Change Your Image
milagro1975
Reviews
Being Julia (2004)
Some good acting, story lacking
Good news first. Annette Benning is good here, as well as Irons and the actor playing Roger. Bad news: they didn't have much to play actually as the script had butchered the story and the characters. All the irony, sardonic narratives, Julia's inward comments were left out along with a great deal of the story and some terrific scenes. For instance, hilarious seduction episode between Julia and Charles from the book - why substitute it with that pale explanation? and just for the record, Charles wasn't gay, he was apparently impotent. Well, the script made him impotent as a character since one can hardly recollect his part and what he's for there anyway. Same goes for Evie and Dolly, they just don't mean anything. There's not much of Michael, too, obviously because they left out the complete "before" section of the book. And it mattered. Tom is OK though slightly inconsistent. We don't see his development from an obscure admirer to corrupted social climber. Neither the development of Julia's feelings for him (apart from her constant giggling). All in all, better get yourself the book.
The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996)
As funny and romantic as a good romcom should be
I saw it about a decade ago and thought it was nice but not outstanding. Last night I was rewatching it at my friends' and couldn't help thinking it was unusually good! I guess it's all those 2000s romcoms with their WC humour and cartoon-like characters showed me the true depths of profanity :) This movie, quite competent in itself, now stands out more in comparison.
The plot is rather unrealistic as common in this type of films (the premise aside it's hard to believe that Brian couldn't identify the real Abby by her voice - the very feature he'd initially fallen for!) but the characters are not one-dimensional and one can relate to each of the three. Both Abby and Noelle are sweet and warm in their different ways, and Brian the lover is ardent and romantic yet not completely idiotic in his strange situation :)
I agree with many reviewers that the phone sex scene is a bit off, but the following scene with the snicker throwing (and his putting it to his heart) makes up for it. It's just priceless. And I think it makes sense that Abby finds it even more difficult to tell him the truth after. The emotional development is delivered pretty well, I enjoyed seeing Brian start to really like Abby (the photographing and, to a degree, the sunset scenes) while still being dazed by combined Abby/Noelle perfect woman's image, and also Abby/Noelle interaction involving friendship, jealousy, competition... it really ringed true to me.
The sunset scene was a bit off character: I mean Brian is far beyond friendly in it and there's undeniable attraction, so one naturally thinks he'd either realize "Donna' was the one for him and not "Abby", or be considered flirting with his love's best friend in her absence. We actually don't see the former nor want to see the later! Abby's face expression is very touching in it, though. The movie hits its best in the part when Brian figures it all out and later the cafe scene. It gets to your heart to see how people can lose a chance of finding true love (or another good relationship, for that matter) due to their fear of rejection and lies. If the film stopped at this point it would be far more thought-provoking actually, but that would be another genre (and the movie would be Russian or French :)).
But some of the script deficiency is compensated by acting (esp. Garofalo's). And of course the dog is just dearie. The end lines cracked me up again!
Salt (2010)
Totally hasbeen
Let's face it - Angelina Jolie can not act. The only reason we shell out money to see her on silver screen is her exotic hotness and sort of senseless energy. Well, in Salt she delivers very little of either. I was with a friend, he's male, straight and nerdy - the very Jolie fan material - and he said DO NOT WANT. No surprise here. She looks gaunt and weak even for a trophy-girl character, let alone a cool action heroine. Her media persona also gets in the way. We hear so much about Ms Jolie that is really hard to forget who she is in real life and trust the character. You know watching a saintly UN ambassador and mother of I don't know how many at the moment, rush about and fire guns left and right is somewhat uncomfortable.
Unlike many other fellow Russian viewers I don't feel insulted by the caricature way of portraying Russians in the movie. It is Hollywood, for God's sake, when did they do justice to any foreign culture? In American cinematic (or cultural, at large) mythology foreigners are either quirky villains or "ingenious people". You choose. I rather find it extremely funny that Russia still has that big evil image movie makers can cash on. No "Cracosia" at least :)
All in all, if you don't mind dingy Lara Croft and love well-done irrelevant action, this is for you.
Keeping the Faith (2000)
Surprising, and not in a good way
I'd been skipping it for years. I was not sure I wanted to see Edward Norton in a romcom next to Ben Stiller. The tacky premise on the lines of "a rabbi and a priest running after the same skirt" also raised suspicion. Now that I saw it my doubts are justified.
I am being austere. It is not that bad. Rather well done considering it's Norton's debut as a director. A little more editing could make it less dragging but still it is OK for a relaxed viewer. I loved the air and the street scenes. I'd never been in NY prior to 9/11 and they gave me that bitter-sweet feeling of second-hand nostalgie.
The main problems were the plot and - surprisingly - acting. Norton is one of my favorite actors, a sort of rely-on, and I was shocked to see him definitely overacting in more than one scene, f.e. waking up from his erotic nightmare (sorry, I'm Vai's die-hard fan) or during the conversation with the girl before she tells him she's in love with the other guy. Given the fact that he directed the thing himself it seems very strange. But still for the most part he was very good, subtle and rather funny.
Stiller is good at comedy but incredibly annoying as the love interest. I just can not see the appeal. The whole romantic story between him and that masculine fake blond seemed so shallow and unconvincing that it was hard to sympathize.
And here we come to the plot. I am sure the story could be 10 times more touching, natural and convincing had it been just a story of love triangle - two bosom friends of different heritage and their old crush. That's enough, really. The whole "faith" line is so badly handled that it ruins the film and makes comedy tasteless and romance implausible. Not that I am violently indignant at seeing a Catholic priest yielding to temptation or a rabbi indulging in racy pre-marital affair. Could be. You could do a harsh satire or insightful soul study out of it, anything. The problem is it is represented but doesn't relate to the main plot. We can not see their faith affect their relationships or their decisions rather than make them abide some general rules of behaviour. In fact they don't seem to have faith, they have jobs in faith industry and they like their jobs. One just thinks a priest would be more than troubled having found himself lusting after a female friend (or anyone). But he's so OK with it. He's in good mood, and all he's worried about is if she's gonna get him. Et cetera. You don't need soul searching in a light comedy, sure, but why touch such things then?
So my word is it could be very nice and entertaining if it left the "faith" part out. Well, and the last 1/3 of the film more dynamic.
Fight Club (1999)
Fascinating piece
It is quite rare thing that movie may be better than the book it is based on. And Fight Club actually is. I have watched it many times, the shrill still there, while the book gathers dust on a shelf.
I read the book in English and in Russian (BTW the translation, at least the one I got in hand, sucks). By its sctucture it is very easy to be turned into a script exactly like it should be POV the narrator; OTOH it's not rich with descriptions, visuals are rather scanty. So I think the director and the cast did a perfect job to make movie pretty close to the book in pace, action and picture, giving the story greater power and subtlety by the means of cinematography; with one caveat - the ending. I know many people like the film ending and Palanniuk himself was quoted to prefer it. But it really doesn't make sense to me and makes the story more surreal and more shallow than one might digest.
The acting is superb. Both Pitt and Norton are at their best and though I am not much into Helena Bonham Carter, she is amazing as Marla. Supporting characters are all well done, too. I also always love change of color scheme into sepia once we get into the Paper street world. Many things like that, you just must see it. It's an excellent film that will blow your mind anyway.
That said, I am far from thinking this movie (and the book whatever) to be anything of a message. It is indeed thought-provoking but it actually doesn't offer a solution, nor a hint. Quite contrary it shows how much more preferrable the existing system would be comparing to the offered ways to get up at it. This rebellion without a cause, within the system, against its most obscure and superficial features is just a childish tantrum. That will pass and that is sad. BTW I would really like those many posters who state the movie changed their lives, to specify - how exactly? Oh wait I guess. They must have been purchasing Che Guevara t-shirts. Those do look nice with CK briefs.
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Non-story
Having just rewatched this along with O11 and O13 I decided to throw in another no-go. Such a shame of a movie can not be underrated.
Setting aside unnecessary self-references etc it has one major fault - there is no heist and no story. Instead we get a messy lot of events and circumstances that don't come together, the puzzle pieces never combine into the picture. And in the end we are told it was just another picture! well, we must have been seeing another movie, apparently. I wish I would.
The lovestory between Rusty and Zeta-Jones character looks moderately promising at first but again in the end it just gets twisted stupidely and abruptly, only to hit the most hackneyed cliché you can imagine. Out of the blue, too.
The acting is not bad nor outstanding, with the exception of Matt Damon who has greatly improved since O11 and has in fact the most interesting and funny scenes in the movie, and the brilliant Vincent Cassel who managed to make an enjoyable part out of the rather stupid and contrived character. Too bad it's just wasted in this crap. I was also impressed by the actress playing the small role of Linus' mom (can't recollect her name). But this couldn't help either.
I guess it's too late to say Don't go see it but if you consider renting or buying just don't. It's not worth even pressing play button.
Ocean's Thirteen (2007)
The best of Oceans'
I've just re-watched Ocean's 11, 12 (forwarding all the time) and 13 and the last is definitely the best with me. One doesn't look for much sense in a heist movie as long as it is funny and entertaining which O13 sure is. The plot is rather unbelievable, from drilling an underground tunnel in Vegas with the Chunnel machines to ripping a secure glass showcase out of heavy-duty concrete base. With a helicopter, yeah. So far it is all fantasy but a very cute one. The heist scheme is partly revealed althrough the preparation but the viewer doesn't get the whole picture and has to puzzle it out up to the very end. That's enough to keep you on throughout the movie, with some very funny moments here and there, and the whole cast's very good acting. The Mexican episodes were superb.
I also unexpectedly liked the absence of female characters save Barkin's Abbie cougar, or any sappy romance (as much as I enjoy Catherine Zeta-Jones and tolerate Roberts). Thank to that absence we have a cool, funny, resolute team in which everyone has more or less equal importance to the watcher, and their camaraderie is warm and easy. No one steals the show.
This movie is a keeper. 'Nuff said!
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)
Silly but quite entertaining
It's a one-run movie of course and it lacks plausibility of plot and characters - actually in that department it's more of a cartoon - but still provides quite a number of good laughs. The boys party was hilarious, I still smile when recollect those guys' faces. McConaughey is very good in the part of a vain ad producer being at the same time a nice simple guy. Hudson could be less overactig but fits the general concept of a movie-cartoon and is very pretty, too. The yellow dress is fabulous. Overall it is quite OK as a comedy though romantic is somewhat unbelievable.
PS One thing that I find annoying - not only in this film - is that at least one time in a movie they would speak with their mouth full. Food dropping down usually included. I don't get it, what that's supposed to show, a down-to-earth character? easiness of atmosphere? There're plenty of ways to achieve that, why stick to this actually disgusting bad manners? Hell, they banned on-screen smoking, why allow this?
Eat Pray Love (2010)
Eat, eat, eat
This movie almost made me feel bad about myself as I am a woman having made some choices very similar to those the lead character did. Yet for myself I know perfectly why I made those choices and have all responsibility and sometime blame at my own door. Whereas the heroine (Liz) seems to just jump to her conclusions out of the blue, do everything randomly and - most important - not to learn a bit throughout her journey. Her self-exploration is as bad as her exploring other cultures, and equally superficial. She doesn't empathize but only consumes, be it food or men or philosophy. In terms of the movie she eats and eats and eats. Even a touch of human emotion towards the end is percived as a sort of new experience for HER. Applaud everyone, she's found what she wanted in this global supermarket! I haven't read the book but the film is a disgusting apology for self-centredness. I only give it 2 stars for the sake of Bartem and a fwe other good performances (Roberts excluded).
Did You Hear About the Morgans? (2009)
Utter disappointment
My dear old friend sent the CD to me, sick and lonely flue patient, as she knows I used to fancy Grant. I was not prepared for this. The plot is so generic one can predict every other scene or line. Jokes are second-hand, too. In fact, everything in this film is second hand.
I had no hopes for SJP as an actress after SATC movies' disaster except discovering how much scarier the woman can get in a relatively short time, but Hugh just killed me with his wooden awkward performance. I think he or rather his agents must realize he's past those adorable insecure English guys and irresistible cads. You're not there anymore, mate! It is absolutely obvious he can act other parts, like I loved American Dreamz (though not only for him). Actually he'd be amazing in a role that brings out the slightly sinister side you can smell just looking at him. Time to stop charming and start acting.
Sex and the City (2008)
Glossy erhm stylish...
I am really happy I didn't spend any $$ to watch it when it was on in cinema. And now I am so not going to do that for the next part, either! The film is "abso-effing-lutely" opposite to the series as to its spirits. In the show the characters could be silly and annoying but they at least had some guts and energy, some inspiration. In the film they just hide their pathetic nothingness under designer frocks. The frocks are fantastic, though, that's why I gave it 2 stars.
The irony is replaced with stupid gags even as the heroines' self-consciousness is replaced by wearing a mask. Hell, they don't even discuss what's going on! Oh, of course they don't have time for that between shopping and trying-on scenes.
It was a girls' night and after we finished watching, the mutual resume was: what is fun in 20s and early 30s, is pathetic in 40s! Is that what the film was intended to deliver? I don't think so.
Jane Eyre (2006)
It is time to establish a League for Suppression of Scripwrites
as regards adaptation of classics. I will be the No1 member.
To begin with, Jane Eyre is the only piece of the whole Bronte sisters' heritage that I really like. That's why I had looked forward to this adaptation and was thoroughly perplexed and frustrated when I finally saw it.
This movie is splendid with good cast & acting, beautiful scenery, impressive moves etc. But the script which absolutely unnecessary changes not only pace and language but the meaning of the story, compromises it all. There is no excuse for that. Obviously they had time enough to include every essential scene from the original novel. Instead, they preferred to skip, cut the original and fit in their own poor inventions. Dear Scripwriter, I would very well forego Ashton's views on identical twins' mysterious ways for the final declaration as it was written by Bronte. I appreciate your taking into account Mr Rochester's need of wife "to share his bed at night" but there were other reasons for his second proposing to Jane beside that, and other feelings and conclusions he HAD to voice, to prove their being happy together afterwards. Otherwise we don't see any change in him. Maybe that's why he never recovered his sight in your version, hah hah. No contrition - no pardon. Half-teasing, but really there is an important point here: Bronte implies that Rochester pays for his sins, overcomes past misconceptions and only after he "sees the light" does he gets back his Jane and, later on, his sight. They will probably say it is too much for the modern audience, but I don't think that low of the modern audience, frankly. Well, I am one of it.
What I liked most was Wilson' Jane. She won my heart by her acting, her on-screen energy. And she looks the part so much, sometimes decidedly plain, sometimes absolutely charming. Awesome.
Stephens is a very odd Rochester to me. He acts well and I was captivated by his hero while watching but he was not the Rochester of the novel. Too mild, too open, too tolerate. There was not enough sparkle, mood swings, sarcasm in his portrayal. No one beats Dalton yet.
I also liked the visual means it was filmed with. Especially that Jane's nightmares were included as they represent her presentiments (or auguries?) and make a part of the novel. That's very unexpected and delicious take. The scarlet scarf seemed a bit too obvious a hint, though.
I have very mixed feeling about this movie. I think I would love it if only the script was not so infuriatingly inconsistent. As it is, I will yet keep faith to the Dalton/Clarke version.
Emma (2009)
Spectacular but lacking the point
It is very well and beautifully filmed but deviation from the book's characters undo the whole thing. It is not Emma. Almost every part is miscast and distorted. Emma shouldn't be a wild teenager, she's an elegant young lady and the mistress of a respectable house, the top banana in the Hughbury society. One must not feel the urgency of slapping her between her blade-bones and instruct "mind your deportment, Emma!.. close your mouth!.. don't show your gums! sit upright! don't swing your arms while walking!" Well, I did feel that non-stop.
Mr Knightley should be an authority, the man everyone including Emma, looks up to, and not just a nice guy next door. In the most important Badly Done scene he was so unconvincing that it ruined the whole series to me. And I was not surprised that this Emma could openly get up to and yell at this Mr Knightley. It could never ever happened in the book. Nor was there any chemistry between the leads except in the dancing scene (that scene I did enjoy very much). I just couldn't help laughing while watching the final declaration: JLm's Knightley was obviously trying to avoid the kiss, leaning back from Garai's Emma reaching for him, with his arms hanging along his form flaccidly... well, why filming what is not in the book, if you can not make it appealing? And when that Emma stormed into Mr Knightley's study, goggling even more than a viewer could get used to during the previous episodes, and yelling hysterically, my friend and I both shouted: "'Tis a close escape, man! Just don't reason with her and let her go!" I can't imagine why he didn't.
Of other characters I really liked Mr Wodehouse whom I loved dearly and found very well acted and elaborated, very decent Mrs Weston, believable sweet Harriet and absolutely perfect Frank Churchill. They were decidedly much better than those in the earlier adaptations, to me. Miss Bates, Miss Fairfax and Mr Weston were absolutely reverse. Miss Bates timid and pathetically insecure instead of cheerful, chatty, cozy and annoying at the same time. Guys, she was content with everything and everyone in the book! Miss Fairfax mousy, nervous and girlish instead of extremely elegant, strikingly-beautiful and calmly reserved. Mr Weston melancholic to the point of almost tearful instead of sanguine and ever-optimistic. Mr and Mrs Elton were quite OK, though. The donkey scene was superb. I also liked Mr John Knightley. I think he would make a better Mr Knightley than his "elder brother", ehm.
In whole it could be a very good Emma but for the leads. They did not develop the key story.
Lost in Austen (2008)
Funny but could be much better
I unexpectedly enjoyed the series. There are many amusing and very curious moments. I appreciated different take on some characters such as Lidya or Mrs Bennet and - most of all - Wickham. And the air of the whole movie is very lively and, khm, refreshing.
Unfortunately, it has two major faults. One is the leading character, Amanda. I totally agree with those who say that for an Austen devotee she has very poor understanding of the period ways. One just can not believe it. OK she can utter something inappropriate when shocked and in dismay but there are limits. Even a 21st century girl stuck in the past can still use her brain and memory and behave, I am sure.
The other weak point is the plot. It is undeveloped and full of contradictions, especially in the end. For instance, Amanda promises Lady Catherine to keep away from her and the society (and Darcy) in return for her promoting annulment of Jane's marriage, and almost directly goes to unite with Darcy. So no freedom for Jane?
Also, many things are done in a very incredible way. I wish the scriptwriter and production people had more attention and respect to the period things. I do not suppose Amanda would lose any charm of hers (which I personally discerned rather little of) if they gave her a Regency coiffure at last: firstly, it would be enjoyable to see a high-street girl turning into Regency beauty, secondly, being an Austen fan and enamoured of all their ways she certainly would have liked that, and thirdly, no one can support that hairdo without an iron and quite a number of special hair products! And her coming to the ball (or anywhere in society) with her hair down is no more possible than going in a nightshirt. She would be shunned, at the very best.
And Amanda's ending with Darcy made me cringe. Anyone to bet on their being happy beyond a week together?
But, after all, it was altogether very funny to watch. I got the feeling of a student camp play or something, very nice, easy and smouldering. And for all the imperfections, it is obvious that the is love for Austen there. Well, I advise to watch, have fun and don't take it seriously.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Sappy nothing
I first saw the movie soon agter the release in a cinema, was utterly disappointed as any Austen fan or simply anyone in the least know of history and literature must be, and just tried to erase the memory of it. After a while, having read a lot of raving reviews I decided to give it another chance as non-adaptation. Well, I really tried. Didn't work either. Setting aside numerous inaccuracies and liberties taken with a masterpiece, I simply don't understand what the appeal of the movie is to so many? It lacks logic, consistency, character development and humour. The story is abrupt and hard to follow if you don't keep recollecting the book's plot. For instance, why Mrs Bennet tells Mr Benner what happened at the assembly if he was present there? Who is Mrs Forster? how did Lady Catherine come to know that Lizzy is going to be engaged to her nephew and how in this world could he possibly know her opinion if he was in Longbourn that very day, sorry, NIGHT? And so on. The scenery and locations are fabulous, I admit, but God created Discovery channel for a reason, so why bother filming this?
All in all, this movie is a mere boy-meets-girl story, the boy is depressed and shy (and we get no explanation why, no change either), the girl is obstinate (the same comment here). The sidelines (Charlotte's, Lydia's) are negligible, bring no sense and serve only as minor difficulties on the lovers' path to "understanding" (BTW did they actually understand each other? I don't think so, they seem quite as immature and absurd in the end as at the beginning). Given no reasonable development, no insight into the characters it is just boring to watch.
Acting is average provided there is nothing particular to act. Knightley gives quite convincing image of a not too bright teenager "in luv - in denial". McFadyen as Mr Darcy acts only if he can't avoid it. Sutherland is a treasure in this boring film - it is very refreshing to watch him and try to guess what part from what piece he is acting this moment and what accent he is now faking :) Other characters are so disposable that their acting doesn't count really. The actress who played Jane is very pretty, though.
"Romantic" picturesque doesn't help much. It works when one sees inner reasons of a character which this movie fails to show. I am not even saying how far this kind of picturesque is from Austen's vision and style...
To summarize, the film is 100% fan fiction of a lower stamp using beloved names and some random details but totally free of any meaning except hormone-driven replay. The infamous US ending shows that perfectly.
I don't advise to see this shallow production to anyone who has any eye-brain connections at all.