Change Your Image
Davalon-Davalon
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Nicholas Nickleby (2002)
Entertaining if not entirely engaging
I must say that I have not read this Dickens's novel. As such I cannot say whether this film captures the spirit of the novel or not.
However, despite moments of slowness and an inconsistent voiceover to help "explain" things to people that the producers think can't understand, this was still an entertaining film.
Charlie Hunnam as Nicholas is very pretty, as are his sister Kate ((Romola Garai) and his eventual love interest Madeline (Anne Hathaway).
And when we don't have pretty, we have horrid Mr. Squeers (Jim Broadbent), his monstrous wife (Juliet Stevenson) and the biggest monster of all, Nicholas's Uncle Ralph (Christopher Plummer).
When we don't have pretty or horrid, we have funny: Nathan Lane (Vincent Crummles) and Tom Courtenay (Newman Noggs). Both of these seasoned actors basically run away with the movie.
There is a moment when Nicholas's young, physically challenged young charge, Smike (Jamie Bell) is essentially shanghaied into being in a stage play, where he must deliver one crucial line. When he finally does, the director (producer?) of the show, Nathan Lane, gives the most hilariously funny sigh of relief I've ever seen. It was worth watching the movie just to see that.
The film has plenty of rolling English countryside, but it also hints at a lot of darkness, dirt and tragedy, especially at the boys' school run by Mr. And Mrs. Squeers, where Nicholas has a teaching position, courtesy of Uncle Ralph -- who always has ulterior motives. I'm surprised they got away with showing the incredible amount of abuse visited upon those boys and that part of the film could easily be turned into a series.
Both Anne and Romola are extremely pretty and play virginal young women well.
There are other tidbits and cameos which bring humor to a dark story, so, ultimately this was entertaining, and sometimes that's enough.
Sunny (2024)
Convoluted, bizarre, talky and predictable.
I really would like to rate this series higher. It's clear that a lot of attention went into the opening graphics, and the selection of songs was also interesting. There were many great shots of Japan or Japanese-like settings, so, tons of eye candy.
But the story is nearly impossible to follow. I have a Japanese husband, and he endured 9 episodes before he couldn't stand it anymore.
In brief, the story is about the husband and son of a woman ("Suzie") who might have died in a plane crash. This is woven together with the story of a robot named "Sunny," built by Suzie's husband, designed to protect her in case anything happened to him. Apparently he coded "Sunny" with the ability to violently attack someone. The yakuza wants that code. When the husband and the son "die in a plane crash," Suzie sets out to find the truth about her husband's death and encounters nightmarish episodes with the yakuza as a result.
The worst of Japanese acting is on display, especially in the last scene, where two yakuza thugs are literally screaming commands at the top of their lungs at their victims (in this case, the series' star, Rashida Jones as "Suzie," her "friend" (?) "Mixxi" (Annie the Clumsy-who on earth would want to be named that?), Suzie's son "Zen" (Fares Belkheir), and "Yuki" (Jun Kunimura), the "real" father of Suzie's husband "Masa" (Hidetoshi Nishijima)).
It's hard to understand, but I think the entire 10 episodes play out as if they occur over just a few days. Suzie seems to teach English online, but that idea was quickly abandoned, and she apparently has plenty of money and time to do what needs to be done in this series.
The character of Suzie cusses a blue streak throughout the show. It becomes irritating and vulgar, and despite Rashida's talents, evident in other movies/TV shows, in "Sunny," she comes across as one-note, desperate, angry, and flat. But the cussing finally pays off in the last 10 minutes of the final episode. Nonetheless, it did not make Suzie's character more likable.
There are many "flashbacks" to Suzie saying goodbye to Masa and Zen at the airport. But when she does so, she gives the husband the finger. Smiling. Incomprehensible.
I also do not understand how/why Suzie casually allowed Mixxi to waft into her world. It made no sense at all.
Also, Suzie's weak reason for "wanting to go to Japan" comes across as completely fake: "anime, food, culture." None of which she enjoys or acknowledges for the entire show. In fact, even when she is with Masa or her child, she seems to be bitterly angry or frustrated or disappointed. And yet, the woman lives in the most amazing house I've ever seen in Japan; she has a hot husband and a sweet child. And yet, she seems miserable. We don't really learn anything about her life prior to coming to Japan, but we do sense that she is one of these "nut gaijins" that come to Japan to "escape" whatever is not right in their lives "back home."
Hidetoshi and Rashida had a moment of chemistry, but it took a backseat to everything else, including a bizarre backstory of how a robot named "Sunny" (San = 3, Ni = 2, in Japanese, and the 3-2 is supposed to be a symbol or mean something, but because it was part of yet another tortured explanation, it lost meaning, if it ever had any) came into existence. I will say, though, that the robot grew on me. But Suzie was routinely cruel and dismissive to Sunny, and this, too, made no sense to me.
When Suzie finally finds Zen alive, as some other reviewer wittily pointed out, it was like he had come back from a questionable weekend at Grandma's. There was no hysteria, tears, none of the huge emotions one would go through about finding one's child alive after being told he was dead. The poor boy playing "Zen" didn't have much range and/or (more likely) was not directed to do that much.
There is lots and lots of talking. There is lots of running around, and there are definite fish-out-of-water moments with Suzie as she tries to figure out what happened to her husband. The best moment was when Suzie and Mixxi infiltrate a men's sento (bathhouse) and find out the true price of belonging to the yakuza.
There is also a connected story about the daughter of the head of the yakuza that is trying to track down Sunny. She is violent, disturbing and gets away with killing a man, but maybe that story is resolved in a second season? Who knows.
The majority of the series is in Japanese. Rashida's character probably speaks 5-10 words of Japanese in a 10-episode series. That makes no sense to me. If she had married Masa and had a child with him in Japan, she'd know more Japanese and the people around her would expect her to speak it. It's the "Emily in Paris" syndrome where all non-English speakers must kowtow to the one lazy foreigner who simply can't be bothered to learn the native language.
There were fun moments, funny moments, shocking moments, and deeply disturbing moments (the dead bird-you've been warned). But all of them together did not add up to provide an entertaining, satisfying viewing experience.
At the very tail end of the show, I correctly guessed two events that eventually took place. The last one, in particular, must have been put in in case the series gets renewed. I hope it doesn't, because, quite frankly, it was a rambling mess.
Justice est faite (1950)
Unique, but long, rambling and dated
The best thing about this film is getting a glimpse of what life might have been like somewhere in France in the late 1940s, after the war. It was another world. Very few people, farms, animals, everyone was French, no foreigners in sight. It looked like everyone had come from the same one or two families.
The woman who is convicted of murdering her lover has a face reminiscent of a young Meryl Streep. She conveys a lot of emotion with her eyes.
Because this is a story of the jurors who decide the woman's fate, there are multiple threads and way too many people to focus on. There must have been a healthy budget for this film because there was one brief ballroom scene that required a small orchestra, men and women dressed in their finery, and a huge flower arrangement. But the scene itself couldn't have lasted more than 90 seconds.
Lots of talking and talking. The sound quality was poor, especially the voiceover at the end, which suddenly jumped up in volume.
The most interesting thing about this film is seeing humanity in a window of time after the war. There was not the threat of Hitler anymore and people were living their lives. The particular story of euthanasia at the heart of this film must have been definitely shocking at the time. There are points of interest, if one can wade through the ocean of dialogue from multiple characters.
Umberto D. (1952)
Deeply moving
I watched this film in Japan, with Japanese subtitles. My Italian language ability is about 3% and my Japanese reading ability is about 25%. It didn't make any difference. Even if no one had said anything, this small, but powerful story would have been clear.
I have read some hateful reviews about this film. I don't understand why. It's clear that director Vittoria de Sica was chronicling the sad end to the life one Umberto D. Whatever his life was, is now behind him. Each day is a struggle to survive in an apartment that the landlady rents out hourly when he isn't there. The landlady is hateful, obnoxious and horrible. Umberto's only friends are his faithful dog, "Flick" and the apartment building's maid, "Maria." Both Carlos Battisti (Umberto) and Maria (Maria Pia Casilio) were first time actors. They bring a brutal honesty to their performances that would be hard to achieve with more seasoned actors.
It's true that the story zigzags a bit, i.e. It spends time on a pointless scene with Maria trying to strike a match on the wall so she can light the stove. But I think the larger picture is that Vittorio was trying to show us the harsh circumstances of these peoples' lives, especially that of Umberto.
When I was young, my grandmother's boyfriend was in his 80s. He would always dress in a suit and tie, no matter what the weather and no matter where he was going. I know that him putting on that suit and tie gave him a sense of purpose. I felt for Umberto, who also always put on a suit and tie, although he had nowhere left to go.
This film follows the sad journey of Umberto's increasingly desperate attempts to try and off himself, because he couldn't see the point of living anymore. Does he jump out the window of his apartment, timing it to when the train passes by his building? Or does he jump in front of a train, with Flick in his arms?
Along the way he meets people from his past. Some are doing better than others. But except for the obnoxious landlady and her rich friends, no one is doing that well. Everyone is just pretending to be part of society, even though their lives are falling apart.
There is one absolutely horrific scene where Umberto goes to the "dog pound" to see if Flick might be there. We see trucks pull up and captured stray dogs being yanked out by these inhumane collars and sticks by horrible men that round them up in a cart and literally put them into a container where they will gas them to death. As soon as I saw that, it felt like I had just witnessed the history of man's cruelty to animals. How we have completely underestimated their intelligence and their ability to feel. It was devastating and nauseating. I have a dog and I understand more and more each day why people pamper their pets. Why shouldn't they when we all know what the alternative is?
As the film goes on, Umberto grows more and more desperate. It is unclear how he is going to be able to carry out his grim task. But as the film grew to a close, I was grateful the director chose the ending he did, because even if for one brief moment, there was a sense of joy, even though we all know what's waiting around the corner for Umberto and Flick.
The Last Bus (2021)
Touching but unbelievable
Timothy Spall does an outstanding job as the aged Tom, whose wife has died, and who is going to fulfill his promise to travel to Land's End to bring her ashes. Now, that information was not 100% clear to me until about midway through the film. There is a lot of time spent whizzing back and forth between present and past and the viewer is left trying to piece things together.
Finally it becomes clear that this will be a "road trip" of sorts as Tom fulfills his final promise to Mary (Phyllis Logan) and go back to where they first started as a couple (I guess).
A lot was unclear to me, but I had to let go of a lot of questions I had and just try to go along on the journey. The writer decided that adding a social media element would elevate this story, turning Tom into a "mini-celebrity." But the story did not need this element at all. And in fact, I think it cheapened the story.
We are asked to believe multiple scenarios that make no sense at all, mainly ones that include complete strangers putting Tom up for a night at their homes, or inviting him to parties. I don't doubt that there are kindhearted people in the world, but they all seem to have ended up in this movie.
We see one moment with Tom and Mary where they must be in about their 60s and most likely looking like what they look like in real life. I'm not sure why this scene was needed, but perhaps the director wanted us to see the excellent make-up work on Tom that made him go from 60 to 90.
The one takeaway for me from this film are the harsh realities awaiting older people. There will be no one to help you, no one to share your time with. Nothing. You will be expected to muddle through and figure out how to survive and if you're lucky, you might have some social welfare programs. If not, you might end up like Tom did, where some nutcase woman tried to steal his suitcase and some obnoxious hoodlum started to bully him on a bus.
It's easy to imagine how horrid it might and could be for an elderly person. And now that I'm 70, I'm not looking forward to being treated like garbage. Of course, it won't necessarily happen.
At any rate, there is one very, very, very powerful scene that I will not give away near the end (not the ending, but near the end), which was worth waiting for and showed what a great actor Timothy Spall is.
Uneven, awkward, unbelievable and sometimes predictable, this film still touched my heart.
Le samouraï (1967)
Staged
I'm unclear what I just saw. Alain Delon, at the height of his beauty, woodenly steals cars, walks through many doors, puts on and takes off his fedora, kills people with as much passion as he orders a drink at a bar and other fun stuff.
It's great that there wasn't that much dialogue, but even if there had been none, every scene felt like it had been carefully staged. None of it felt natural.
Cathy Rosier is a bright bit of color as a nightclub pianist who doesn't exactly see Alain ("Jeff") killing the nightclub owner, but could have easily have put 2+2 together and fingered him in the line-up. But she doesn't. In fact, on a different night she drives him back to her home. But why? It's not like they have a hot make-out session.
Also Cathy "plays" the piano for long stretches while she stares at Alain who sits moodily/woodenly at the bar. I'm a pianist. Pianists don't do that. Also, Cathy "plays" the organ while wearing spiked heels. I'm sorry, what? She's going to pedal the organ with spiked heels?
Everything is grey and overcast and slightly dull. The idea that Alain is being followed by a series of undercover detectives (two women, in particular) seemed odd. Everyone seemed to know where everyone else was.
There is no true emotion expressed between anyone. Technology is, on one hand, ancient; on the other, a police car had a phone in it, which for 1967, surprised me.
The Citroen, the Camaro and the Peugeot cars were the main fun of this movie.
Moon Rock for Monday (2020)
A tragic mistake
If your cup of tea is borderline cutesy, homespun, fake heart-tugging yarns that don't strike a single true note, then this disaster might be for you.
We are asked to believe that "Bob" (Aaron Jeffery, suitably dad-like and caring) has given up everything to care for his sick daughter "Monday" (Ashlyn Louden-Gamble, pretty eyes but very little natural acting ability) who has some kind of immune system disease. He doesn't seem to have any discernible source of income and so apparently lives off the fat of the land. Apparently Monday can't go out and play with the other children, and so is homeschooled by Bob.
Monday has got it into her head that the "moon rock" (wherever that is) will "heal" her. I cannot remember how or why she thinks this, but her belief in this is unshakeable. She wants Bob to take her there (suddenly, out of the blue), but he tells her it's impossible; it's too far and it's too expensive.
A series of convoluted events that include a runaway pet rabbit unfold that put Monday in proximity with "Tyler" (George Pullar, who shows promise and actually looks like Hugh Grant's son), a man who has killed an officer while trying to rob a jewelry store because he believes that a ring in the window belonged to his dead mother. Why believes this no one knows.
Monday inexplicably decides to take off with Tyler instead of just getting off at the next train station so she can go back to her now worried-sick father. From this point forward we go on a bizarre road movie through Australia and must endure a bunch of godawful and unnecessary scenes where Tyler steals cars, steals medicine (to give to Monday, despite the fact that she doesn't know what kind of medicine she takes), and becomes a surrogate older brother who isn't a bad person but just happened to kill someone.
This is the majority of the film. We can view the vast land mass of Australia and we can enjoy some amazing scenery (that's why I gave this 2 stars), but the story itself is horrid, everything is manipulated and nothing at all is believable.
I am sure the filmmakers felt like they had hit upon something totally amazing that was going to bring tears to peoples' eyes and get standing ovations around the world, but I found it to be pretentious, unbearable and poorly written throughout.
The ending was totally unacceptable. Some nutcase detective who can barely keep his belly from spilling out of this pants, comes running around a corner with a gun aimed at Tyler. He screams at him to put his hands up. He does. The detective screams, "He has something in his hand!" Yes, he had his mother's ring in his hand. It is very clearly not a gun. But that didn't stop the detective from basically murdering Tyler in front of everyone. What a sad, tragic, pointless, cruel and unnecessary way for this film to end.
Shadow Dancer (2012)
The hint of something great
I cannot give this film a higher rating because I think it failed on multiple fronts. Although Clive Owen Andrea Riseborough ("Collette") and Gillian Anderson all did great jobs, the screenplay, despite dramatic moments, lacked clarity.
There were numerous characters to follow, Irish accents were super thick, everything was awash in a cloud of muted sad colors, and relationships were not crystal clear.
There is violence, death, tragedy and dark secrets which remained so.
I am sure that for people that lived through "the troubles," this type of story resonates. This must be the 5th movie I've seen regarding "the troubles," but it is the last. Not because the actors weren't good; they were all good. Not because there wasn't a strong sense of realism; there was. It's because the story was confusing and what people were saying was unclear.
Also, there is no joy in this film except for a brief moment when Collette's son receives a bike for his birthday. Every other moment is sad, depressing, filled with anger. I do not recommend it unless you are doing a thesis on "the troubles" and need every bit of info you can find.
Oranges and Sunshine (2010)
A hard watch with powerful moments
It took a while for this film to grow on my husband and me, but it did. Emily Watson is a consummate actress and her face is very expressive. She plays the real life Margaret Humphreys who, it seems, seemingly single-handedly took on the British government to hold them accountable for the forced migration of poor children to Australia (and apparently other places as well).
One cannot fault the filmmakers in pursuing this moving story of children torn from the parents, and the cruelty of the government in sending them off to God knows what kind of horrors abroad (some of which are explained in harsh, painful, emotional scenes). That said, the story is supposed to yo-yo between England and Australia. Oftentimes I had no clue where Margaret was. The "sunshine" was definitely a clue that "we're in Oz now," but it was still difficult to know exactly. Also, there are a large number of characters that we are asked to follow. There is a danger in this in that we simply cannot keep track of them. We were deep into the movie when Margaret and a lawyer are basically confronting a British governmental group and we weren't 100% sure if the lawyer was Margaret's husband or not until the next scene.
Also, people ask many questions to Margaret and she often doesn't answer. She just stares back at them, and I guess the idea is that they should be able to intuit what she was thinking, but that didn't always work for me.
I think the challenge in doing these "real stories" is that on one hand, one wants to be true to the real-life individual's story; on the other hand, in making a movie, sometimes things have to be fictionalized and/or amped up to make moments really powerful.
There are indeed powerful moments, and Hugo Weaving, as one of the children who wants to reconnect with his mother, is really excellent as a deeply conflicted man. Hugo's got the goods, as does Emily, and their few scenes together were really excellent.
I would love to give this a higher rating, as a lot of the scenic vistas captured were really great and we could sense that Margaret felt compelled to help these people, even though she may have caused problems within her own family.
But there were so many people and I didn't know who half of them were, and as a result, I couldn't fully invest in this film.
Fruitvale Station (2013)
A very flawed film with some powerful moments
I am not going to lie. I really had trouble getting through this. I could not understand most of the dialogue (except when the fabulous and brilliant Octavia Spencer was speaking). I couldn't understand a lot of the scenes (why did we need a close-up of Grandma's gumbo), and I didn't understand why we were supposed to care about an extremely angry young man (Michael Jordan, excellent). Yes, we can see that he loves his daughter, and yes, he seems to love his girlfriend (Melonie Diaz, outstanding), but he operates on a different level than most people and then gets furious if other people don't overlook his mistakes (like being fired from his job for showing up late, then assuming that two weeks later that the manager would just give him the job back).
The idea, the last day of Oscar Grant's life, is a powerful one. Ryan Coogler (writer/director) tried to pack it all in, but not all moments were riveting.
It's not till we get to the altercation on the Bart train that the movie starts to fall into place. I could still not understand what the issue was between Oscar and some angry white gang member, because his speech patterns were even worse than Oscars.
The last fourth of the movie is very powerful and almost makes up for the first three-fourths -- save for the "flashback" scene of when Wanda (Octavia) goes to visit Oscar (Michael) in jail. Each of them had to access their emotions in split-second intervals and they both did so superbly.
The movie is all filmed with a hand-held camera. I personally do not like that endless jerky feeling and find it irritating and distracting. But finally I got past it and could appreciate the story for what it was: the last day of the life of a troubled young man who did not deserve to die.
Flawed but powerful.
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Great moments obscured by a multitude of mistakes
I saw this movie shortly after it came out. Like many, at the time, I thought it was great. I got swept up in the drama of it all and, years later, only remembered a few key scenes.
This time around (tonight), I couldn't help but notice how poorly this movie was made. There are several completely unnecessary scenes, such as the two between Hortense (Marianne Jean-Babtiste) and her friend Dionne (Michele Austin). If they were meant to shed more light on Hortense's life, they achieved nothing. Also, when Hortense leaves her office and has minor exchanges with the receptionist (twice), they had no purpose. Later there is a big dramatic scene with Maurice (Timothy Spall), a photographer, and Stuart (Ron Cook), the man Maurice bought the photography shop from. We've already established that Maurice is a kind, loving man, troubled, but kind and loving. I don't know what Director/Writer Mike Leigh hoped to achieve with this scene, other than introducing us to his assistant Jane (Elizabeth Berrington), who could have easily been cut from the entire film. Also, why was it necessary to dredge up the oddest-looking people on earth to show what Maurice's regular photography job was like? A ton of time was spent on that scene, and one in particular, where he keeps getting closer and closer to a woman who had received a garish scar across one side of her face, bordered on deeply creepy.
Also, the music was incredibly loud and irritating. It sounded as if a few annoying "sad" cues were recorded, and then they were repeatedly plunked into the movie willy-nilly. It was loud and sounded cheap, like a junior college orchestra. I had to keep turning it down every single time it surfaced, which was often.
There are a few great moments, some that were extremely funny, some that were supposed to be dramatic, but which I howled over.
The actors were all good, but you have to wade through about 110 minutes of chatty scenes, usually with Cynthia (Brenda Blethyn) crying or sobbing or breaking down, before you get to some great moments of truth in the last 10.
One of the main problems that I had was that I found it extremely difficult to accept that Hortense could have possibly been Cynthia's daughter. Hortense did not look like she had a drop of white blood in her. Children of mixed race unions (White/Black) almost always inherit the dominant gene of the Black parent. But there is usually a hint that one of the parents wasn't Black. So, while Brenda and Marianne worked very well together, I didn't entirely buy their relationship.
One of the highlights was seeing a pre "Downton Abbey" Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan) as Maurice's barren wife. She spent the whole role as if she were on her last nerve -- until the end where she finally softens.
Again, great moments, some honest laughs, but some over the top melodrama that had me howling instead of crying. I wish the entire music score could be scrubbed from this film and entirely redone, along with excising the numerous pointless scenes that did not remotely move the story ahead.
Hunger (2008)
Extremely dark and brutal
For certain people, this film may no doubt be a realistic portrayal of what some men had to go through in the 1980s as IRA prisoners. There is very little dialogue, except for an extremely long-winded (though effective) scene between prisoner "Bobby Sands" (Michael Fassbender) and "Father Dominic" (Liam Cunningham).
I certainly am aware of the "troubles" that took place in Ireland, and have seen other films that cover this time period. But this one goes to an extreme to make its point, and I don't understand what actor in his right mind would be willing to nearly starve to death "for the cause."
As an "outsider," these are the problems I encountered: except for the long-winded scene between Bobby and Father Dominic, I could not understand Irish English. What was spoken was spoken either too quietly or too quickly. Also, before we meet prison Bobby, we meet several other characters: other prisoners, a police officer, and other sundry individuals. I felt like the initial focus was on another prisoner "Davey Gillen" (Brian Milligan), but somewhere along the line, the focus became "Bobby."
In order to draw attention to his plight of being imprisoned and to get the Thatcher-led British government to back off, Bobby goes on a hunger strike. To make this realistic, Michael Fassbender went on what must be the most disturbing transformation on screen (and yes, I saw Matt Bomer in "The Normal Heart").
There were times that my husband and I were staring at the screen and saying, "He couldn't have! He wouldn't have!" But he did. It's his stick-thin body there. It was deeply disturbing, which was obviously the point.
There was a great deal of brutality against the prisoners, body violations, beating, outright cruelty. Living conditions were unbearable, although at one point they were updated. But the prisoners quickly destroyed everything because they didn't want better "living conditions"; they wanted their demands to be acknowledged.
I did not know what to expect from this film, but for me personally it was too dark and too brutal and almost unbearable to watch. You have been warned.
The Book Thief (2013)
Could have been a masterpiece.
I saw the trailer and decided to watch the film. It is clear a lot of money was spent on making this look like it took place in WWII in Germany. The score, by John Williams, is excellent, as is any score he writes.
Geoffrey Rush (Hans) and Emily Watson (Rosa) are superb as the parents who adopt Sophie Nélisse (Liesel) when her mother is forced to give her up. (Although the reason she is forced to give her up seemed to be clear to many, I did not understand why.)
Sophie has a beautiful face, and her eyes are very expressive. But I felt she was a bit limited as an actress, despite having to carry the entire film on her shoulders.
Basically, this movie tells the story of how this young orphan Liesel becomes part of the childless home of Hans and Rosa shortly before WWII breaks out. She is quickly befriended by Rudy (Nico Liersch, charming, intelligent, and a picture-perfect version of what Hitler imagined Aryan youth to look like) and we follow their lives as they are impacted by all the damage the Nazis did. This is one ongoing story. The other two stories are when Ben Schnetzer (as Max) shows up at Hans and Rosa's doorstep. Despite being a Jew, they must take him in, because Max's father saved Hans's life in WWI. He becomes a big brother character to Liesel.
The other component of this film which I think just about sunk it was the voice of the Narrator (Roger Allam). Roger sounded almost exactly like Geoffrey Rush, and for about three-fourths of the film, I thought it was, in fact, Geoffrey. The Narrator is supposedly "Death," and "Death" shares his observations about the great ugliness and beauty that human beings can create.
But this component was one hundred percent not needed. The voiceover is forgotten about for vast swaths of the film so that when it reappears, it's jarring. Then near the end, suddenly we hear Liesel's voiceover. As soon as she speaks, you realize that if there were to be a voiceover at all, it should have been hers.
Although the title of the film is "The Book Thief," and while Liesel does in fact steal (or as she tells Rudy, "borrow") books from the Burgermeister's wife (who she later befriends), reading the books, telling stories, writing words on a mock blackboard in the basement - it is not done in a transformative way. It's just something that Liesel does.
Despite great acting from Geoffrey and Emily, and despite touching upon important themes, this film does not seem to have a solid center, as it vacillates between Hans having to join the Nazi party, Jews being thrown out of their businesses and treated like animals, Rosa trying to keep the family fed, the hint of a romance between Liesel and Rudy (but mainly all from Rudy's side), many moments where the young actors are saying lines, but not really living them - it all added up to not being sure who to focus on. I think these things brought the film down.
Also, a lot is asked of the Liesel character, and indeed Sophie does the job, but she doesn't have all the tools she needs to do it.
There was a lot of money spent on big set piece scenes that were relatively brief (the opening of the train traveling through the snow - dramatic, yes, but the pay-off didn't have the impact that the filmmakers were certain that it did) and gathering a choir of children to sing a pro-Nazi song for a few minutes. Chilling, perhaps, but the pay-off wasn't enough to warrant it.
The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it offers a clear window into what happens when a psychopath takes over a country and makes everyone bow down to him. It is terrifying, and it has happened throughout history, and is happening at this very moment. What's sad is that people do not seem to learn everything. They forget. This movie, in its uneven way, reminds us that there is hell to pay for putting our faith in leaders that think they are God. For this reason alone, I gave the film a higher rating than it actually deserves.
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
Flawed, but some scenes make it worthwhile.
There are many things about this film that have not aged well. The beginning goes on and on and on, with Katharine Hepburn (super wealthy and nutty "Violet Venable") babbling nonsense about her closet case dead son, "Sebastian," while Monty Clift, who looks like hell throughout the film, a semi-permanent dazed look in his dilated eyes, is forced to listen to her. I mean, she was incredibly irritating. Her main thing is to hire Monty (as "Dr. Cukrowicz") to perform a lobotomy on her niece Catherine (Liz Taylor), because Catherine knows shocking truths about Sebastian (his face is never seen) and how his penchant for shirtless young street urchins or any other hot young thing (male) that turned his very rich head is what brought about his untimely and horrible death. Catherine saw it happening and ended up in an asylum, where Violet hopes she stays and where her own mother (Mercedes McCambridge) is happy to let her stay because she and Catherine's obnoxious brother George stand to gain 50k each if they sign the papers to allow the lobotomy to be performed.
I understand that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz and screenwriter Gore Vidal felt compelled to set it all up so we can have some understanding of what's about to happen. But it still went on too long.
The movie doesn't really come alive until Catherine has had her hair done and is wearing a new frock (that Sebastian bought for her in Paris). When Catherine turns around - we see Liz, the glorious movie star. That amazing, amazing face. Those dreamy violet eyes (yes it was in black and white - who cares), and that, as we would say now, banging figure.
From this point forward it's basically going to be a showdown between Liz and Kate, and Liz wins hands down. Liz carries the majority of the film on her gorgeous shoulders. And while yes, there are definitely some moments where you will burst out laughing, there are basically two scenes that are worth watching and where you can really see that Liz had the goods.
Again, despite its flaws, if you are a fan of Liz or Kate or even Monty, and if you can wade past the first 45 minutes or so, you will be rewarded with some wonderfully dramatic moments and close-ups of Liz and a wholly unique story for its time.
Unbroken (2014)
Brutal
Going into this film, I didn't realize this was based on a true story. As it unfolded, I realized that it had to be, because it seemed that the filmmakers had to follow certain points or make sure that certain scenes from the book were featured in the film. I can't say that for a fact, but that's how it felt.
Jack O'Connell carries the entire movie on his back. He was excellent. That said, at 2 hours and 17 minutes, the film feels entirely too long.
In essence, this is the story of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic contender whose chances are taken away because of WWII.
We are with Jack (as Louis) in a plane over the Pacific with his buddies. It goes down, only 3 survive, and then only 2 survive. They apparently survive by catching and eating raw fish. This goes on for 47 days and in the movie, it feels like it. Next the men are captured and taken to a Japanese POW camp. Here they meet Watanabe (played by Miyavi), a sadistic captain whose entire raison d'etre is apparently to make Zamperini suffer. He essentially tortures him for a good two-thirds of the movie and he is never, ever punished for the monstrous things he did.
There were a large number of prisoners and it was made very, very clear to us that war is hell.
And then suddenly, the war is over and Louis returns home, looking just as perfect as he did the day he left, without a scratch on his pretty face. I think the more interesting story would have been to show how this man survived PTSD, but then that it would have veered into a religious story - although anything would be better than the brutal hell this movie puts you through.
Actors did good jobs; the music was very stirring, but the experience was horrible, in that it made you feel you were "right there." I can see that there is value in sharing these stories, and perhaps most importantly for the people that lived through them, perhaps these stories are healing. But since Watanabe got away with all of his sadistic beatings, I'm not sure where the healing was supposed to start.
A one-time watch, and only if you truly enjoy seeing people brutally hurt; I don't and frankly I'm sorry I watched it.
The Trip to Italy (2014)
Waste of time.
In this movie, we have two self-involved men blabbering to each other almost non-stop as they are motoring and boating their way through Italy. As to why they are there, the details are dispensed in a phone call early on in a way that was completely unclear to me. Then, suddenly, Coogan and Brydon are zipping down a road in sunny Italy, doing impressions and on rare occasions, saying something witty.
I thought it might be interesting.
I was wrong. It was a talkfest and an excruciating one. The main issue I had was that these two individuals start dining in a beautiful Italian restaurant. You could tell that the staff had great pride in their food, but these two were more interested in doing their impressions than ever commenting on the beauty of the cuisine. I kept looking at the food and thinking, "Aren't they going to at least acknowledge the epicurean masterpieces sitting in front of them?" But no, because whatever they were talking about was so incredibly entertaining and interesting to them that to take a nanosecond to admire the food, the view, the kindness of the staff would have ruined it for them.
I started to fast forward. Another restaurant, more eating, more talking, more impersonations.
I did laugh a couple of times, but overall the movie became an endurance test. The next time I want to know about Italian cuisine and the beauty of the seaside, I'll either go there myself or rent a travelogue.
Rebecca (1940)
Interesting, but terribly dated.
Despite being 84 years old, "Rebecca" has a few charms. It's in black and white, which automatically gives it a sort of dark, mysterious quality. The leading woman (Joan Fontaine, only 22 at the time) is never given a name other than "Mrs. De Winter." She is an orphan and is clueless about how to handle her new responsibilities as the wife of the most important man in town, and absolutely no one helps her. We watch her grow a spine as the movie unfolds, and it's thrilling to see her stand up and make it crystal clear that "I am Mrs. De Winter now." Laurence Olivier (as Maxim) only needs to stand and look at the camera for us to revel in how gloriously handsome he was. Judith Anderson (as Mrs. Danvers) was great as the lesbian-esque housekeeper who obviously worshipped the ground "Rebecca" walked on.
There were tons of great character actors, from Florence Bates as "Mrs. Van Hopper," an overbearing, obnoxious "society lady," who is cruel and judgmental toward Joan but all gushing and girlish when she sees Maxim, assuming he'll have remembered her from "Monte Carlo." (If he did, he was clearly trying to forget her.) There was Gladys Cooper as "Beatrice," Maxim's sister. Although she was supportive of Joan, she was still dismissive, i.e., "It's clear from what you wear that you don't give a whit about your appearance." And... "what are you going to do about your hair?"
Poor Joan suffers for three-fourths of this film trying to understand Maxim and his motley crew of servants and relatives. She really carries the entire movie on her very slender shoulders, and probably the best part of the movie is watching her grow up and clue into what's going on.
That said, as others have pointed out, the film goes on much too long, and the last fourth is simply unbelievable. It's fun watching everyone figure everything out about what "really happened" to Rebecca, but it also feels like we are watching it in real-time, meaning it starts to drag and becomes unbearable.
Other things that have not aged well: Hitchcock's "miniatures." It's crystal clear that we are not looking at a "real" Manderley. Also, when the little sports car drives off (or to, I can't remember), it looks like a toy - because that's what it was.
The score does not work at all. The "otherworldly" organ sound, used throughout, might have worked great for a late 1950s TV soap opera, but it is absolutely wrong for this movie.
So, it's worth watching once, but I can't see how it won the Oscar for Best Film.
Wonka (2023)
Funny and sweet moments, but overall, it doesn't work.
I truly hate to be cynical, but this movie just doesn't cut it. While Timothée Chalamet, as Willy, certainly brings enthusiasm and charm, it doesn't really matter, because there are long, slow sequences where I kept saying, "Get on with it!"
This "origin story" of how Willy ends up with his chocolate factory actually sounded like an interesting idea. But this movie is all over the place. It's vaguely British, and yet, Timothée has no English accent, nor do other notable actors in the movie, whereas many of the other notable actors are British. In the producers' fever dream to be "diverse," they have gone overboard, and it doesn't work; the characters just do not ring true.
Calah Lane, who plays "Noodle," a poor girl that ends up in a laundry establishment run by Olivia Colman (who seems to be playing a parody of an evil laundress), has no English accent, yet having spent her whole life living in indentured servitude to Olivia. Also, she seems flat and lifeless through the entire film until the end, where she has one great moment which I won't spoil here.
The accents start to become jarring after awhile, as does the forced racial mix of individuals which, in this particular type of world, would actually not be in it.
Hugh Grant (beloved Hugh Grant) plays the Oompa Loompa man. The thing is: Hugh is naturally funny and he was actually one of the few entertaining things in it.
The original songs all fell flat; every single one of them. The only song that still holds up is "Imagination" -- which was first sung by Gene Wilder in the 1971 version of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
So: wonderful graphics, many fun moments, a few good laughs and a few (very few) touching scenes, and Timothée Chalamet does his best to make things magical, but somehow the film as a whole sadly does not work.
Nightmare Alley (2021)
A bit slow, a lot unbelievable, but some great twists.
The only reason my husband I watched this is that we could see it for free with my Amazon Prime plan. That said, I'm glad we did.
This movie is not for the faint of heart. For example, within the first few minutes, a deranged "geek," who is supposedly part of a carnival act (but is actually a drug-addicted prisoner) bites the neck of a live chicken -- after pretending to calm it. I almost threw up. Now, I had to double-check with the AHA to ensure that no animal was actually harmed, and in fact, it says that a robotic chicken was used. Nonetheless, it sure looked real and was enough to send me running from the room.
Bradley plays "Stan," a troubled drifter/grifter who end up at a carnival show and gets a job. He quickly learns the lay of the land, and, after he learns some tricks about mind reading from "Pete," (David Strathairn, superb) and bags "electric girl" Molly (Rooney Mara), he ends up "reading minds" at posh clubs in the big city.
Let's say that things go south when he meets icy psychiatrist "Lilith" (Cate Blanchett, always perfect).
The film often times seems stagnant or slow or too talky. There were lots of moments when I said, "But... why? Wait, huh? No, he couldn't have known that. Why did he do that?" But, as is often the case in movies, one overlooks things as long as one is entertained.
Visually, this film is a masterpiece. I mean, there's a scene where Bradley's ice blue eyes are lit like they're dual Hope Diamonds. And other moments where Cate is lit and she looks like Veronica Lake with a shorter bob. And her lipstick! It was like someone great-grandma kept a vintage tube of Elizabeth Arden's "Victory Red." I mean, it was astonishing.
There were any number of character actors and they were all outstanding. Perhaps the best one was Richard Jenkins, who plays the incredibly evil Ezra Grindle (what a fantastic name). But honestly, all of the character actors were fantastic; it was worth watching the movie just to see them (Mary Steenburgen does an unbelievable turn as a wealthy grieving mother).
The story goes places you think it's going to, then goes places that will shock you. There are moments where you'll say, "Oh, c'mon!" And other moments where you'll say, "Oh, my God!"
Again, not for the weak of heart. There's a lot of cruelty and violence and lying and cheating going on. Someone is going to get hurt. You might predict the ending, but, actually you probably won't predict it exactly. It's a great moment when it arrives.
Uneven, but spectacular moments.
Cairo Time (2009)
Some nice moments in a slow-moving vehicle to nowhere.
This is an odd film. Patricia Clarkson ("Juliette") shows up in Cairo assuming her husband will meet her at the airport. He doesn't. Instead, he sends a former colleague, "Tareq" (Alexander Siddig) to meet her and assure she gets to her hotel.
The film then unfolds in what seems real time over days and nights and hours while Juliette waits for her husband (a diplomat, I think) to return from Gaza. Why he's held up isn't exactly clear, but everyone keeps saying, "He's all right."
Juliette mopes through her days and nights, longing to see her husband, but instead ends up spending time with Tareq, who, at least on the surface, seems like a fantastic guy to be with. Also, there is a pointless scene early on with Juliette and some woman she meets who tells her that Egyptian lovers are amazing -- just to drive the point home.
Slowly Juliette and Tareq start growing closer together. Very, very, very slowly. Tareq accidentally kisses her on the lips one night before she returns to her room, and you'd think the world had ended.
Juliette is clearing trying to remain faithful to her husband -- but why? It seems painfully clear that he doesn't care about her, and at one point I just shouted at the screen, "Why don't you go back home?"
Juliette, while she is given some kind of "editing" job," basically comes across as being super rich and not having to worry about how long she'd stay in Cairo. In fact, at one point, she fantasizes staying, and renting an apartment, with, we can all imagine, the idea being she could see Tareq.
The movie is essentially an exercise in frustration, because Tareq is hot, sexy, swarthy, with those deep, deep beautiful eyes. It's great for Juliette that she chose to be "chaste," but for the rest of us, we didn't really care.
At some point near the end, Juliette asks Tareq up to her room for tea. She makes the tea, and hands it to him. He takes both teas away from her and takes her hands instead. She's moments away from kissing him, but does not.
Are we supposed to say, "Good on ya, Julz! You resisted temptation!" In what way did that make the movie interesting?
The lighting for the majority of the movie is awful. Both characters are in shadows and we never can truly see how attractive they both might be.
Juliette comes off as some nun who was given a week off so she could see what the rest of the world was like before returning to the nunnery for ever more.
Lots of interesting shots of Egypt, the bazaars, the pyramids, the hookahs, etc., but it didn't matter, because the story was weak.
Definitely a waste of Alexander Siddig's talents, as he comes off as being very sensual. And while I do enjoy Patty Clarkson, she is a supporting actress, not a lead. But she has kept her figure and can wear really pretty dresses and does have screen presence, to a degree.
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)
101 minutes of Steve Carrell moping.
The stars of this film, Steve Carrell and Keira Knightly, have charm and presence, especially Keira, who is highly watchable and always has something bubbly or funny or sad or desperate right below the surface.
Steve, on the other hand, is very good as your average Joe, straight-laced and dull. At times, he has used this character to great advantage and he can often make me laugh quite easily.
That said: this film, while its heart may have been in the right place, goes on and on and on and on. There is tons of talking. And the thing is: it's just not that interesting.
The concept is: A comet's going to hit the earth and destroy it in about 3 weeks or less. Knowing that, the film asks us: how would you spend the end? On the surface, it seems like a good idea, but if it's explored more, it's deeply depressing and anxiety-inducing.
Glimpses of the movie go by where people are living their lives normally -- because, honestly, what else are they going to do?
We meet "Dodge" (Carrell) and "Penny" (Knightly) who live in the same apartment building but apparently never really met until now. Penny, because she's a big F. U., misses her flight to the UK, where she had intended to spend the end with her family. Dodge is planning to track down his high school girlfriend who he should have married. Circumstances through the two of them together, and, as fate would have it, they fall in love. Getting to that moment takes us through tons of talking, mostly about things and people we couldn't possibly care about.
Also, there are just totally insane and unnecessary scenes that do nothing to move the story along, plus there's an abandoned dog. There are a few very good laughs, but just a few. Also, Steve gives a one-note performance. He never rises above moping over having not really lived his life to the fullest and/or making cow eyes at Keira once he realizes he loves her.
There are the obligatory phone-crying scenes, the visits to the dad that ran away (Martin Sheen, who is always great) and a group of record albums that are salvaged from an apartment when everything is being looted. (Because, as the world ends, the most important thing you'd take with are record albums... right?)
I will admit the moment Steve falls in love with Keira is lovely. But at the same time, he looks like he could also be a serial murderer. It's hard to tell.
The end, where they hold each other in their arms and say sweet nothings to each other -- yes, this may be the best of what we could hope for when Armageddon comes. And it's pretty clear that that's what's going to happen, so, it's hard not to experience some kind of feelings for both of them, even if they are manipulated.
A strange little film. Too talky, but with hints of humor and pathos. A fantasy, and yet not. Still there was a lot of room for improvement.
Trash (2014)
Tragic waste of money
Despite the fairly natural performances of the three amateur teenage leads, I am unclear what the point or purpose of this film was.
If you watch it, you are going to see the three teenage boys basically living in squalor. They "work" in a giant landfill covered in trash, searching for things of value, which they can sell. Just watching these scenes will make you ill.
One of the boys finds a wallet. The way this wallet ends up in the landfill is just this shy of believable. But it does and he finds it. The wallet apparently contained a combination (this was unclear) in which a massive amount of money is hidden. Authorities somehow know that the combination or code is going to lead them back to the vast sum of money that a man working for a corrupt politician stole.
The movie is basically a long chase scene as the boys try to escape the police. One of them in particular is brutalized -- there is no other way to describe it. Although he survives, he shows no outward signs of the trauma that he surely must have suffered.
Both Rooney Mara and Martin Sheet bring their star power to this film in what amounts to extended cameos, but the teen boys own the movie. While they are not Oscar winners, they are really excellent, not only in their interaction with each other, but in realistically pulling off an enormous number of death-defying stunts (leaping from one building to the next, for example).
How it is that they achieved this without breaking bones is beyond my comprehension.
Ultimately the story felt slightly forced and convoluted. And if the filmmakers had 20 million to blow on making this film, why didn't they take that money and open a school and a hospital and a job training center? Wouldn't that been a much better use of the film budget then creating this sad, disturbing film?
Risen (2016)
Christian Propaganda
Joseph Fiennes must have desperately needed a paycheck to have appeared in this fantasy.
While Joseph looks great, and he brings his game to this movie, I think one would have to be both an A+ student of the Bible and of that particular time in history to have written anything of value.
The concept has a level of intrigue. A Roman soldier has been given the unenviable task of finding Jesus, a man who was buried days ago after dying on a crucifix.
Unlike movies of yesteryear, where Jesus's face would never be shown, in Risen, we see the smiling countenance of Cliff Curtis ("Yeshua") who looks like he might be a kind-hearted surfer or hippie.
That's fine; that didn't bother me. What bothered me is if this "son of God" (although he is not referred to in that way) had the power to heal the sick and to bring together people for the purpose of spreading love and peace, and, if, in fact, he had "risen," then why is it that he did not appear before everyone and set the world straight, instead of allowing the hatred, hunger and killing?
The band of men who "believe" in Yeshua all look like they just smoked a stash of great weed. Also, the accents of the actors range from British, to Britisheque, to Latin. Yes, everyone spoke English, but there was some "leeway" in how it was heard.
The locales are always bathed in sunshine, and despite the fact that we are supposed to be somewhere in the Middle East, the movie looked more like it had been shot on the shores of Southern California.
I could go on, but it was exhausting to watch and ultimately it failed on every level I can think of.
Baby Reindeer: Episode 1 (2024)
Intriguing, but too many questions left unanswered.
I have only seen the first episode of this, so my feelings may change as I work my way through this series.
Richard Gadd (as "Donny") has an incredibly vulnerable face. In his eyes you can see a lot of real life pain. He does not strike me as ever having been a comedian, because he seems to have an inner well of sadness. But, since he is an actor, that might just be a nod to his acting talents.
That said, I started to watch this because, like "The Queen's Gambit" (which I thought was brilliant), "Baby Reindeer" has had such an overwhelming response, I thought I should check it out.
First off, I am completely unclear why "Martha" (Jessica Gunning, brilliant) is calling Donny "baby reindeer." I don't get it. Second, Martha kept saying that she was a lawyer and worked with top clients, so how is it that she could not afford a cup of tea in a pub? Why is it that Donny doesn't question her once directly about that? He has a distinct opportunity to question her when the two of them go to the cafe for a coffee. By the way, Donny only orders a coffee. Martha, after first saying she'll only have tap water, orders up a hearty round of pastries once Donny says he'll pay for it (instead of saying, "I thought you said you were a lawyer. Why can't you afford a cup of tea?). However, when the waitress returns with the order, she puts a plate of food down in front of Donny -- but he didn't order any food.
Also, while perhaps Martha does clue in that Donny is a survivor of some kind of abuse, and perhaps that touches Donny in a unique way, why does he take things further? After seeing her have an episode of rage in the cafe, and after doing some online research, discovering that she has a record as a stalker, including being imprisoned for it, why on God's earth would he accept her friend request on Facebook? It makes no sense to, none.
I did not find this to be the stone cold brilliant show that everyone is raving about, but I did find the two leads intriguing. I just wish I could understand some aspects of the show better.
The Secret Scripture (2016)
Emotional, but convoluted.
It's hard to go wrong with Rooney Mara and Vanessa Redgrave. Their presence on the screen is always mesmerizing. But this story, which attempts to weave the past and the present of one troubled woman's life through voiceovers and flashbacks, doesn't fully succeed.
Vanessa is the "older" version of "Rose," played by Rooney Mara as a young woman-- but there is not one bit of physical resemblance between them. But, okay, let's look past that. We hear Vanessa's voiceover (in a voice that does not sound as Irish as Ms. Mara's) and we are swept back into the 1940s where a young Rose works as a waitress at her aunt's cafe. Because of her youth and beauty, she is wanted by every man in town, including the troubled priest who somehow thinks that Rose belongs to him. The priest, in a jealous rage, sets in motion a series of consequences which Rose will suffer from for her entire life.
It is sad, it has powerful moments, but the time-switching, the huge gap between Vanessa's voiceovers (Oh, wait, maybe we should put one in here so people remember that she's still part of the movie), and other coincidences combined to create a sort of muddled, unbelievable drama.
Rooney Mara gives her all and she is always watchable, but as the film goes on you will start to question things and at the end, which is hinted at broadly, you may feel some pang of emotion for all that Rose has suffered through, but you also might be shaking your head at what seems to be an absolutely improbable conclusion.