beginning of this movie both my girlfriend and I realized it was going to be horrible, and were tempted to stop it right there. But, driven by the same impulse that leads motorists to rubberneck when passing car crashes, we couldn't help but watch the whole thing.

It's just awful. I can't really think of a good thing to say about this movie. Well, maybe I can think of one -- at least it doesn't drag. All 85 minutes are packed...with some of the most execrable filmmaking I've seen! The script is terrible, and the direction is weak by TV-movie standards (let alone those of a major motion picture). The whole thing feels forced and stagy, and there's hardly a line of believable dialogue to be found. The plot is a succession of threadbare improbabilities and contrivances, devoid of meaning or impact. The score and cinematography were both unmemorable, though the latter was OK.

As Maltin says, the cast is entirely wasted -- but they certainly don't go to great lengths to try to redeem the material; only Lange turns in a passable performance. Durning is lousy, as is the rest of the supporting cast. And Patricia Arquette is amazingly -- and I mean AMAZINGLY -- awful as Jilly; she seems to have decided that about 75 to 80 percent of her lines would be best served by breaking into an incredibly irritating shriek.

This is honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even the ending -- where many bad movies pick up a bit, in excitement if not in content -- is terrible! It's just as meaningless as the rest of the film, and offers neither a satisfying resolution nor a thought-provoking ambiguity, but just a dull thud which leaves the whole thing feeling like a meandering, pointless waste of time.

Bottom line: avoid at all costs.

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi.

The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.

All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!

This movie, while mildly entertaining on a whiz-bang level, was really quite mediocre overall. The script was written on a fourth-grade level (admittedly with occasional clever moments but with as many gaping holes), the characters had a depth of zero, and the acting was nonexistent. In this respect, Bob Gunton, as the "evil financier", must be singled out as turning in one of the worst performances I've ever seen -- absolutely shameful. The special effects, though generally OK, were surprisingly poor at some points, with some of the aerial sequences scarcely looking better than a good effort from a Nintendo 64. Finally, near the end of the movie, there was a singularly distasteful scene, involving Travolta and Carmichael, whose overtones of sexual assault were both gratuitous and unpleasant. However, all that being said, it was certainly fun on a campy level, and Christian Slater is not a bad action hero at all. But let there be no mistake -- this is definitely a C-grade movie. John Woo is capable of far more -- A Better Tomorrow (despite its horrible score) is certainly ten times the movie this is.

A disclaimer: perhaps I lack the historical context to appreciate this movie's boldnesses, and perhaps I have a prejudice against Italian films -- I've seen very few that I like, and usually find them pretentious, obscure, and far inferior to, say, the French or Scandinavian cinema.

But that aside, I thought this movie was really quite lousy. This movie's supposed insights into the dialogue of the sexes (and the classes) are hardly deeper than your average cartoon -- and, as the movie progresses, rapidly become far more offensive: while I don't have any trouble with the considerable sexual content per se, I find the treatment of rape and violence to be unpleasant at best. If the script were better and the leads weren't two-dimensional archetypes, it might be a bit more convincing, but instead we get something that's scarcely any more rewarding or thoughtful than soft-core pornography. In fairness, I must admire Wertmuller's bravado, and the last 15 minutes or so are actually pretty good. There are also a few moments of genuine pathos, comedy, and erotic tension. But on the whole, the movie just leaves me feeling a little bit dirty and disgusted...and watching it with my girlfriend -- who was, in fact, physically abused by a previous boyfriend -- left me all the more aware of its unpleasantness. Maltin's four-star review in his movie guide is way, way overkill; I might give it two for ambition, but really, it barely merits one-and-a-half.

If you haven't read any other reviews, stop right now and don't read any. The less you know about this movie before seeing it, the better. However, if you already have read about it, then read on...

With the exception of a documentary I saw many years ago, this is the only movie that's ever made me cry.

Many others have already discussed this film. I need not reprise the glowing praise; I will, for the most part, pass over the (utterly stupid) criticism -- though I will say that the camerawork is a hallmark of cinema verité, and is by no means anything but intentional. It can be hard to handle at times, but the movie wouldn't be the same without it. Emily Watson is beyond compare, and light-years beyond Frances McDormand in Fargo -- who _was_ brilliant, but this is on a whole different level.

I'll simply add this: if you're planning on getting married to someone, or being with them for a long time, watch this film together. If they reply to this movie with a shrug, or worse, you would do best to run away from them, as fast and as far as you can.

This movie is unbelievably bad. The first time I saw it, it threw me for a loop, because it violated so many of the conventions of intelligible moviemaking that I almost felt shell-shocked. The second time, I found it absolutely hilarious. It has more camp value than a Winnebago. From gratuitous sex, to actors twenty years too old for their parts, to acting that would embarrass a junior high school drama club, to editing that makes home movies look slick, to three-minute shots of a mailbox, to special effects beyond compare...

It's a must-see. It's just beyond description.

This movie starts out with a genuinely intriguing premise, but very rapidly becomes completely ridiculous, going from psychological study to campy bloodbath. Some of the performances are not bad, and there are a few successful scenes, but overall, the movie is just a big disappointment, with an ending that's schlocky and clichéd. It's not bad as camp, though!