Change Your Image
crispy_comments
Reviews
Pride and Prejudice (1980)
for curious completists
People make excuses for these old BBC miniseries from the '70s and '80s, as if it's inevitable for a low budget "stagey" dramatization to be plodding and dull. What about all those snappy comedies on the actual stage? What about movies like The Importance of Being Earnest (1952), that basically look like a filmed stage production, and yet manage to be entertaining anyway? It's actually possible to have characters talking in a room, without a lot of fancy sets or scenery changes or action scenes, and without boring your audience. You just need a witty script and charismatic actors. You would think adapting Austen would be no problem since her writing *is* witty, but for some reason, the movies based on her books rarely get it right.
Stick to P&P '95 for a well-acted, engaging and fairly faithful version of the story, or even the 1940 MGM film, which has a great cast and is true to Austen in spirit and humor, if not in every plot and period detail. I didn't enjoy P&P '80 at all. Aside from the slow pace and low production values - and those lame exposition-y inner monologues - the main problem is the cast (or the way the actors were directed to play their characters...not sure which.) This Elizabeth smirks too much and just isn't very charming. This Darcy is a block of wood - there's nothing going on behind the eyes to convey repressed emotions, or any sort of longing for Lizzie (as Colin Firth conveyed so well in P&P '95).
I found myself most unhappy with this adaptation's Mr. Bennett, who is so lacking in the sense of humor he should have, so incredibly harsh, angrily barking out his lines and making it hard to believe he has any sort of affection for his family, even his supposed favorite, Lizzie. The man is supposed to come across as initially likeable, but neglectful of his family/duties. However, this actor plays him like he's a stern authority figure. The whole point is that he *doesn't* exert himself as a parent or spouse, dismissing his daughters and wife as ridiculous, and being partly responsible for their bad behavior. I don't know how this actor was allowed to misinterpret the character so badly. Heck, I don't know why so many Austen adaptations are heavy and serious, when they should be light and comical. Other than my theory that many filmmakers are shooting for awards, and they're aware that comedies are often snubbed by critics.
Black Sash (2003)
I'll sass you back & lash out at Black Sash bashers!
Ten years after this show's brief run, here I am watching it for the first time. I enjoy(ed) many WB shows, but missed this one, and seeing it now certainly makes me nostalgic for the good old days before The WB became the vastly inferior CW of today. The WB shows had more heart. And they weren't quite as incessant with their product placement, and thus weren't as focused on the lives of the rich and vapid.
Black Sash is refreshing by comparison, since it deals with Troubled Teens from a less privileged economic bracket. I know nothing about martial arts and can't tell you how realistic the portrayal may be. But it was nice to see such a diverse cast, and 3 generations interacting instead of focusing solely on teens. (Whoa. An actual *elderly* person on TV! I'm talking about Master Li, of course.) I also appreciated the attempt to actually send young viewers positive messages. That's right, Black Sash is kinda heartwarming, with it's main character trying to reconnect with his 12 year old daughter (Ha! Good luck finding a *pre*-teen on a CW show! If they can't be shown having sex yet, The CW ain't interested in 'em, basically), and being a father figure of sorts to his students as well. Not just a martial arts instructor, Tom Chang is a mentor who goes above and beyond, taking in an abused teen, and helping them all out of various predicaments.
Of course that's partly 'cause we have to showcase the star, Russell Wong (and his students, to some degree) kicking butt at least once per episode. So they all regularly get into dangerous situations, which may seem like overkill within a mere 6 episodes, but hey, I can deal with this contrivance. At least the fight scenes depict some struggle and feeling of realism in that the kids don't defeat the Bad Guys *too* easily. Fans of the Canadian band, Spirit Of The West, keep your eyes peeled for lead singer, John Mann, as one of these thugs. Poor guy kinda looks the part and gets typecast. He was also a shady underworld figure on Stargate SG-1.
I wonder about the comments I've read, disparaging Black Sash for being more of the same typical teen angst/high school drama. Is it so common for teens to be framed for murder, or to have to deal with gangsters and thugs coming after them because of their shady parent's criminal dealings? I *hope* it's not a "typical teen experience" to be stalked by a potential rapist? (Nice job showing the girls fighting back and protecting each other, btw... nowadays they'd probably just fall in love with their stalker.) Well, despite these dramatic sounding plot lines, Black Sash is pretty down-to-earth and feel-good entertainment. I know many people today balk at anything "too preachy" and prefer soulless anti-heroes and serial killers, but I'm hoping folks get sick of that trend soon. Maybe return to shows with likable protagonists - decent people trying to make a difference? It's so rare today, it would actually be a "daring" and "edgy" choice, TV writers! :P Btw, those of you comparing Black Sash to truly preachy, nauseatingly narrow-minded and just plain badly written junk like 7th Heaven, need to broaden your TV horizons and gain some perspective. There's a difference between a teacher providing guidance but helping teens gain self-esteem and encouraging them to do what's right for them... vs. being a religious nut who won't tolerate other ways of doing things and looks down on/pressures kids to conform to your belief system. Also... good kind of message: if a guy stalks you, be creeped out, not charmed. Learn to defend yourself if attacked by would-be-rapists. Bad kind of message: Never have sex before marriage! No abortions allowed! Even if you're raped! I know which show I'd rather watch. Hint: the one that doesn't hate women.
Of course the show had it's flaws, like pacing issues and trying to juggle all those characters. Bryan never really got a backstory. Nick vanished, rather implausibly. Trip had nothing to do in the last few eps, becoming irrelevant after his story with his Dad wrapped up...which happened too quickly, really. A lot of the character development (and romances) happened too quickly. Is Allie shy or not? Inconsistent characterization, or a fast-tracked character growth arc? I guess the showrunners knew they had only a 6 episode order, so they crammed a lot in. I read that there were a couple other unaired pilots that were reworked due to last-minute character changes, and you can kinda see some remnants from those "earlier drafts", if you squint.
At least the last episode ends with a feeling of hope, despite some unresolved story lines. I was half-expecting a horrible cliffhanger with everyone's life in jeopardy. So many writers continue to believe cliffhangers will get their shows renewed, but then they get cancelled anyway and leave fans in traumatized limbo forever. Yet another thing that makes Black Sash feel like a breath of fresh air now, to jaded TV viewers like me. I can live with the ending. Still it's a pity this series was cancelled so early. Six measly episodes, but the writers and actors managed to make me care, and I enjoyed these 6 eps more than a bunch of shows I could name which have inexplicably lasted for years. Too bad the suits at The WB didn't really give Black Sash a chance, nurture it, and have a little more patience - despite Mr. Chang's lesson on that very subject in the finale. :P
Hollywood Heights (2012)
Hooray for Hollywood Heights!
I tuned in to see two childhood favorites, Meredith Salenger (The Journey of Natty Gann) and Megan Follows (Anne of Green Gables) acting on-screen together. And then I found myself pleasantly surprised by the show as a whole.
Hollywood Heights is current but pays homage to Hollywood's history too. There's a nice blend of pretty much every genre... family drama, witty banter like you'd find on Gilmore Girls or classic screwball comedies, romance, backstage musical/songwriter biopic/showbiz rise & fall stories, even crime drama and film noir elements near the end of the series. As a fan of classic movies, I got a kick out of picking up on certain references (to A Star Is Born and Gone With The Wind, among others), which were well-integrated and fun for those who get them, but not out-of-place and confusing for younger viewers.
I admit I've got songs from the show stuck in my head, and I can't stand most of today's popular music. It helps that it doesn't feel like the showrunners are aggressively promoting soundtracks they want to sell, and wallpapering every scene with songs that drown out the dialogue (unlike all those teen shows on The CW or whatever.) There's some interesting insight into the way the music industry works, and modern internet trends/fan reactions vs. the way rock & roll stardom used to be, and I think a lot of it rings true.
Plot aside, I've got to care about the characters to really get emotionally involved in a story. Hollywood Heights impressed me there too. Most of the acting is strong, and the characterization and continuity is better than I've seen on many recent (and more popular but overrated) shows. The actors and writers really know how to make you root for (or hiss and boo at) the characters and get invested in their story lines, which, again, isn't easy to find on current TV, in my experience.
I could go on about how satisfying the show is from a feminist perspective, with a rare emphasis on mother/daughter and female friendship scenes. I was glad they hired actresses based on talent and included a variety of body types other than the anorexic. And I think the show subtly delivers a good message promoting healthy romantic relationships between independent equals, which young girls probably need to see more examples of in their fiction these days.
I'd buy this on DVD, yes, all 80 episodes, as pricey as that may be. Personally, I'm fine with not getting a second season as this one wrapped up nicely. It's so refreshing to have closure in a TV series, instead of leaving us with unresolved cliffhangers. I felt like I was watching a really long movie, with a satisfying ending that rewarded the time & emotions invested in it. Definitely a rarity in TV. When 80 episodes fly by and never feel like a chore to watch, you know they're doing something right.
Bundle of Joy (1956)
more like a Bundle of Diaper Doodoo
Poor Debbie should've realized Eddie was a jerk and their marriage was doomed, when his ego demanded top billing ahead of her... in his very first movie. (And it's no surprise that Eddie's only other movie appearances were in Liz Taylor films, once they got together.) If this non-actor couldn't concede his then-wife was a bigger movie star and deserved to be billed before him, clearly the guy didn't respect or love her as much as he loved himself.
The only reason to see "Bundle Of Joy", is as a Debbie Reynolds fan and completist. She's pretty much always fun to watch. But, even though I like Debbie more than Ginger Rogers (who stars in the original movie), "Bachelor Mother" is vastly superior to this remake. The original is laugh-out-loud funny. David Niven is, needless to say, a much better actor and infinitely more charming than Eddie Fisher. I notice they cut some of Niven's best scenes, I assume because Fisher couldn't deliver the witty dialogue.
Even as a fan of musicals, there's not much point watching this. The songs are pretty forgettable. I don't mind musical remakes when you get quality numbers, such as in High Society, the musical version of The Philadelphia Story. Not the case here. I don't see anything very special about Eddie's singing. And that insufferable smirk on his face! His expression never changes.
I guess there are other reasons to watch this movie. Morbid curiosity to witness the lack of chemistry between Debbie and Eddie, and his total non-charisma. Or a need to watch a baby-centric storyline played by two people who were about to become parents (of Carrie) in real life. Behind-the-scenes film-buff stuff may provide some small entertainment. But certainly no joy.
Calm Yourself (1935)
Chaotic & cruel comedy agitates me. Title doesn't help.
Even a weaker B-movie like "Calm Yourself" is more entertaining to me than your average blockbuster of today. However, the humour is rather frantic and forced, as other reviewers have mentioned - plus that unfortunate blackface gag must bring the rating down.
Madge Evans deserved to be a bigger star, and deserved better scripts than this one. I enjoy Robert Young in anything, but he plays a slightly less likable character here than usual. Preston (Young) comes across as rather callous in switching from one fiancée to another, even taking into account that this is standard behavior in screwball comedies. However, I did enjoy the fact that he made romantic doodles about both women...you know, the kind we usually see adolescent girls scribbling in movies, writing their names in combination with the names of their crush-object.
My main beef is that Preston shows no qualms or regret about sabotaging the potential relationship between a father (Ralph Morgan) and daughter (Madge Evans), who don't know each other. Although initially working at the father's request (he's trying to keep his daughter away until he can muster the courage to tell his young second wife about the existence of a grown daughter - and thus, his real age), Preston goes a bit too far in deceiving both of them and badmouthing each one to the other...apparently for purely mercenary reasons. But of course it all works out in the end, and I'm definitely taking this silly movie too seriously! I should, ahem, calm myself.
My Man Godfrey (1957)
The Forgotten "My Man Godfrey"
Of course, the original My Man Godfrey from 1936, starring William Powell and Carole Lombard, is an absolute masterpiece, and never should've been remade. But I do like June Allyson and David Niven, so I had to see this 1957 version.
It completely lacks both the laugh-out-loud hilarity of the original, as well as the more serious social commentary resulting from being set during the Great Depression and dealing with "The Forgotten Man". Godfrey's backstory has been altered to one of hiding in fear of deportation, having arrived in America illegally, for rather contrived and convoluted reasons. I don't really understand why someone of his wealth and position couldn't just go through the proper channels. As far as I can tell, the character's not making some sort of statement, there's no real point to the story, and the whole thing seems devoid of drama.
What's left, but to focus on the love story here, although that doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the Powell/Lombard version. Still, the lack of a larger message does leave the remake more time to devote to the relationship between Godfrey and Irene, and some viewers might prefer that. (His somewhat paternalistic fondness of this prattling child - who is somehow also maternal and domestic! - feels very 1950s to me.) Whereas 1936 Godfrey was sort of swept away by whirling dervish Irene, against his will, 1957 Godfrey seems to be making a more conscious choice to be with her. He also seems more amused by her family, less stunned by their behavior... but then, they come across as only mildly eccentric in this version, despite a fair amount of re-used dialogue. Must be because the pacing is more sedate, and most of the actors are calm and subdued.
It's interesting that the first film is stronger in both the comedy and the drama... Perhaps you can't experience such highs, without addressing the lows? Basically, the remake is more bland, and more of a conventional romance. Lacking in substance, but it's pleasant and enjoyable enough, if you can forget the madcap brilliance of the original. David Niven and June Allyson are charming, as always. They deserved better than the thankless assignment of appearing in a destined-to-be-forgotten, watered-down remake of a classic film they must've known could never be surpassed.
Destiny (1944)
Dust be it's Destiny. And a defense of Deanna.
Is Cliff a sympathetic figure or a monster? A wronged man, looking for redemption and something to believe in? An idiotic weakling who lets himself be led astray? A calculating criminal mastermind plotting the murder of innocent people who have only been kind to him? These questions might intrigue you, but don't be fooled. These questions come up because of bad writing, that's all. It's no wonder the protagonist is written inconsistently (not even taking into account the scene where it turns out he's dreaming) with new scenes being shot around footage cut from another movie - as other reviews have explained - "Destiny" has an interesting history - more interesting than the story the movie actually tells, about a cynical ex-con, constantly being duped and drawn into crimes. The dumb schmuck even drives a known robber to a bank, and waits for him to finish what he foolishly believes is an innocent transaction - this after the guy already got him into trouble with the law and sent to jail. Naturally he's just using Cliff again, as a getaway. Hard to have sympathy for someone so stupid. The opening police chase reminds me of an Ed Wood movie. It certainly looks low-budget. Most of the actors are Ed Wood-calibre as well. Alan Curtis seems to be attempting a Chester Morris impression, which only makes me want to re-watch some of Chester's great gangster movies.
I suspect the writer or director of "Destiny" was influenced by Disney's "Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs". I'm thinking of the best sequence in "Destiny", wherein Cliff (after killing her father with a hunting rifle) chases Jane, and her apparent power of nature causes the trees to aid her by entangling him and delaying his pursuit. This is reminiscent of Snow White running in panic through the forest after the Huntsman tries to kill her, and she imagines that the trees come alive to attack and thwart her escape. The villain (Cliff) even falls into deadly water during a raging storm, similar to the demise of the Wicked Queen from "Snow White". Jane is quite like Snow White, both being incredibly innocent and good. Birds even land on Jane's shoulder. And she sings operatic arias while she works!
I'd like to respond to a few things in Tom Barrister's IMDb review. Although I agree with him that Gloria Jean gives a fine performance (making the best of a super-saccharine role as a cheerful blind girl who communes with nature and prays a lot) and the tacked on footage brings down the quality of the film, I question his conclusion that Deanna Durbin is responsible. According to his review, "Years later, it was stated that an unnamed major Universal stockholder wanted Gloria's sequence cut from Flesh and Fantasy" - and I ask, it was stated by *whom*? He also claims Deanna "was jealous of anybody else who cut into her fame." This seems like a baseless generalization. What are his sources? How on earth can he possibly know this about Deanna? Especially considering how reclusive she's been since retiring, rarely giving interviews. I respect her desire for privacy, so refreshing in this age of obsession with celebrity. I don't see how anyone can come to decisive conclusions about her character or state of mind, when Deanna's such a mysterious figure. However, I'd conclude that she cares little about fame, since she willingly left it behind.
I admit, as a fan of Deanna's talent and on-screen charm, I don't want to believe her capable of viciously sabotaging anyone's career. But I also have a hard time believing she could, even if she wanted to. One thing that *is* well-documented about Deanna Durbin, is her frustration with Universal typecasting and giving her poor-quality (in her opinion) scripts. That's why she retired so early, while still a major box-office attraction. The one interview she's done since then, discusses her desire for script approval, which she couldn't get, despite making tons of money for Universal. But this was a common complaint in those days when the studios pretty much owned the stars under contract. Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, Tyrone Power, etc, bemoaned the movies they were forced to do. Even Oscar noms/wins were no guarantee an actor would receive better material next time. So I find it improbable, this accusation that Deanna Durbin had the power to dictate the quality of Gloria Jean's scripts, when she was powerless over her own, and quit for that very reason. This alleged jealousy of anyone she might perceive as a threat to her fame, seems unlikely coming from someone who chose to give up the spotlight while still in her prime, and who gives no indication that she wants to change her current obscure status. From what I can tell, Deanna values integrity, privacy and her family, over the pursuit of fame.
Why was Gloria Jean's segment cut from "Flesh & Fantasy"? My personal theory is that preview audiences or studio execs found it too bleak & frightening as it originally was. What with the attempted sexual assault and murderous chase of a sweet innocent blind girl, the murder of her father, and a total lack of redemption for the criminal. I can see how it might be an awkward segue into the happier segment that was to follow. Although Edward G. Robinson's segment in "F&F" also deals with murder, the tone is more black comedy, and it's just not as upsetting as watching poor Gloria's character terrorized in "Destiny". In the classic era, many movies with downbeat endings were re-shot due to audience reaction. It seems plausible that altering it in order to soften Cliff's character, make the worst of his actions only a dream, and contrive a happy ending, required a full-length film. It's too bad they didn't spend more time or money on the new footage, but Universal could be cheap. Deliberate sabotage or incompetence/carelessness on the studio's part? Guess we'll never know for sure.
High Society (1956)
On personalities...unique, bland, or annoying. Guess which is which.
Maybe it's not fair, but I dismiss Grace Kelly as just a pretty face (who won an Oscar because she was willing to go "ugly" once, ie: wear no makeup - c'mon, Bing played the really tough part in The Country Girl). She doesn't seem to have a strong personality on-screen, and I don't think much of her acting. It doesn't help to watch The Philadelphia Story and High Society in quick succession, because it's quite obvious that Grace studied Katharine Hepburn's performance and is copying her blatantly. I guess mimicry takes some skill, but I'd rather see a different actress do her own interpretation, instead of a pointless imitation. Even if it might be intimidating, especially since Katharine originated the role on the stage as well. Heck, it was pretty much written for Hepburn, tailored to suit her and help her career at a time she was considered "Box-Office Poison". It's not that I think Kate's an untouchable goddess (like her character ;)) - in fact, Hepburn's mannerisms can get on my nerves. But at least she had her own style. As far as I can tell, Grace Kelly...didn't.
Remakes usually stink, but I'm not completely in love with the original anyway (see my IMDb review). High Society is worth seeing for Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, and the addition of some great songs. Bing is just as charming as Cary Grant was in the role (but in his *own* way!), however, Frank Sinatra is a poor replacement for Jimmy Stewart. Although I like Sinatra in his earlier MGM musicals, when he had a shy, awkward, innocent persona (yes, really), by this point Frank was becoming cocky, and much less likable as a misogynistic ladies man than he was when he played guys who were nervous around women. Poor Celeste Holm, such a smart, witty presence and always enjoyable to watch, gets to pine over unappreciative Frank, in both this movie and The Tender Trap. She really deserves better.
My favorite bit in High Society is the musical number "Well, Did You Evah?", where we get to see Bing and Frank try to upstage each other. Well, Frank tries. Bing doesn't even *have* to try - that's the beauty of it. With his laidback, natural charm, he just steals the scene effortlessly. Frank hams it up, playing "drunk" in an over-the-top way. Meanwhile, Bing, for the most part, just sits there, delivering some great one-liners (the way he says "Don't hurt yourself" just cracks me up), as he watches Frank make a fool of himself. And no matter what Sinatra does, your eyes follow Crosby. Even when he's just sitting there. I always marvel over that. He is cool. He is charismatic. He is Bing Crosby! There's nobody like him.
The Amanda Show (1999)
Moody's Point - wrong mood & misses the point
Although I've come to appreciate Amanda Bynes' talent and general likability in the movies She's The Man and Hairspray, I dismissed The Amanda Show as way too broadly acted and juvenile in it's humour, much like Lizzie McGuire, That's So Raven, and all those other tween-girl shows which I've channel surfed quickly away from.
Recently I came across positive comments about one recurring segment called Moody's Point, which sounded interesting - intended as a spoof of teen soaps like Dawson's Creek. That actually has the potential to be funny (although I don't dislike the Creek). So I thought I'd give The Amanda Show another chance. Luckily all of Moody's Point can be found on youtube.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Like many so-called spoofs, Moody's Point fails to address (and mock) the actual conventions of the genre or specific show/whatever it's supposed to be mocking. Instead of being a clever satire, the writers rely on easy gross-out gags and slapstick. They don't even bother to recreate famous moments from Dawson's Creek and put their own (hopefully humorous) spin on them. With the exception of the opening credit sequence. It seems clear to me that the writers/producers aren't very familiar with Dawson's Creek, and probably never watched an episode all the way through. I guess they never got past those opening credits.
The "characters" on Moody's Point are ciphers, not clearly defined or recognizable archetypes. Meanwhile, the storyline... emergency surgeries/heart transplants, babies switched at birth/mysterious parentage ... all of these things are staples of daytime soaps for housewives. Not primetime teen dramas. With all the silly hospital hijinks and medical mix-ups on Moody's Point, I figure The Amanda Showrunners were inspired more by that Muppet Show sketch "Veterinarian's Hospital" (no doubt a staple of their childhood), moreso than Dawson's Creek or any other teen soaps.
In any case, The Muppet Show was much funnier, Moody's Point was a waste of a good idea, and I still don't like The Amanda Show. Oh, she deserves her own show, but with better writers.... and better supporting actors. The rest of the Moody's Point cast was horrible. Amanda's the only one who realized that she should play her character earnestly and seriously, in order to best capture that teen angst mood. The other actors were so over-the-top with their exaggerated screaming and crying, they belonged in a spoof of I Love Lucy instead. (I realize that Amanda's a fan of Lucille Ball, but, whatever, I hate Lucy.) At least Amanda seems to understand that you don't need to bleat and bray and generally make an ass of yourself in order to be funny. The best comedians are equally good at drama/tragedy and can convey pathos. Bill Murray, for instance, or Charlie Chaplin. And (while I'm not saying she's the next Chaplin!) I thought I saw a bit of that in Amanda's performance, especially the scenes involving meeting her birth parents/saying goodbye to her old life. Glad Amanda Bynes said goodbye to this show, and hope she keeps moving on to bigger and better things.
Darkman (1990)
Darker Woman ... or Why Can't I Learn To Stop Worrying And Love Misogyny?
Well, I couldn't even finish this movie, which is very unusual for me since I normally *have* to know how a story ends. I only got as far as the funeral and following hospital scene where Liam Neeson's character is an unidentified patient. Some will say that means I'm not qualified to review the film. But I'm not claiming to be a professional critic - I'm just a viewer who's entitled to stop watching a movie in disgust, and give my reasons why, because it feels good to vent.
Basically this movie's too sadistically violent and misogynistic for my liking. The filmmakers seem to have a great love of brutality, and great contempt for women. Sometimes the two go hand in...fist... as in the opening scene when a gangster cracks a joke about breaking a woman's leg. Speaking of that opening, with two gangs battling for dominance - does it have anything to do with the plot? Is it truly necessary in order to establish the gang leader's ruthless character? I think not. The next time the gang appears in the film, the same point is made, while moving the story along.
The attack on Liam, in his lab, also seemed unnecessarily vicious. The thugs got what they came for, so why did they linger to cause extreme pain? It's not like the document had been stolen from them, and they were motivated by revenge or something. So, why? Sure some people are just sadists who love to torture others, but it still seemed gratuitous on the writer/director's part. (And how did the gang even know who had the document when Liam didn't know, himself? No explanation. Let's just get to the extreme violence; never mind if the script makes sense.)
Even worse, to me, was the message Sam Raimi seemed to be sending about women. I don't know if it got better later (doubt it - there probably aren't any other significant female characters in the film), but the first two women we encounter are demonized. Although one is more sympathetic, on the surface, as a "love interest" who can be "redeemed" since she hasn't become totally "unwomanly" yet.
Liam's girlfriend's carelessness is indirectly to blame for his being viciously attacked in his lab. The implication being that she should've thought more of him/her romantic relationship instead of focusing on her career...emphasized by the fact that she resisted her lover's attempts to delay her from going to work (and a man's need for nookie should always come first, right?) *and* dared to ask for time to think of his marriage proposal instead of jumping at the chance. Uppity bitches! Thinking they can have careers and valuing their independence! Well, we'll show her. She'll regret that decision when she thinks her boyfriend is dead! Having her show up to witness the apparent death, felt like a cruel "punishment".
The second, more obviously "Evil" Woman, is the doctor in charge of Liam's case, after his burned, unrecognizable body is brought to a hospital. We see her taking interns on a tour and treating Liam's character callously, like a speciman she's exhibiting, smugly bragging about her treatment of him, and insensitively talking about him like he can't hear her. Including making a tasteless joke about his condition. This extremely unprofessional and cartoonishly nasty portrayal of a doctor, was really the last straw for me. The writers chose to make her a female physician, and then chose to ram home the Heartless Career Woman cliché for the second time in this movie.
This hateful characterization might be an unconscious bias against professional women. Still, it sickened me. Sexism and misogyny are sadly widespread in movies, but when it's *that* blatant, I can't concentrate on anything else the story might be trying to tell me, or derive enjoyment from other aspects of the movie. I don't want to stay in that world another minute. Might as well just live in our real world and not watch movies at all.
(And this Raimi guy was hired to adapt the relatively light-hearted and kid-friendly Spider-Man comics for the big screen? Wow. Hollywood is weird.)
The Amityville Horror (1979)
SHAMityville Snorer
So this haunted house gives people colds and swipes money from their pockets like a mischievous prankster? Oooh, spooky! I liked Amityville 3 better. At least I felt sorry for some of those characters. And Lori Loughlin was great. Why was the first Amityville a bigger hit? Because of the lie that it was based on a true story. Without that thought to creep you out, this is a pretty incompetent horror movie. I'm not one who craves blood and gore, and I appreciate more subtle, slow-building movies like The Haunting (directed by Robert Wise). But The Amityville Horror is not in that league at all. The characterization is non-existent, and the pacing... my god, the pacing. It's not a good sign when even the edited-for-TV version of this movie feels *way* too long. Was the extra time devoted to making us care about the characters? Nope. I kinda hoped they'd die, particularly the whiny kids. Especially the little girl who seemed more creepy to me than any ghostly presence that may have been haunting the house.
The evidence: She calmly leaves her babysitter locked in a closet and is totally immune to her hysterical screams. Oh sure, her ghost pal wouldn't *let* her open the door. But I didn't see her trying to change ghostie's mind, or feeling remorseful afterwards (or even reacting normally with fear/disgust when babysitter comes flying at her with bloody fists). Also, Little Miss Innocent seems smugly satisfied at the thought of her dad being in danger. And *then* the little brat sends him back into the house for the freakin' dog. I'm supposed to believe this demon-child who hasn't cared about anybody else, cares about the dog? Not only that, when they're all escaping at the end, she's got a choke-hold on Margot Kidder's neck, slowing her down, while her brothers slip and slide down the bloody stairs by themselves. So why does the little girl need to be carried, huh? Evil! Oh, almost forgot: right after bugging his sister by dangling a fake spider through a window, who should happen to get his hand smooshed in that window? Coincidence? Ha!
Ahem. Anyway, I couldn't root for the parents either. James Brolin's possessed...by the Spirit Of Wooden Acting (An affinity for wood may explain the constant fireplace-gazing and axe-chopping). Margot Kidder takes forever to actually try to *do* something. Like, the obvious things a horror movie character should know to do right away: talk to a priest and do some research about the real-life murder that took place in your house. Duh! She waits 'til the last minute.
The best thing I can say about this movie is that the tagline is very appropriate, because you too will find yourself screaming at the stupid characters to just Get Out Of The House already. Much is left unexplained, and I'm pretty sure it's a result of bad filmmaking, as opposed to scenes cut for time in the TV version. Or, y'know, trying to build mystery/create suspense.
Why does James Brolin's co-worker's wife/girlfriend suddenly switch from "I can't go in the house...bad feeling! I'll just shiver in the car, okay?" to "Ooh, let *me* lead the Scooby Gang down to the basement, which my psychic sense tells me is the source of all evil. Whee, this is exciting!" Why does the dog keep digging away, with bloody paws, to uncover the Tunnel To Hell, and then as soon as it's uncovered...what? He whimpers and hides? Why'd you wanna get in then, boy? Huh, boy? Come to think of it, I'm not a dog-owner, but I hear they can be indecisive about going outside for a walk/to do their business...pawing at the door and then changing their minds after it's opened. So I guess the dog behaves most realistically of all, and I'm glad he survived.
Why does the younger priest not try to help Margot Kidder when she's looking for the older priest who's a friend of hers? I mean, the guy *knows* Rod Steiger wanted to warn Margot's family about the house, and was supernaturally foiled in his attempts to reach them. So, even if he doesn't want to disclose Rod's location, why not pass the message on, since she's so conveniently shown up? Not that she shouldn't be able to figure out that they should move out of the house, without being told by a priest, but still. Why does the cop want to talk to the priest, and then just give up? Why does the cop station himself outside the house and then just disappear? Why the pointless scenes that go nowhere? Why such incompetent filmmaking?!
The movie fails to scare, but I fear these questions will haunt me and keep me up at night. Not really.
Curly Sue (1991)
Cue to be Surly?
Well, I've finally seen Curly Sue, the notorious flop widely considered The Worst John Hughes movie. I was curious, but kind of dreading it. I'm not really a fan of Cute Moppet movies and find most child actors irritating.
The good news is, I found Alisan Porter to be a much more natural child actress than, for instance, Shirley Temple or the girl who played Annie. Alisan was cute without being obnoxiously cutesy. Most of the time she comes across as a Real Kid instead of one who's been coached too much and never had a normal childhood (which often results in creepy and/or annoying mannerisms - most child actors just can't "act natural".) Except for her singing, which has that somewhat cheesy Broadway style and sounds overly trained. (The way her singing was shoe-horned into the script, was pretty contrived.) Still, it's a pity her career didn't take off after this performance... although she might be better off *not* having become a big star, when you consider the messed-up lives most child stars lead.
As for the movie as a whole... I can understand why it flopped. Sentimental family films are not very popular anymore. I know it's been said by others, but Curly Sue really is an old-fashioned movie that feels like it should be set during the Great Depression (like Annie and all those Shirley Temple movies were). The fact that it's set in modern times makes it harder for today's audience to accept. Many movies from the 1930s were a mixture of the gritty side of life with down-on-their-luck characters (Homeless drifters! Plucky orphans!) in poverty-type situations, and fairytale wish-fulfillment. Audiences needed that at the time when so many were down-on-their-luck themselves. (Having a rich and poor person fall in love despite class differences, was another common element in films of the Depression, however unlikely this may seem now.) When Curly Sue was released, this sort of escapist fantasy didn't seem relevant to most viewers, I guess.
I enjoy many movies from the 1930s/40s and I love Frank Capra... as did John Hughes, I hear. Capra's idealism is not considered "cool" today either, unfortunately. I don't mean to say that Curly Sue is in the same league as Capra's classics. Jim Belushi is no Jimmy Stewart. (Or Bill Murray, although he may be trying to do an impression of him since I kept picturing Bill in the role - interesting to read on IMDb that Murray was offered the part first!) Belushi's character doesn't ultimately accomplish great things, or even attempt to fight the system like most Frank Capra heroes. His lifestyle as a con artist could be seen as rebellion against society, but the writing lacks depth. We don't understand why he'd choose to avoid gainful employment, and even resort to injuring himself in order to con a free meal out of someone. Not when he displays skills, such as piano-playing. It's not very plausible, especially since the movie does *not* take place during the Great Depression when unemployment was not a choice, but an inescapable fact.
In it's depiction of women, this movie also reminds me of many post-WWII movies Hollywood made in an attempt to send women back to the home so they wouldn't "take jobs away from" the men who had returned after the war. Kelly Lynch's character is a hard-hearted career-woman who instantly melts upon meeting this child, and ends up giving up her job in favour of motherhood and marriage. She is not so much depicted as conflicted over the moral problems inherent in being a lawyer, specifically, as she is portrayed as unfulfilled and "unnatural" until she becomes more "womanly". There is even a subplot where this lawyer counsels a client who is half-heartedly seeking a divorce, and switches gears from advising her to bleed her cheating husband dry, to supporting the woman's inexplicable desire to stay with the man who doesn't love her and in fact, wants to get rid of her. This reminded me of movies from the 1940s, such as The Women, with their less-than-empowered messages. At least the Hays Code can excuse those films, but in this day and age...not so much.
I can't argue with people who dislike Curly Sue for being unrealistic, or sentimental/sappy/corny. Personally I prefer uplifting movies with happy endings and I think more films should be made that the whole family can watch together. However, I don't love Curly Sue - maybe because I've seen it's familiar elements done in many other movies, and done better. Much of the criticism I've seen, I agree with. The pacing *is* slow. The plot *is* predictable. The slapstick is too silly and feels out of place. But it's not as bad as I'd expected, based on it's reputation. The acting is decent. Nice music. You get to see Viveka Davis, the charming actress from Student Exchange! (Wish her part was larger.) There are far worse films...many of which have a higher rating on IMDb. Still, I can't rate it higher than a 4, knocking off some points for the flaws mentioned above, and because it's merely average compared to others of it's type... including other John Hughes films, which I've found more heartwarming and humorous than Curly Sue. (But it's not The Worst John Hughes Movie either - it's better than Weird Science!) Don't let my rating discourage you, if you're also curious, as a John Hughes fan, or looking for feel-good family films.
Romance on the High Seas (1948)
Can we put Doris Day's films in a box and throw THEM in the deep blue sea?
So this film was originally offered to Judy Garland and Betty Hutton? Although the script is certainly beneath them, I would've much preferred to see either of these actresses in Doris Day's place, as I find Day's perky/cutesy mannerisms to be cartoonish and irritating. Her pout annoys me. Her big toothy grin annoys me. Ditto the bug-eyed stare. Even the way she walks, with these mincing little bird-like baby steps... bugs me. Her voice is alright, but nothing special, certainly no match for Garland or Hutton, or a dozen other singers I could name. I guess I'll never understand Doris Day's popularity.
Anyway, "Romance On The High Seas" has a tired mistaken-identity plot, with none of the charm you'll find in other movies that use this plot device (Astaire/Rogers films, for instance). The story just plods along predictably. And the trying-to-be-zany-madcap finale, with all the characters' paths almost crossing as they just miss running into each other in elevators and hotel rooms...well, it's a bore. Hilarity does NOT ensue at watching The Husband enter the same room over and over, finding a different person in his wife's bed each time (um, not *with* the wife though, after all this was still 1948 - although there is some risqué humour that seems to be a precursor to Day's I'm-so-wholesome-but-tee-hee-maybe-I'll-be-corrupted 60's sex comedies). The ending is rushed and the deceptions aren't really explained to the appropriate parties, but the obvious couples end up in eachothers arms anyway. Ho hum.
Oddly, Jack Carson actually plays the Desirable Romantic Lead in this film, which leaves Oscar Levant to play the wisecrackin' shmuck who doesn't get the girl. Levant's dry line delivery is the best thing about this movie - I'm *convinced* he improvised his own lines because they seem so much more clever than the rest of the dialogue. Or maybe it's all in the delivery. It's also nice to see S.Z. Sakall and Eric Blore, briefly, although their comic bits fall flat.
Nothing else to recommend here - I don't even remember the songs, despite the fact that some were repeated. "Put 'em in a Box, Tie 'em with a Ribbon, and Throw 'em in the Deep Blue Sea" was the highlight, if I have to choose. Too bad Janis Paige didn't sing any of them, just to mix things up & give us a break from Doris (whose songs were sometimes only a few minutes apart!) Paige *could* sing, contrary to the claims made by her hubby in the film. Remember that awesome "Stereophonic Sound" number from "Silk Stockings"? Some of that kind of energetic belting would've been very welcome here and provided nice contrast to Day's ballads. Oh well.
I was actually surprised how little we saw of Janis Paige in general, since she had top billing and all. Guess the studio was already grooming Doris for stardom and wouldn't let another actress share the spotlight. Personally I find Janis more likable, a better comedienne and, incidentally much prettier than Doris Day. But talent and merit have nothing to do with success...sadly, it really is all about who you know. Who knew Jack Carson had so much pull back then? But he was in Day's corner (to quote her, they were "going together"), and apparently that did the trick.
By the way, I notice Janis Paige's IMDb bio calls her a "joyous scene-stealer", and I must agree! She totally upstages Doris with her supporting role in the film "Please Don't Eat The Daisies". I wanted David Niven to dump Doris and go for her. Ah well. That movie was much better written than this one, (and Niven far more charming than Carson), but you still have to watch Doris bird-walk across the screen. Is it worth it? You decide.
Dirty Sexy Money (2007)
Don't get invested. There's a reason the show isn't called Quality Storytelling & Consistent Characterization By People Who Value More Than Just Making Money.
...I mean, besides the fact that it wouldn't be a short, snappy, catchy title. ;)
Sleazy soap opera shenanigans? Reality show spoof? Serious murder mystery? Examination of the abuse of power and the tempting/corruption of innocents? Satirical jab at the rich & crazy and our famewhore culture? Sympathetic look at "poor" dysfunctional family? Envy the wealthy and ogle at the opulence! No, pity the rich their shallow, empty lives! What...the...hell.
This show was all over the place. The tone, and apparent intent kept changing from episode to episode, depending on whoever was writing or directing that week, I guess. Looking at the list of credits (so many producers) it's easy to conclude that there were too many cooks in the kitchen...too many people who wanted a piece of the pie (mmm, now I'm hungry). Too many people behind the scenes who did not share a unified vision of what Dirty Sexy Money should be. Television, or any other kind of writing, by committee, sucks. Greedy, untalented hacks who attach themselves to a show they think will be a hit, also suck.
They hired some damn fine actors for this thing (which is why I tuned in). Too bad TPTB didn't really know what to do with them, wasting their talent, and our time. I didn't even bother with Season 2, which I read was even more ridiculous. There's no way this incoherent mess could've ended to anyone's satisfaction. Just be glad it ended, freeing the cast for better work.
Update: Nov. 15, 2010 - To those who find my honest assessment not "useful", oh well, at least the STAR of the show agrees with me!
ausiellofiles.ew.com /2010/01/10/ peter-krause-slams-dirty-sexy-money
(IMDB won't let me post the url, some rule about "long words" ...so you'll have to remove the spaces I was forced to insert)
Jupiter's Darling (1955)
The Fall Of The MGM Empire
Only for fans of the stars or MGM Musicals completists, like me. I've gotta collect them all! Of course this one was made during the decline, as Dore Schary took over the studio and he was *not* a fan of musicals. So, the songs are weak and there's more emphasis on spectacle & action - mixed in with comedy & romance. But the mixture doesn't blend very well. Each genre/character is underdeveloped and unsatisfying. For instance, if you enjoy action/war movies, you may be disappointed with a few chases, brief hand to hand combat...no epic battle, unless you count a little flame-throwing and battering at Rome's gates. Sorry, no bloodshed! (And I know you were expecting it from a movie with "Darling" in the title.)
Marge & Gower Champion are kind of wasted. They have one major number where they parade around with trained elephants. It's lame. I mean, they mostly hop around on one foot (yes, the elephants too) and the Champions are definitely limited by their dancing partners. Not their best choreography. Corny bits like mimicking an elephant's trunk, etc.
Esther Williams has one memorable underwater ballet with some statues that come to life, but other than that, her swimming abilities are used in more plot-driven ways than usual. Most unsettling is an extended chase sequence where soldiers chase her off a cliff and swim after her, trying to kill her...with bows and arrows...underwater! Is that even possible? It's *definitely* impossible to hold your breath for that long. (Something we don't normally question when Esther's underwater sequences are more lighthearted.) Why combine an air of "realistic" menace with such a fantastical premise? Let our fantasy be...fun! It was actually disturbing to see Esther menaced this way, in her "natural" habitat. She should always be grinning that big toothy grin at the camera and frolicking in the water happily. Don't mess with the natural laws of Esther Williams movie physics!
Howard Keel plays his usual charming brute, but maybe a bit too brutal this time, since he's a conquering warrior. Uncomfortable watching him manhandle Esther Williams, hold a knife to her throat, etc. Aaah, love! Marge & Gower also have this slave/master subplot that's pretty offensive. I suppose it's some consolation that she refuses to "be" an elephant...like all the "other" elephants he has trained to *obey* him. Uhh, love?
Not much fun to see George Sanders play an ineffectual mama's boy who can't get the girl. He can be suave and charismatic, but not here. I mean, he does what he's meant to...I just don't enjoy seeing him play a buffoonish sort. Would've been better if he was presented as a charmer with wit and intellect to rival Howard Keel's more robust, earthy qualities. A different, but equally attractive choice, to make Esther's decision less obvious. (But I'm not spoiling anything here by revealing Esther & Howard end up together - c'mon, they're the leads, and we know how these movies work!) Sure, Sanders' speech-making ability is acknowledged, but also ridiculed - and Esther doesn't bother to show up for the speech, so we get the message that Sanders is boring... dangit, some women *like* smart, articulate men! They could've created another supporting character who falls for Sanders, proving him a valid love interest who's just not right for *Esther*, since she and Howard are more physical/less intellectual types. Oh well.
Wow, I don't remember how any of the songs go. They really *are* forgettable. So, it's easy to see why this movie failed to please the Box-office Gods and led to the fall of the Great MGM Empire! I'd buy it on DVD anyway, especially if that outtake musical number from the Laserdisc (mentioned by a previous reviewer) is included. Curious to see Marge & Gower's deleted dance...it's got to be better than the Elephant Walk Of Shame.
And One Was Beautiful (1940)
And Once Movies Were Beautiful In Their Simplicity
Apparently a B movie ...B must stand for Better acting and a Better message than we get in big budget "A" pictures today. Modern-day movies aimed at young women, surely aren't designed to encourage depth of character over shallow self-serving behavior... or increase the self-esteem of young girls who don't conform to "feminine" standards. (After all, criticizing the fake and flashy, like this movie does, ain't gonna help sell more products that depend on girls *not* being satisfied with their natural attributes or inner beauty.)
Laraine Day is lovable as a mechanically inclined tomboy who "bounds" into rooms and confesses to an inability to flirt. She bonds with Robert Cummings due to similar interests, a shared sense of humour, and her honesty, loyalty and good friendship, which he gradually comes to value over the superficial "charms" of her selfish glamour-girl sister (who only brings out his own selfish, reckless playboy tendencies).
Although Laraine is outwardly beautiful as well, it's refreshing to see inner beauty valued more, and the depiction of true friendship leading to the most fulfilling romantic relationship. I wish young girls (and guys) were getting this kind of down-to-earth message today.
Maybe if Hollywood returns to making "B" movies again, with modest budgets, and tries to be content with modest profits... what am I saying? Sacrificing the blockbuster mentality to create something sincere on a smaller-scale, would be like expecting a guy to give up the shallow sexpot for a sweet girl who really cares about him. That's crazy talk.
Please, somebody invent a time machine already! I belong in 1940.
I'd rate this movie higher, but the ending is a bit too abrupt, and perhaps lacked sufficient indication of Robert Cummings' change of heart. (I like the fact that B movies are short & snappy, not bloated & self-indulgent, but this one might've needed more than 70 minutes.) Also found it somewhat unrealistic that a widow and young children would be so unaffected by a sudden death in their family...or be so forgiving of the one who caused it. I mean, I guess it's *nice*, but a little more grieving or bitterness would've been only natural. Maybe a deliberate choice to make this family act lighthearted about their loss, to lessen the impact of the tragedy and make sure *we* forgive those involved in the death - since it's just a plot device anyway, not the real point of the film. Still strange though.
Men Are Such Fools (1938)
Silly Women! Ambition is for Men! (or How To Succeed In Business Though You're A Fool...hint: Marry A Smart Woman...BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!)
The opening credits of this movie really had me fooled. So many names that led me to expect delightful entertainment. OK, Wayne Morris is obnoxious with his immature, boisterous, steamroll-over-everyone-with-no-regard-for-their-feelings, routine. But this movie's also got: Priscilla Lane, who's always charming. Penny Singleton, very funny but sadly underused apart from the Blondie series. Hugh Herbert, that giggly goofball. Oh yeah, Humphrey Bogart's in it too. Plus, the script is based on a story by Faith Baldwin, and I've enjoyed other movies based on her work.
So I was all set to enjoy this one, until I realized early on that it was gonna be one of those movies where the Ambitious Career Gal is taught to stop fighting her True Womanly Nature, which of course means she lets an aggressive doofus wear her down 'til she agrees to marry him, then sublimates and channels her ambitions through him, to help him get off his lazy butt and make something of himself. 'Cause women should stand by (and behind) their man and use their intelligence and talents to help *him* succeed. Be content in your supportive role and never seek glory or take credit. Also, be a mother to your infantile husband. Sounds fun, right? Nice moments of truth where she expresses her boredom with suburbia, the cozy/stifling home, and simple-minded neighbours inane converstions she must put up with. She's wasted there. Her brains and vitality require big-city opportunities and more stimulating company. After he squanders an opportunity she's arranged for him, she leaves him, supposedly to make him take *his* career more seriously and win her back. What then? He'll have more drive, and make her "proud", but she'll still be bored hanging around the house waiting for him to return from work. (And can't even help him openly because his ego must be preserved!) Wouldn't envy and frustration set in? Living vicariously through somebody else is never a good idea. I did like that she wasn't portrayed as a Greedy Wench, pursuing wealth. They were comfortable. Which was part of the problem because she didn't want to be comfortable or complacent. She was bursting with ideas, ambitious to DO something, to create, invent, give life purpose and meaning. And then - inexplicable, implausible "love".
Probably the most disturbing thing about Men Are Such Fools, is the way Wayne Morris "woos" Priscilla Lane. Basically he's abusive but we're supposed to find his persistence cute. Pursuing the poor woman no matter how often she says no (girls never really mean "no", they just wanna be chased!) and acting like a petulant child whenever she pays attention to something other than him. But my favorite example of his touching devotion? Maybe the part where he risks her life driving like a maniac and ignores her pleas to slow down. She'll have to agree to marry him first! Tee-hee! Followed by the scare-tactic of stopping the car on the train tracks, just as a train's coming. But don't worry, he knows the train will stop before it hits them. (He didn't know another would come along from the opposite direction and almost kill them for really-real, but it's still funny right?) If the silly stubborn female would just know what's good for her and do as he says, he wouldn't have to go to these lengths! He finally wears her down in this hilarious, heartwarming scene: They're at a pool party and he dunks her *repeatedly* underwater until she agrees to marry him. Any possible humour you might find in this situation is undermined by the fact that he's yanking her roughly by the HAIR and barely giving her time to breathe between dunks. While the other partygoers stand around laughing. Nobody seems to think this might be a tad dangerous or, um, PSYCHOTIC. It's truly disturbing to witness. Trust me, the level of brutality in this scene goes WAY beyond "playful" pool hijinks.
After literally making it impossible for her to breathe, he takes her breath away some more, by forcing a kiss. Naturally, she's starry-eyed and ready to set a wedding date! So we get a nice juxtaposition of sex & violence with that wonderful message that women are slaves to their hormones AND enjoy being roughed up - This is the best way to make a woman obey, er, I mean, show a woman you love her. Yes, women stay with abusive men and believe their possessiveness/controlling behaviour/violence = love. Gotta blame movies like this one, for helping to brainwash both men and women into thinking these kinds of relationships are, not only normal, but *ideal*. I just love being confronted with disturbing, depressing issues in romantic comedies!
It's bizarre how this couple alternates between excessive "comic" violence/forced almost manic "joy", and other moments where they glare at each other with what seems to be intense hatred/resentment. I wonder if the author or actors were trying to sneak in subversive hints that this is indeed a scary, unhealthy relationship...under the surface veneer of obeying the Hays Code and enforcing gender role "norms" and the illusion of romantic comedy. I'd like to think so! I only recommend this movie to fans of the cast/crew, or students of film history. My goal is to watch every single (existing) movie from the silent era to 1959. Everyone needs an ambition in life, right?
Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd (1952)
Yo.... ho.... hum
One of the least funny "comedies" I've ever seen. I can't believe the IMDb rating for this is so close to that of the original "Captain Kidd" (1945). I like Charles Laughton but this is just beneath him. If you want to see him in a truly funny, witty comedy, check out "Ruggles Of Red Gap" (1935).
Fran Warren's singing is just about the only highlight here. I was quite annoyed when one of her songs was interrupted for more stupid gags. Her romantic subplot and "characterization" (haha) is practically non-existent, but at least her musical numbers (as forgettable as the songs are) provide a respite from the rest of the idiocy.
I'm not big on Abbott and Costello, but I assume this is near the end of their career, and they've done better work? They'd never be so famous if "Meet Captain Kidd" was typical for them, right?
Recommended if you enjoy obvious physical "humour", childish slapstick, lame running gags (more like, tired limping gags), just plain bad writing, amateurish directing/editing, and what seems like a constant background noise of pirates yelling along with a clunky musical score which seems to desperately implore, "laugh here! please? are we having fun yet?" I almost feel sorry for this movie. But I feel sorrier for myself and anyone else who tries to get through it.
I've read that Warner's done some grand restoration which they're planning to release on DVD. Although I normally hate to see films deteriorate like this one has, not taken care of over the years ...this is SUCH a bad movie, I can't help feeling it's not worth the time and expense! So many better movies deserve rescuing more than this piece of crap. But I suppose A&C are bankable names and even their weakest (to put it kindly) stuff will sell... which is all Warner Bros. cares about. I hope my review encourages some people to save their money. Arrggh, mateys! Hide your loot from those cutthroats who would rob you! And remember, my "clever" pirate reference just now, is more hilarious than all the jokes in "Meet Captain Kidd", put together. Yes, it's THAT BAD.
From the Earth to the Moon (1958)
don't let's reach for the moon
Something about this movie just screams "low budget". And it's not merely the lack of fancy special effects or the soundstage-bound nature of what is supposed to be a sci-fi/adventure film. It's mostly the disjointed feel of the scenes, the amateurish editing and the poor pacing. Dullsville.
The acting doesn't help, since it doesn't look like they're trying at all - well, maybe George Sanders, as much as he can with an underwritten part, and Henry Daniell has a spark of life that makes him stand out - but if I hadn't seen Joseph Cotten before, I'd never suspect him of being a competent actor, judging by this performance. Tired and uninspired. I never have seen Debra Paget in anything else, so I'm going to have to say...not much of an actress.
She'd have to be *terrific* to make something of the awful dialogue she's given. The love scenes are laughable. The movie's pretty sexist too...with a condescending remark about including women in future space travels...to provide hope (eh?) and prepare the meals (hey!).
The characters' motivations are unclear, plot holes and inconsistencies make for a weak script and hurts this movie far more than the lack of budget required to take us sightseeing on the Moon... but I suppose other bad scripts with bland acting, have been saved by cool visuals, and this one might've been too.
The late great producer, Irving Thalberg, once said he had no desire to take credit and splash his name all over his films (very commendable modesty), and those were some of the greatest movies ever made. His name became well-known anyway, on the strength of his work and admiration of his peers. When I watched the opening credits of far-from-great "From The Earth To The Moon", I couldn't help noticing the name of the producer...who I've never heard of...kept popping up repeatedly. You can draw your own conclusions.
Mosaic (2007)
aka Shapeshifter Barbie and Her Very Boring Adventure
Just saw this on TV, for FREE, thank goodness. If this movie was aimed at 12 year old girls, (as the juvenile characters and tone would seem to indicate) that's an insult to 12 year old girls. I'd like to think that even *they* would appreciate a well-written story that's smart and engaging. Mosaic was boring.
The main character comes across as, well, a dumb 12 year old girl trapped in the body of a fully grown woman. She acts like a childish simpleton, with little-girly mannerisms, a vapid smile, and a terrible, superficial "what a fun sleepover!" vocal delivery, even during serious situations - the voice actress, Anna Paquin, SUCKS. Her tone is too fluffy and clueless and it sounds like she isn't paying attention to the meaning of the dialogue/scene, or really interacting with the other actors in a convincing way. I know in animation the actors are usually recorded separately, but *good* voice actors can overcome that disadvantage. Too bad they went for a Celebrity Name instead.
It's more than a little disconcerting to see a character who behaves/sounds so young/immature, drawn with the body of a playboy model. I assume this was done to try to appeal to boys who might otherwise be bored silly by the slow-moving plot and lack of action? Well, good luck trying to make a movie for both little girls AND big boys. That makes for a squicky experience I like to call The Britney Spears Effect.
The previous reviewer who said the main character wasn't overly sexualized, must've missed the scene where Maggie walks straight towards the "camera" until her chest completely fills the frame. There's no good reason for that...it's just plain gratuitous and tacky.
What can I say about the story? Generic superpowers, generic villains-wanna-takeover-the-world plot. I'd like to see more female superheroes starring in movies, etc. But this one ain't exactly a great role model for girls. She only reinforces the stereotypical male fantasy object - a ditsy busty blonde, sweet and kinda dumb, more interested in romance and shallow pursuits than real adventure - who'll help out the men in her life, in a cute, non-threatening way, but always rely on her guy to lead the way and tell her what to do. Sure she has some heroic moments where she saves a few people, but it feels contrived, not triumphant.
She has the ability to shapeshift and turn invisible, but persists in changing back to her normal form constantly, EVEN WHEN SHE KNOWS PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR HER AND EVEN WHEN SHE'S SPYING ON THE BAD GUYS (who, of course, catch her). It would be so easy to hide from them, but then I suppose the producers/animators wanted us to look at the purty girl as much as possible. It just makes her look...stupid. Plus, if I remember correctly (bored as I was), it's the Mosaic character who comes up with the plan to utilize her abilities at the film's climax. (Oh yeah, did I mention that - unlike every other movie about a superhero/ine - "Mosaic" is not even named after the main character? If you need more proof that she's useless...)
And how about that whiplash at the end of the movie, when we're supposed to believe Maggie's mourning the death of someone she "loved", (would you believe they actually used the cheesy clichéd "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" scream?) and the next second she's all smiles again, perky and joking around, and reciting Shakespeare (badly) for her audition. There is no emotional honesty here. Consequently the viewer can't get emotionally invested.
Bad writing, superficial characterization, clichéd scenarios, and really basic unimpressive animation. Waste of time.
ETA: If I may reply to pharmstock's comments directed at me: Regarding "over-sexualization", I said nothing about "super-heroine garb", actually. And I have no problem with the way women are portrayed in Batman The Animated Series. I wouldn't compare that smartly written, stylishly animated series to "Mosaic" at all. As for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, maybe she acted a bit "ditsy" in the first season but the character was created to subvert the horror cliché of the dumb, helpless blonde. She was a Valley Girl...easy to understimate, but smarter and stronger than she looked. I don't see what that has to do with "Mosaic". You can't take Buffy's most superficial characteristics, omitting the *reason* for them, give them to another character for *no* good reason, and then try to justify it by saying, "well, Buffy did it."
Ultimate Avengers (2006)
makes this newbie want to see more!
Having only basic knowledge of a few of these characters (Thor and The Hulk), I watched this movie on a whim. I enjoyed it more than I expected, although I was a bit confused at first, trying to figure out "who's that and what's their motivation/ability?" - but I understand there wasn't enough time to go into every character's history. Plus the target audience is probably familiar with it all and impatient to get on with the action. Still, Black Widow, Giant Man and The Wasp especially needed more screen time and fleshing out.
Much of the time and development is devoted to Captain America and I just fell in love with this character! First the movie grabbed me with an audio excerpt from Command Performance radio show and an awesome WWII opening sequence - I'm a big fan of this era and immediately perked up. I was impressed by the battle scenes, which reminded me of many live-action war films from the 1940s. It felt authentic... well, until we find out that the Nazis were in cahoots with...aliens! :)
Anyway, Captain America's character is very sympathetic and I really felt for him - the storyline of an old-fashioned hero, a decent guy from the past, who has to adjust to modern times, just resonated with me. I'm sure part of that is because I can relate a bit, due to my own feeling of not belonging in this time period - but part of it is the truly good writing and voice acting. Not only does Cap have to deal with culture shock, but the fact that many of his friends are dead, and other loved ones have aged and moved on with their lives without him. This is really only touched on in a few minutes, but manages to be very moving nonetheless.
The majority of the film deals with Captain America becoming the reluctant leader of the Avengers, a group of superheroes who aren't used to working as a team, and whose personalities, of course clash. They must combine their powers to deal with a major threat to the world ... those pesky aliens again!
This basic idea reminds me of the Justice League animated series' pilot - but I enjoyed the execution of Ultimate Avengers much more! I bought the JL DVD containing those first few episodes packaged as a mini-movie, and I remember finding it...boring. Dull characterization and just not emotionally engaging. It did not make me interested in watching the rest of the series. But if Ultimate Avengers was the pilot for a TV series...
Another sympathetic character here is Bruce Banner, who is desperate to find a way to control The Hulk and harness his violent strength for good. I liked the fact that he turned out to be the *real* threat at the movie's climax, rather than those paper-thin aliens. I sometimes get annoyed by tragic backstories and inner demons and so on - sometimes you just want a black and white, clear-cut good vs. evil story (like I said, I belong in the "good" old days with the Nazis! Well, not *with* them exactly, but youknowwhatImean) - but Ultimate Avengers' treatment of The Hulk was a great exception. Just enough angst to give him depth. I didn't find him too whiny like some people apparently did.
I'm not sure I like this treatment of Thor though. Seemed like the writers just weren't respecting him enough - what with the other characters thinking he was delusional and not a real God... and calling him a chick, and all. And doesn't he have anything better to do than hang around wharfs threatening fishermen?!
Although the female characters were underused and underdeveloped, it was nice to see Black Widow and Betty Ross make significant moves to help end the final fight.
Last but not least: the animation. I don't know why some reviewers found it lacking. At no time did I think to myself "oh it's okay...for direct-to-video." Seems to me it would be more than good enough for a theatrical release. (I actually assumed it *was*, until I came online and read otherwise.) Cool character designs, some great background art, nice effects, and just the right blend of traditional hand-drawn animation and CGI. I hate the overuse of CGI these days, preferring subtle enhancements that aren't too distracting.
Mainly though, the story is the thing. And, despite the flaw of having too many characters to develop in such a short running time, I found Ultimate Avengers a lot of fun. Not perfect, but better than the average action/adventure/superhero movie. Better than most animated OR live-action films in general, from this disappointing decade.
Flash Gordon (2007)
Flash is fairly family-friendly, feminist & fun
I've seen some of the original Flash Gordon serial from the 1930s/40s (and found it pretty darn cheesy, inferior to this 2007 series in acting, writing and special effects), but I mainly tuned in to this new version because I thought Eric Johnson did a good job in his supporting role on Smallville. I'm glad to see a decent actor (not just a pretty boy) get the lead role on a series for once! This role gives Eric the opportunity to display his sense of humour, which I thought I detected in a Smallville behind the scenes interview clip years ago, and wondered why that show failed to tap into.
In fact one of the main things I enjoy about this new Flash series, is the humour in general. It's a relief to be able to watch a show that doesn't take itself too seriously, and where you can relax, have fun, and not have to worry that your favorite characters are gonna be killed off (not a spoiler, just my impression). Naturally some people prefer more suspense and a "dark" "edgy" tone, but I'm pretty sick of that sort of thing. Although the show touches on serious subjects like slavery and environmental issues, and there are definitely dramatic, emotional scenes in the episodes, so far (I'm up to episode 9) things are basically lighthearted. I'm hoping for a satisfyingly happy ending.
Flash may not be terribly original, but is anything anymore? At times I'm reminded of other sci-fi shows like Smallville (character dynamics such as Ming's twisted tough love approach to his daughter, which is reminiscent of Lionel and Lex Luthor...and the fact that Dale is a bit of a cross between Lois Lane and Lana Lang, as a smart reporter/hometown girl next door/long-time love), but honestly, Smallville has become unwatchable and offensive in many ways. I'd rather watch Flash right now. Those who miss the earlier, lighter, more fun-for-the-whole-family seasons of shows like Smallville or Buffy, should check this out.
It's nice to find something on TV these days with relatively strong female role models (in contrast to the poorly written and constantly exploited females on Smallville), an entirely likable cast (especially Karen Cliché who's kick-ass cool and does a great job with her comedic moments as an alien adjusting to Earth), engaging characters/story lines, etc. Flash also shows some restraint regarding sexually suggestive stuff that would largely sail over kids' heads, and violence that isn't too disturbing - how refreshing that they kept a story that was originally innocent & intended for children...suitable for children. (Smallville again suffers by comparison there). And, again, humorous banter and an overall fun vibe should not be undervalued!
I only hope the writers & producers of Flash Gordon don't make too many changes, trying to please those who have written negative reviews. I truly don't understand the harsh criticism I've read about this entertaining show.
P.S. Those who are disappointed because this Flash differs from previous incarnations of their childhood, should keep in mind that those other versions differed as well, from each other and from the original comics. If the world can accept "modernized re-imaginings" of classics by Shakespeare, Jane Austen, L. Frank Baum, etc, I think we should be able to handle a new kind of Flash Gordon. As long as the show stays true to it's own established universe/concept/characters, I won't complain.
Friday Night Lights (2006)
MSCL vs FNL ...it's really no contest.
After reading quite a bit about how Friday Night Lights has quality writing and acting, with several people saying it's the most realistic TV show since My So-Called Life, and reassuring non-sports fans like me that "it's not really about football...it's about life"...I caved in and watched the first few episodes.
Are you people nuts? Football *IS* their life. Not my life. There is nothing I can relate to, and nobody for me to care about.
If there was true depth and analysis going on here, I guess I could stomach watching a show about annoying football fanatics in Texas who constantly burst into public prayer. Maybe. But the storyline (that I've seen so far) is clichéd & predictable, the writing provides no insightful moments, the characterization is superficial, and the acting is unremarkable...from what I can tell, although it's not easy to judge the level of the actors' abilities when the camera refuses to stand still for a minute and let me SEE the performance.
I don't like pretentious documentary/indie-style camera work. Luckily I don't get sick from shaky-cam, but the same cannot be said for certain members of my family who get headaches/nausea trying to watch that sort of thing. Luckily they're not missing much by avoiding FNL. Is there a good reason for the jumpy camera-work and quick cuts/zooms? A reason that serves the story? I think not. They're just trying to be edgy or fit in with reality shows, I suppose.
Here's why Friday Night Lights is NOTHING like My So-Called Life, OK? (Despite the fact that Jason Katims has written for both and W.G. Snuffy Walden has written music for both)
1. MSCL has real cinematography. It's like a beautifully shot film. Gorgeous framing of characters in shots, innovative transitions from one scene to another, stunning dream sequences, etc. Many people have admitted taking ideas from MSCL, like the director of Jerry Maguire, and Joss Whedon. Most importantly the visual style and techniques used on MSCL actually have meaning and purpose in telling the story and helping you understand the characters.
2. MSCL is not afraid to use silence and stillness. MSCL allows the viewer to breathe and to think.
3. MSCL has excellent writing. The characters are not stereotypical or one-dimensional. They have layers, and their development is never contrived. The dialogue is memorable, and the observations are smart and TRUE.
4. MSCL has a spiritual element without being preachy or emphasizing a particular religion. MSCL encourages compassion and understanding among different types of people. On MSCL you'll find gay people and other minorities. Not portrayed as villains or comic relief or there to be politically correct either. Just real people.
I could go on. Let's just say I never had any of the following reactions while watching MSCL:
"She can't act. What a grating voice. And ridiculously cutesy dialogue. Barf."
"Cliched black guy. Wow, they're really portraying him as a selfish opportunistic jerk who's totally heartless about his paralyzed teammate and...Wait, did his mom actually diss "that white girl" her son was making out with? So she's a tramp but he isn't? Nice way to deal with racism (I didn't know blacks persecuted whites in Texas) AND offend feminists at the same time."
"Are there gonna be ANY female characters on this show whose function doesn't revolve around providing support/sex/baked goods to the men? Really not a show for feminists. The Coach's daughter doesn't count since they're telegraphing it pretty plainly that she's gonna end up with the replacement QB and so her anti-football player stance is just a "cute" obstacle...bleh."
"How did I know the star would get injured and the backup QB would save the day?"
"Why is the camera taking a stalker's viewpoint in this scene between the Coach and his wife?! Lurking, peering around corners...it's not supposed to be an ominous scene. Do they want us to feel like uncomfortable voyeurs? Guess so, 'cause now there's a totally unnecessary extreme closeup of them kissing! Back up, back up! I reeeally don't need to be that close!"
"I'm bored."
On an Island with You (1948)
love or obsession? musical comedy or psychological thriller? you decide!
Peter Lawford sheds his usual light leading man persona to play a creepy stalker obsessed with a movie star (Esther Williams) engaged to someone else. When she rejects his advances, he kidnaps her and flys her to a remote island. Lawford's performance is chilling. He combines disturbing single-minded intensity with a sort of blank expression (some may mistake this for wooden acting), which perfectly conveys the emotionless lack of conscience typical of a true psychopath. I'm surprised Peter didn't receive an Oscar nod!
Esther Williams also shows surprising depth in her role as a self-absorbed movie star who (in a truly twisted plot twist) becomes attracted to her abductor! An interesting commentary on the deep-seated insecurities and desperate need for attention which motivates many actors and celebrities. Soon Williams is pathetically dependent on her obsessed stalker. You'll have to watch to find out what happens when Lawford becomes distant and spurns *her* advances! Oh, it's a sick relationship. Sick, I tell you!
But what I don't understand is... why is this movie categorized as a romantic comedy/musical? Hmmm. Very strange. How sad that some people can't distinguish between love and unhealthy obsession. Why, I do believe the filmmakers might've been making an ironic statement about that very thing! That's why "On An Island With You" contains so many songs and dances, appearing on the surface to be fluffy feel-good escapist entertainment. Only viewers of superior intellect will detect the unadulterated EVIL hidden behind the happy, wholesome veneer!
"Citizen Kane", "Sunset Boulevard" and the like - your reign at the top of the film critics' lists must come to an end. Make way for "On An Island With You"!
P.S. Believe it or not, I *am* a fan of musicals, and like Peter Lawford well enough. But this movie...well, it's not on my list of desert island picks, let's put it that way. Great dancing by Cyd Charisse though.
MGM: When the Lion Roars (1992)
when the crowd roars for a DVD release!
After all these years I still remember this documentary vividly. I haven't seen it since it originally aired on TV in 1992 - and boy was I disappointed when I found out I couldn't borrow it from my local library, because some jerk had stolen the videotapes! I think that just proves this mini-series should be made available on DVD, eh? There's obviously great demand for it.
"When The Lion Roars" was fascinating and made me want to see all of MGM's classic films (so the documentary achieved it's goal!). Warner Bros owns MGM's films now (and this mini-series) and I suspect they're not doing all they can to keep MGM's history alive - they're much more inclined to release their own Warner films on DVD, it seems to me!
Anyway, I'm just dying to watch "When The Lion Roars" again - it would be even more interesting now that I'm older and would recognize more of the film clips and people being interviewed! But the fact that a clueless youngster like I was, still found it so entertaining and memorable, certainly says a lot about the quality of this documentary... and the quality of MGM's classic movie legacy.