Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
duchessofpercy
Reviews
Mr. Celebrity (1941)
A sweet little movie
Came across this movie on YouTube... Doubting I would see the more notorious Doris Day in it (as any fan worth his/her salt knows her first movie was, "Romance On The High Seas") but still... I was curious.
This was a sweet little movie. I'm sure it's not the first movie about someone trying to gain custody of a child from a person they disapprove of and, adversely, the kid is reluctant to leave. Sure, the plot line is quite familiar today... but, I'm gonna guess that (back then) it probably wasn't, yet, 'old hat' or overworked.
It's too bad the picture quality was so bad. Not sure if someone, out there, has a better copy than whoever posted it. The scene at the gas station (quite touching) and the last scene (the judge is priceless) were the best parts for me.
All in all, it wasn't a waste of time to watch. It was mildly entertaining... a rather white bread mediocre film, but likable. And I learned something about apples and horses too. You could, easily, watch it once and not feel guilty, depressed or had for doing so. It may not be Barrymore or Shakespeare in the Round either (but, seriously, how many pictures are?)
Not sure anything I wrote, here, would be considered a "spoiler", but I marked it just in case.
Why Did I Get Married Too? (2010)
WTHeck just happened?!?
I just finished watching this movie and feel like I have been run over (repeatedly) by a Mac Truck! This is categorized as a "Comedy/Drama/Romance"of all things. There is ZERO comedy in this tragedy, there WAS non-stop drama... TOO MUCH DRAMA and the 'romance'? Where was that?!? You could spare yourself the emotional baggage this movie leaves you with if you didn't watch it at all.
Those who have lived through abusive situations and relationships may find it highly disturbing and downright 'fetal position painful' to watch. Some of the violent disputes between the couples (which are numerous) are like a slap in the face to the, already, traumatized. They bounce you from one bad dream to another, without so much as a 'group hug' to get you stabilized before the next one hits.
I give it a 3, because there were moments of raw, unbridled emotions... a creepy reality to the situations, behaviors, rhetoric and all too familiar body language (ALL BAD) victims of abuse will, sadly, recognize. These were spot on... the brand of out of control, erratic, pointless and baseless fights truly abusive and controlling people like to have. Hence, mercilessly, biting me right in the PTSD.
Here come the spoilers...
The only romance I saw, was in the brief scene between the maid and whoever (which wasn't actually romantic) but they seemed more invested in each other than ANY of the other couples were. I can't say with 100% certainty, but I believe it is also the scene that involves 'comedy' (if you can call it that) still disturbing, but mildly comedic.
Not a soul in the movie had one, except Tyler's character (as usual), the disease catching cheater and the ruthlessly abusive Ex. WHAT?!? Even our so likable, sympathetic and pleasantly plump gal was borderline possessed. In fact... If everyone's head should have started spinning around, I wouldn't have been too surprised.
If I wanted my mind messed with this way, I could just go back to my abusive Ex and get it for free. Instead, I paid good money for the DVD so I could what? Traumatize myself repeatedly and at will anytime I have a yen for some self-loathing and unhealthy flashbacks?
"The Diary of a Mad Black Woman" had painful, raw and 'old wound' opening moments too. Yet, he pieced that character back together from the mind bending abuse triumphant. But in this case... These people are just jacked up and there is no one to keep them in check. Why are all 4 couples, simultaneously, in HORRIBLE situations? No healthy couple to balance the others? Shouldn't there have been SOMEONE capable of helping the others cope? Or was Miss Jackson their only Obi Wan-like bastion of hope? When she lost it, hell unleashed on the whole lot of them?
The movie was choppy, the scenes didn't flow. The film seemed a collection 'first takes' only. I wonder if they left the best acted parts and the elusive 'Comedy/Romance' bits on the cutting room floor. I bet... If you picked those scraps up and spliced them all together, you would have an equally bad or better movie, as a whole, than this one.
The only thing "fleshed out" in this movie was the odd and recurring role of Miss Jackson's breasts. She seemed obsessed with whippin' those puppies out compelled to give the world a frequent and unobstructed view... What's the matter? Not enough buzz about them after the Super Bowl's debatable "malfunction"? I don't buy a serious mental health professional giving speeches while letting her exposed breasts detract from the seriousness of her supposed message.
As for her temper tantrum with the golf clubs? Many siting Miss Jackson's strong acting ability? It felt contrived and phony to me. What deep acting skills are involved in swinging a golf club around, breaking stuff and acting like a baby? The scene played violent and abusive... again not jiving with her, assumed, knowledge and profession. Physician... heal thyself. Made no sense for her character not to SEE how wrong SHE was, not just her husband.
Was it me? or did her entire house seemed made of glass? Was that metaphorical? (It's highly unlikely this movie was that deep) From the door, to the furniture, to the tchotchkes... One wonders why her sofa wasn't made of glass so she could break that too.
The ending??? What an uncomfortable mess that was. I wasn't feeling ANY love in that waiting room when the 'kiss and make up session' occurred. It brought to mind two kids who are ordered, by their mothers, to shake hands and hug after a fight... neither means it OR feels it. Were we supposed to be comforted and reassured by this scene? Cuz I didn't catch even a blip of sincerity in ANY of the hugs there.
Shouting repeatedly "my money! bitch!" as her husband is ultimately and callously harassed to his death is cold and lunatic behavior... Other than a blank stare at the hospital... Most would have been catatonic after that. It was reminiscent of the Seinfeld episode where George's fiancé dies. She could have, at least, fainted... Yet, Boom!!! A year later she's bouncing around with her shirt unbuttoned to her navel AGAIN, speechifying on coping with grief when it didn't appear she dealt with or even experienced ANY.
Her introduction to The Rock? One reviewer likened it to the end of a horror flick where the notorious psycho meets their next victim and it fades to black. I totally agree.
Is someone going to wake up in a shower next and we'll all find it was a bad dream??? I kinda hope so. It sure felt that way to me. Thanks, but no thanks, Tyler. I'd like my 20 bucks back and a few, complimentary, sessions with my shrink to get over having watched it.
Maleficent (2014)
A Dark Feminist's Fairy Tale... Not fit for children.
The only thing worth seeing, in this movie, is the CGI. It is beautifully done. Although, I found the 3 fairies quite disturbing looking creatures and thus very unsettling... I would give it an 8 for the CGI. But the movie... Well, that's quite another story.
They haven't 'respected the classic' the original story. If so, Maleficent would be evil. The original is a story of good vs. evil, right vs. might and a lesson that love conquers all. But rather than that simple formula... THIS is a story of a jilted/betrayed lover who seeks revenge through an innocent child. To me... that is NOT respecting the original story AND it didn't bring us what we 'love about this story'. It isn't 'a different, but classic fairy tale'. The formula for a 'Classic' fairy tale is that there are no muddled lines between good and evil. This one muddles all the way through.
I didn't see ANYTHING in this movie that was even remotely reminiscent of the original. Only the names and the spindle. It was just a dark and horrible story... I wouldn't bring my kids to see it. This isn't a lesson of good's triumph over evil... this is some sort of warped tale of psychological excuses for bad or deviant behavior. Instead of teaching children right is right and wrong is wrong... it teaches that wrong can be right just so long as the person doing wrong thinks it's fair or even worse... can't be helped. This anti-hero worship mentality is not what ANY child needs and is the ruin of our society. "Let's root for the bad guy! Let's understand the bad guy! The bad guy IS the hero!"
"No one is truly bad... everyone who does evil has a 'backstory' that made them that way. Pity the refuse of society. The things they do are either learned or they were born that way... but either way... they are justified or can't help it. We should never blame or judge anyone's behavior as truly bad, because they must have a reason for being this way that could not be avoided. Don't blame me... others actions MADE me do it. I am right in whatever I do, when I feel I have been wronged. Two wrongs don't make it right, it makes it fair. Everything is excusable so long as I can think of an excuse."
So, first, she is right to want revenge and then she was right for trying to undo it and then she was right to defend herself. It would seem she is always right regardless because, right is perceived and judged against the emotion of the day... so long as she 'felt' it was right, at the time... she was never wrong. No matter what she was doing... she was always right. She was just a victim of some selfish man.
"Men are putzes and men are evil." Show me one decent male role model in this story. Her companion was a weak tool governed by her, his apparent 'feminine side' was his only saving grace. The prince was just a pretty face, shallow and likely governed by his hormones. The king was a user, a phony... governed by his greed. The message here is... "Women don't need men. Men are motivated and controlled by their lusts and women are motivated by their heart and purest emotions. Women should be strong and not be fooled by a man's affections. When people do bad, it must have been for a good reason and really isn't wrong of them. Bad behavior doesn't warrant our anger or judgement but begs our understanding and compassion. Any attempt at a classic good vs. evil concept... only seems to appear in this movie in the vein of "women being good and strong vs men being evil and weak".
To conclude this story, somehow, meant to convey that 'Love conquers all' is a sham. This movie is pure feminist and thug raising tripe. This movie is unfit for children. No 'beauty' appears in this dark tale... Alas! It must have been 'sleeping'.
I am certain Mr. Walt Disney is rolling over in his grave... AGAIN and AGAIN over stuff like this.
This totally DESTROYED the Disney Original... It basically told every viewer, flat out... You were lied to. The first story was just a pack of lies your parents told you, they have been lying about Maleficent for ages. Poor Maleficent... Evil parents! What other lies have your parents told you? Santa? The Easter Bunny? How dare they make you believe in fictitious characters and happily ever afters... they don't exist. Bad is good and good is bad and everything your parents try to tell you is a lie.
Mr. Disney would have NEVER done that and certainly NEVER would have approved. Fantasies, hopes, dreams, imaginations and the innocence of children was to be protected and encouraged at all costs.
The Butler (2013)
Forest Gump meets Forest Whitaker
I find it interesting this story (and I do mean STORY as facts, in this case, are rare) only touches on Presidents who are dead now and can't say different. Amazing.
Just another shot at throwing 'white guilt' in our faces as if this is the way the whole of America was, when it was the majority of Southerners from BOTH parties that treated blacks this way.
I grew up in Ohio in the 60's... my idols, on TV, were Julia in the late 60's (played by Diahann Carroll... a beautiful black woman) and then Christie Love early 70's (played by Teresa Graves... a beautiful black woman). I watched religiously and begged for a nurse's kit because I wanted to be just like Julia, I thought she was beautiful, smart and kind... my mother NEVER once told me she was black, frowned or tried to discourage me... I got a nurse's kit for my 6th Birthday. Our family is and always have been Republican.
The Republican Party was established and it's chief tenets were to abolish slavery and drive out the Mormons. Neo-History... or shall we say... those like Oprah want to keep telling it another way. Why do people keep buying this garbage??? Because slum load politicians (especially from Chicago) have done their level best to keep blacks ignorant by keeping them dependent on the 'blame whitey' mantra, rather than asking them to elevate themselves through hard work and education.
"The Butler"... is, yet, another example of shameless Historical Rewrites, inflicted on the masses to promote a Liberal/Democrat agenda and to bolster black anger and indignation while inflicting it on those that had nothing to do with perpetrating it and nothing to do with perpetuating it. By misleading the people (either on purpose or through ignorance) Oprah elevates the very people she and everyone else claims to detest... Racists.
All Mine to Give (1957)
Get out the Kleenex
The kids are the best actors, here. The kids are easy to relate to. You are bound to see shades of your own childhood in one or all of them.
This movie is heartwarming, heart-wrenching, thoughtful and hard not to like. It begs a person to search their heart. You will find yourself asking how strong mentally, morally and emotionally mature you could have been at the tender age of 12 or younger.
It will also make you appreciate how far we have come with our strides in Medicine. It should also give you a profound respect for those that went before that endured tougher times than we have or ever will see.
Think, "The Yearling" meets "The Little House on the Prairie".
Au hasard Balthazar (1966)
The Emperor's New Clothes
I don't care how 'Arty' they want to 'claim' this film is... it's not.
Quite frankly, I think those whom rate it so highly are all smoking the same dope. This film is so devoid of feeling, purpose, talent and sense (from ALL sides).
As for representing the 'Seven Deadly Sins'... the biggest sin this film commits, is thinking anyone cares to sit through such utter feigned 'high brow' & 'deep thought' garbage for more than a minute.
If you say "it's brilliant!!!", "A masterpiece!!!" and put it on a list of "Must see movies" or "Essentials" you are claiming the Emperor's clothes are made of the finest silks and satin. Only an idiot would call this deadpan, dead-faced, dead fish dive into desperation and deprivation to be 'entertainment' let alone 'art'.
It's NOT deep... it's dumb and, needlessly, cruel.
To demonstrate cruelty to an innocent is moving no matter how you film it. Bresson didn't 'move' you because of his 'brilliance', he angered you in the same way animal charities 'move' you to donate, by SHOWING you photos or scenes of beaten and abused animals. That is exploiting man's natural compassion for the weaker among us, not 'artfully' drawing it from you, but manipulating it from you.
If I show you a picture of an, obviously, abused animal and you 'feel' a strong sense of sorrow, anger, loneliness, compassion or even tears just by viewing it... is my photo an example of 'Profound Art' or just a photo of a harsh reality?
YOU may call it 'artful'... I call it 'awful'. This movie is a 90+ minute cheap shot and sucker punch to the gut I don't appreciate. And I am not quite sure he didn't actually abuse the donkey in the process. (there is no disclaimer) If I show you a 90 minute film of someone beating an animal... will you call that brilliantly moving and 'art' because it caused an emotional reaction in you? No... it's just raw cruelty. This whole movie is raw cruelty. That, my lost friends, is not 'art'.
He squelches the voice and emotion of his actors just as the voice of the donkey will never be heard. We too are kidnapped, gagged and bound... but not by intrigue... we are prisoners of our compassion for the donkey to keep watching. That is emotional blackmail not 'craft'... not compelling drama, but abuse.
If you are among those trying to go with the rest of the pretentious nuts and agree to it's 'beauty', you deserve the phony friends you reap in concert. I bet you claimed your first taste of caviar, Brie or drag of a cigarette was sheer heaven too.
For those whom still don't know it... Picasso was playing with people in his abstracts... to expose the pretense in those that 'claimed' to know art when they saw it, when he was shelling out crap (on purpose because he claimed, they would buy ANYTHING that had his name on it, no matter what it looked like... he was right), they shouted, "Genius!!!" (they still do).
It just goes to show, that there will always be people willing to eat feces, smile and recommend it to others if some famous chef told him it was fantastic and required an "acquired taste" or a "refined palate" to appreciate it.
To love and praise this film is no different. The Emperor IS naked as a J-bird, this film IS crap and that is all there is to it. Feel free to bloviate, eat it up and wax poetic among yourselves. This movie is strictly for the psychedelics crowd, the heavily sedated and the barbarous at heart.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, so if you behold it in such high esteem... go ahead and hold it... you can keep it. Go buy a late Picasso and tell your 'friends' what he was trying to 'say' as you PRETEND to KNOW. Puff on your hookah and tell abstract poems to each other in a bookstore basement. As you feel good and lofty about yourself because you think YOU were one of the few of the elite to be able to 'get' this movie's plot and message and the director's 'purpose and methods'... know this... it is simple to 'get'... I GET it... the question is... do we care to GET it in this way? is there value in it? For vacuous movie snobs and the curiously vicious... obviously. For the rest of us... NO. NO. NO!!!
The donkey knows what he is and would claim as much, given the chance, as for the jackasses who claim to know art... not so much.
I feel sorry for the donkey having been forced to be a part of this pathetic excuse for a movie(or even as a mental exercise), as he was the only endearing or engaging thing this film contained and that was strictly by God's design, not Bresson's.
In the end, I feel as abused by Bresson as the donkey himself.