Change Your Image
SCManCA
Reviews
Lisa Frankenstein (2024)
Has potential, but loses steam
I thought the overall plot was intriguing, and having just read Shelley's Frankenstein, I thought it might be an interesting modern take on that story.
As the movie proceeded it turned into a story anchored more by incidents that bring shock factor into the movie in graphic depictions that I think could have been left out or modified, rather than carrying the story forward in a more interesting manner.
Once you see a man's genitals cut off, you know the intent is not to intrigue by what could have been an interesting story, but more an act of titillation.
Though you don't see anything except the blood spatters afterwards, you see the shadow of the genitalia flying through air.
Was this supposed to be some sort of comic relief or something, because had the roles been reversed with the title being Steven Frankenstein and "Steven" does that to a woman in order to place it in the female creature, I don't think it would have been deemed so humorous.
But because it's a man who is at the receiving end of the genital mutilation it is somehow okay?
Pushed the envelope way too far, and I saw through the movie at that point. It wasn't about entertainment, but "comedic" shock at the moment. And again, had a female character been the recipient of this act, it would not have been deemed even remotely acceptable.
Just because I'm sure it brought about an 'oh, dude!' from the teenage male audience members, and a 'tee hee, we love to see and talk about a man's penis in a movie, tee hee,' from the female audience members doesn't make it acceptable.
Nowhere near being a prude here, or someone who becomes selectively outraged, but some things are a little too much.
Ripley (2024)
A Misfire
The good: The setting, the lighting, the ambiance set forth in black and white, the music.
The not so good: Casting.
Tom--The actor playing him is way too old for the part, IMO; especially in light of the ages of the other characters. Marge is way younger than he is; Dickie is not as young as Marge, but still younger to make their past connection believable. He also plays the part too sinister from the beginning. Why would anyone trust this guy? If I'm Mr. Greenleaf this dude would walk in and I'd see there was something "off" about him from the get go, based on how this actor is playing him. I'd be telling my detectives to find someone else. Damon played him with some personality and charm that it was believable Dickie might let him in for a bit. He actually smiled.
Dickie-- He's just kind of there. Not a bad actor, but really adds nothing to the part that Jude Law didn't already capture beautifully.
Marge--Plays the character too flat from start to finish, IMO. First of all, she looks at Tom with suspicion from the first second she meets him. With this story, we need to see Tom allowed into their circle a bit before that suspicion sets in. Furthermore, when she finds out from Tom that Dickie isn't coming back, she shows no emotion outside of suspecting Tom even more. But doesn't seem to be bothered or grief-stricken that this man she loves has deserted her for no reason.
Freddie: The biggest misfire. He looks like a teenager. And the arrogance and lack of trust in his attitude is way beyond the years he seems to have. Hoffman played him perfectly. And he was the right age, and would BE of the right age to see something weird about Tom. Not sure why this dude was hired for the role.
I really wanted to like this. I liked the film a lot, and I wanted to see different actors' takes on the roles. And see how it was directed.
It just didn't do it for me. The choices in actors being the most prevalent reason.
Heartstopper (2022)
A change of heart...for Heartstopper
I have to admit that when I first started watching this series and then critiqued it here some time back, I was a bit harsh. I felt it seemed a little too unbelievable, a little too contrived, and maybe even a little too tidy to garner what is reality for so many young gay teens facing their place in the world.
In Heartstoppers, we have an attractive young man, Charlie, who has been outed, and bullied because of it. Something many of us who are gay can relate to. Especially those of us who had to face this challenge in a world where and when being gay truly found you ostracized and made the campus pariah. And you didn't have role models to look up to, nor did you live in a world that really wanted to even talk about it. And you certainly weren't making out with the campus stud behind closed doors, only to find yourself in the arms of another campus jock. It just didn't happen that way.
As an older guy, I have dated and met a lot of gay men. And though many of them were quite good-looking, none of them told tales of making out with the campus studs. Yes, some of them were athletes, and perhaps some of the campus studs themselves, but if they were making out with anyone in secret, it wasn't the Charlies on the campus.
When I was in high school, I guess I would have been considered good-looking. But I was an outsider. I had my small group of friends who had their own sense of coolness. But I couldn't be who I truly was. I was more Charlie than the other guy, though I did play a couple of sports.
Something just didn't ring true or realistic about what I was watching and hence my initial lesser review (I gave it 3 stars, or something and focused on how unbelievable it was).
Then I started to look at it through a different prism, I let go of some of those original feelings and thought, who cares? It's a series on the tele. It can have some fantasy behind it, and that's okay. Even if it doesn't necessarily represent the majority of what gay teens go through.
I can critique it by thinking we should have all been so lucky to be in Charlie's place, even if it wasn't easy for him to be ignored by his crush, Ben. Who we later found out was abusive. (Okay, so that added a dimension that wasn't so appealing, and made us feel a bit of empathy for Charlie.)
But then Prince Charming, the campus jock falls into his lap. And becomes his savior and protector. And lover.
Again it just felt a bit contrived. But again, as I let go of that and thought about the other messages that were being conveyed, my attitude changed over to 'That's okay. Whatever it takes. In whatever form.'
And to be honest, I had to truly appreciate the way Nick and Charlie approached their relationship. And how they were portrayed.
It was based on that experience of feeling love for the first time. And in this case, not taking it immediately to the physical. Truly refreshing.
It almost humanized these gay men. Which I think is important in a world where for gay men, sex is the immediate and ultimate goal. Not love or commitment. At least, not for many (most?). I know this is a stereotype, but sadly it rings pretty true out there.
And then when Mr. Farouk says that he is watching something happen with these young people that is way more open than what he was able to experience, and how he saw just how much of his youth was lost because of it, it really resonated.
And I think that is why I have had a change of heart on this series. Because it does have a charm to it. There is a romantic sensibility to the show and it provides us with experiences that many of us could not have. It creates for us a nice romance, fantasy though it may be. Because many of us did lose part of our youth because we couldn't go to prom with the person we really would have liked to.
Many of us couldn't be open about who we were without being truly ostracized.
Charlie is also facing that, in a contemporary time period. But it also can't be denied that it is well into the 2000s and he has to at least know that while the boys at his high school might not embrace who he is, he is part of a greater world out there that is open to it. Something many of us did not see for ourselves.
I have really come to like this series and while it doesn't alway feel realistic, it has something endearing about it. And who's to say that as the Charlie of my school that something might not have come from it. Had things been more open. At least in the world around us at the time.
Fanaty (2020)
Short but provocative
An interesting case study into the tenets of masculinity and homosexuality, especially as depicted in a country where it is so incredibly taboo.
It isn't uncommon for those who are sometimes the seemingly most homophobic to be questioned themselves about their own orientations. As a gay man I have certainly heard other gay men and their presumptions that when a man is so outwardly homophobic it truly calls into question their own sexuality. The self-loathing of those who can't come to terms with it, including those who come from an environment where it isn't accepted leads to some very difficult outcomes.
And in the case of this movie, violent outcomes.
Overall, I found it to be a captivating short which says a lot in its short duration.
The two young men who star embody that sense of unacceptance, while also knowing their own longings.
And two of the best looking young men I've seen in some time.
And the nude scenes. Wow. Quite impressive.
But I digress.
Take a look at this flick. An interesting one.
Al Mar (2021)
Turgid and boring indeed
This movie went nowhere fast.
And then when it did seem to get somewhere, it takes a full 180 turn.
She catches them having sex in the forest.
You think she's done with him.
Then we get to the end where she comes up behind the two guys who are sitting on the beach, she begins to kiss both of them passionately. And then the three of them start to disrobe as they walk to the sea hand in hand.
Really. What was the point?
These two guys spend the whole flick avoiding each other, coming together, getting angry with one another. You want to feel their struggle, but the two of them were so completely irritating to watch it was hard to have any feelings for either one of them.
And then the movie comes to an end and she gets to shag both of them now?
Who are we supposed to feel for here? Lol.
This is where someone steps in and says that obviously I didn't get it. No, I guess not. Because regardless of the message, I felt zero for any of them, so the message is one that I really couldn't care any less about. No matter how profound.
Bittersweet Waters (2019)
Has its touching moments
I enjoyed this film and was engaged throughout.
The dialogue and the scenes between the male protagonists was a bit contrived at times, and not real deep. But still touching. And almost fantasy and fairy tale-like in its execution.
Because I can certainly see why the writer of the movie cast Diego the way he did. Talk about every gay man's fantasy. Handsome, Masculine. Straight-acting. Yet completely enamored with the boyfriend. Atl's "hero." That actor playing the role was beyond stud muffin.
If I ever finish my gay-themed script, I'll also cast myself in the lead, and find an actor like that guy to play opposite me too. I'll want him as straight acting and masculine as possible too.
As for the characters, I loved grandma as much as Atl did. A wonderful lady.
Mom was rather nuts and portrayed as such. Very well I might add.
And lucky her. At her age. Getting to make out with the other resident stud muffin. Talk about another young stallion.
Overall, an entertaining movie with a beautiful romance at the center. And seeing the setting of Mexico as a backdrop. Certainly added to the realism of the story.
I will admit that I did like the end of the movie. Much like La La Land, a love story doesn't always have to end with the boy getting the girl, or vice versa. Or in this case, the boy getting the boy.
Maybe the writer can come up with a sequel, along the lines of a Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, etc. And have the leads reunite somewhere down the road. And if the writer is smart, he will rehire that stud muffin again to play his boyfriend. :)
Barbie (2023)
Cute, but limiting in scope
Maybe I will be perceived as one of those insecure middle-aged men who is "terrified" of women, as labeled by another poster on here, but I assure you, I'm not.
First of all, I'm gay, so I'm just here to provide a more unbiased and alternative look at the reality of what the world is nowadays when it comes to what I see between men and women. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I don't have s lot of straight friends and I've stood on the sidelines watching their lives play out quite often. And as I've offered my observations, I've had many a "Barbie" say, 'Yeah, I never thought of that,' when explaining how men think, and see things.
Because remember as we move forward in this discussion, for every Barbie out there, there is a Ken too. And it would indeed be interesting to see the movie, "Ken," come out next. And have it written by a man. And not a man who is just trying be progressive and accepted by women. But a man who truly will give Ken's side of the story too.
So let's begin with the patriarchal thing. A deep and rather complex discussion to be sure.
Is there still a patriarchal mentality going on in this world? Of course. And there will continue to be for some time to come. The world doesn't just do a 180 because some movie called Barbie comes out and relegates men to some sort of inconsequential joke.
Nor did it immediately do a 180 just because women were becoming more vocal about their rights some 50+ years ago (even more when you consider the right to vote).
Just because we're living in a time when it's more acceptable, and cool for women to take jabs at men, doesn't mean change will be enacted overnight. Especially in light of the fact that there are still women out there who aren't "terrified" (to use that poster's word) of men and are perfectly fine letting them take the lead in a relationship, protect them when necessary, and do the things that men have done in relationships since the beginning of time. Remember, patriarchal societies have been around since the beginning of time, and you can't blame men for doing what they ALSO have seen as being expected of them. Many of these expectations coming from women themselves. Whether they'll admit to it or not.
For those who don't subscribe to the latter though, and want to become independent, and change that patriarchal trajectory, there are indeed alternatives. And I say, go for it. We're living in an age when women don't need men. They can be pretty much anything they want to be nowadays. Are there still "ceilings" to be shattered? Yes. But life really isn't that bad.
And what about the Barbie body image thing. For decades we've heard women complain about that impossible image that Barbie dolls have set for women. But the reality is that most men don't expect that in a woman. Not nearly as much as women might pretend or believe they do. That's more of a socialized, media construct that comes as a result of what the Barbie doll, and more generally, Hollywood and print media have set up. In the day to day world though, that's not how it is when it comes to what men expect in women.
Sure, men talk about good-looking women. They ogle women. Sometimes make a catcall or two. But women talk about good-looking men too. And when a good-looking man walks in the room, there is no denying what the women in the room think of him. Hell, I saw Aladdin on Broadway and when he came out without his shirt on, muscles bulging, the women in the audience went nuts. And in the play Take Me Out during the shower scene with a bunch of hot young men naked in the shower scene, the women in the audience weren't exactly suppressing their murmurings and "responses." So come on!
And to expand upon that, I worked at a major amusement park in Anaheim for almost ten years when I was younger. I was witness to thousands of couples. And I can tell you that I actually saw more couples where the man was better looking than the woman than I did where the woman was better looking than the man.
So no, men don't expect perfection.
Actually, from the observations I've made of women it would suggest that they do place a lot of importance on looks and physique when it comes to a man too. They can pretend that they don't, and that it's the men who have these impossible expectations of women, but it doesn't change the facts.
In the movie, we see Barbie's perspective on things. So, this is how Ken sees it in the real world too: women want a man who is good looking, has a great body, has a full head of hair. And oh yeah, if he has a lot of money, even better.
And add to that you have women who have special interests such as a man in uniform;. Or a younger man. I have female friends who will only date a guy in uniform. Etc.
So do women really want to play that "expectations" card?
I wouldn't suggest it. Because they are just as guilty as men. And any body self-image thing that women have is more Hollywood, and yes, Barbie-driven than what is the reality anyway. Because men are way more accepting than women claim them to be. Or I should say, straight men are. Gay men, not so much.
I will even add that men are so accepting of women, that ageism isn't even the issue that women play it up to be. Women complain about men who only want a younger, hotter woman and that women "age out" and are not treated with the same respect. To that I say bull. Let's say my 50 year old female friend and I go out for dinner, and our waiter is some hot younger man. If my friend has a thing for younger men and hits on him, depending on the moment in time, that friend of mine might very well have a date for the night.
I can tell you that as a gay male, that would not happen with that younger man if he was gay. If he played on my team and I made a play for him, there would only be a 5-10% chance I would have a chance at him. Because if you want to know what picky is, ask a gay man. Younger gay men won't hardly give the time of day to an older man.
So straight women benefit from this as well. There is no such thing as becoming too old. There are plenty of younger men who are willing and I'll bet where I'd have a 5-10% with the dude if he played on my team, she'd have an 80-90% chance with him if he was straight. Older gay men will not see the same willingness in younger gay men that straight women do in younger straight men. And even if the younger guy wasn't interested in an older woman, he would treat her with respect. The younger gay man will very likely put the older man down.
But I digress. Even though proven the point that women have nothing to complain about. Trust me.
In closing, are there Ken dolls who only want Barbie? Sure. But that's not the majority.
Do men appreciate a good looking woman with a nice body? Yes.
But women appreciate the same in men too, so time to move on from that discussion. Both men AND women have expectations of the opposite sex.
As to the patriarchal thing? Definitely a deeper and more complex subject.
But still, things have changed a lot for women. I know that patriarchal societies have been around for a long time. They have been the "norm" so to speak. And again, a lot of women are actually still okay with that. They don't mind the man taking the lead in ther relationship, protecting them, etc.
But for those who don't subscribe to that, women can now be the VP of the USA, or the prime minister or president of whole countries. We almost had a female president here in the States. Women can be CEOs, and even directors of movies. Some of the wealthiest people on this earth are women. All kinds of opportunities.
Even the opportunity to get your degree, get a nice job, and find a husband who has a lot of money, is totally hot, wears a uniform, is younger, or whatever. If the latter are your things too.
Women have nothing to complain about. Looks, age, none of it matters as much as you think it does. For women, the Barbie syndrome may exist, but reality would suggest otherwise.
Now boo hoo for me, all of that really DOES matter when you're gay. LOL. Or COL (cry out loud). Whatever the case may be.
Gerontophilia (2013)
An Odd Piece
With a bit of shallowness I'll give it 5 stars for the beautiful young man who played the lead But also included in that 5 stars is a willingness to actually show such a beautiful young man becoming involved with an aging, and not-so-attractive older man. It's pure fantasy that anything like this would ever happen in the gay community where youth is treasured and placed on the highest rung of the social ladder. And to have such a good looking young man at the centerpiece of such a story really does take it into the realm of the fantastic.
But what the hell. In a world where younger good-looking straight men will date women no matter how old they are or what they look like, it is refreshing to see a slight difference in themes, even if it is just a movie. Because sadly younger gay adult man will barely give the time of day to a guy ten years older than him, much less sixty years older than him. So I will give kudos to this movie for that as well. Providing an escape out of the reality of what it is to be an older gay man.
And how awesome for the actor playing Melvyn. Wow. Making out with a hot young man who in real life, according to his bio, is a jock/hockey player, and a male CK model at the time. What an embarrassment of riches. I'm sure when he was introduced to his young costar he could hardly contain himself. Good for him! Score.
Something from Tiffany's (2022)
5 Stars...for the NYC vistas only
Rom coms are only charming when one or two characters are, at least, are somewhat likable. Especially among the protagonist group.
This schtick with two people "in love"...who suddenly fall out of love...so easily? And don't even seem to feel any remorse, regret or sadness over it?
I know. It's a romantic comedy. Reality doesn't count.
Agreed that the two people with whom the protagonists are in "love" aren't exactly prized conquests in and of themselves.
But it takes up to three years for the one chick to figure that out in the first case? And right up to the moment of proposal for the dude in the other?
And then the latter two fall into the arms of a person they hardly know, as one of the two leads so aptly puts it at the end of the movie.
All so simply.
I know. It's a romantic comedy. Reality doesn't count.
Again, 5 stars for NYC in the winter. 0 for the rest.
Call Me by Your Name (2017)
Intrigued...
...by how this movie gets almost 8 stars.
If I could give it zero stars, I would.
My thought is that people feel like they have to give it a high score because it is a gay love story. Not because of the content therein.
Trust me. Explore. There are much better treatments of this subject matter. 100 times better than this.
In fact, this has to be the most banal and contrived treatment of a story like this that I have ever seen. And the dialogue is utterly ridiculous.
Not to mention that these characters are neither likable, nor developed enough to make their relationship believable or touching.
When, where, and why does the attraction even start?
The character, Oliver, is a bore. Why would anyone find him or his vapid comments interesting.
And the younger man is so in love with himself, and such a dramatist.
Why? Where is he given any story of perceived struggle that we would want to root for him to overcome, or why should we have any emotional connection to him at all?
"I think Oliver likes you more than you like yourself," says his mom. Or something of that nature. As she continues to give them her cutesy little knowing glances throughout.
Again, where is the conflict?
Is it the fault of the writers, or is it the way these actors are portraying them? Or is it just that these characters, and/or the story, aren't even remotely interesting.
These two go from zero to lovey dovey with no evidence of any attraction to one another whatsoever.
Again, Oliver is a yawnfest, and Elio struts around like a peacock, having sex with his girlfriend so voraciously you wonder why he is even with Oliver. I guess that is necessary though. Make him bi so that he is more appealing and acceptable.
If you want a touching love story between gay men, see Maurice, or even Brokeback Mountain. There you will get true conflict, a true story of longing, and thoughtful dialogue.
"Call me by your name and I'll call you by mine."
Wow. How deep. How thought-provoking.
Insert eye roll.
I stopped watching it half way through but then went back because I figured I couldn't give it a true rating without watching it to the end. With some thought that it might redeem itself with some twist.
It doesn't.
Nothing touching about this at all. Nothing thought-provoking.
And daddy's monologue at the end...just so sweet. And so mesmerizing.
Oliver and Elio had what he never quite had in his own life.
Um, what? What exactly did they have? It wasn't developed enough for us to have any idea. Nor care one iota about it.
Is this a sweet coming of age story about one's first love? If so, it's weak. His tears at the end are not enough to convince us that what they had was anything particularly earth-shattering when it comes to a loving relationship. I never got the sense that Elio cared all THAT much about him.
Again, is it because his character isn't developed enough? Or is it because the actor just doesn't tap into it? Either way. I felt nothing.
I purchased the book before watching the movie because I usually will do both when both movie and a book are involved. But I'm taking the book back because after checking out the reviews of the book and those who score it the lowest, it seems like it's basically the same. Uninteresting characters who are neither charismatic or engaging.
All Male, All Nude: Johnsons (2019)
It's a pity....
The hottest guys are always the straight ones.
Chicks have all the luck.
That dude in the Lego shirt and cap...wow.
Spiderman.....wow.
The hottest guys imaginable.
And watching Harry Potter taking a piss...yikes. Thanks, man.
An interesting video but not a terribly thought-provoking flick and the stories are pretty typical. The only difference is that these guys are hot and have great bodies.
Inspirational to see how the guys who are so hot and have great bodies now used to be bullied. Hard to believe when you see them now. Hard to believe they were ever bullied looking at them now.
Latino men...simply fantastic.
You can tell which guys are going to earn the most though.
All Male, All Nude (2017)
An 8...but only for the obvious
Nothing terribly compelling about their stories.
But anytime you can see a floppy, swinging naked Johnson it's a good thing.
IMO, none of them are overly good looking. They're certainly not unattractive. But just not what I would expect in a male nude stripper. Dallas is kind of cute, and a couple of other guys in the background who they don't interview or show onstage are pretty sexy, but that's about it.
They certainly have nice bodies though, and their Johnsons are nice to look at, hanging flaccid and flopping around.
I didn't really see any that measured up to the measuring stick that one dude held up though. He almost made it sound like the first thing they do is drop their pants and step up to the green measuring stick, and they better "measure up."
It's nice to see most of them are pretty average, maybe a little better. But not huge.
Fun to see naked men. Give it an 8. But again, the stories aren't all that interesting. I'm sure they're fun to hang with though. Especially naked.
Good Luck to You, Leo Grande (2022)
Just another excuse...
For validating older women by putting them in a movie with a hot young naked stud. And then telling us it's a movie about a woman's sense of finally finding herself. And self-discovery.
So she couldn't do so with a man her age?
We've moved from a time when older men with younger women deemed those men nothing more than "dirty old" men going through some "mid-life crisis."
But now that we see movie after movie with the role reversal, and it's somehow "moving," if not chic, for an older woman to be doing it with a young stud.
What? They're not "dirty old women" going through a "midlife crisis" too?
A Rainy Day in New York (2019)
It just didn't resonate...
The typically great sounds of a Woody Allen movie. Some nice shots of NY.
But these characters....there is just nothing even remotely interesting or engaging or likable about them.
And I think that has more to do with how the players are portraying them rather than the dialogue itself, as it is typically Allen in many ways.
But the way the actors deliver just doesn't get the job done. They all come up short, in my opinion. The blonde especially.
It's like the actress watched three or four Woody Allen movies in order to decide which past actress she wanted to tap into and imitate. Her character and the portrayal of that character are almost irritating, forced and contrived.
I don't see the actor playing the Gatsby character pulling off the male lead of a Woody Allen role with any sort of authenticity either. He also seems to be a caricature as he attempts to play Into the nature of the put upon, somewhat neurotic lead male character we see in so many of Allen's movies. But while past actors have pulled it off, this young man just doesn't.
Rumors are his next movie will be his last. I hope WA goes out with a bang. This one just didn't do it for me.
Turning Red (2022)
Sorry....but unlikable from start to finish
Loud and obnoxious characters who, in my opinion, were just unlikable and irritating.
I know the angst and the pangs that teenagers go through. I've been one.
But sometimes movies and their messages try too hard to be relevant, cool and "hip" with the audience.
Turning Red was just too contrived for my taste.
I know Pixar is trying to "relate" to an older group of kids who are going through the challenges of adolescence, but I just feel that it failed.
I couldn't finish it either. And to read through the spoilers/reviews, it would seem that the rest of the movie that I couldn't sit through had the exact path that I knew it would take.
Being the Ricardos (2021)
Entertaining, but be prepared to suspend disbelief
While she puts out a valiant effort portraying Lucille Ball, and while, on occasion, the make-up does some justice in morphing Kidman into Lucy, the voice, and the mannerisms just fall short. Seems she almost tries too hard at times.
That being said, it's almost impossible to mimic the brilliance that was Lucy.
NK was better in the dramatic parts, but when it turned to reenacting some of the famous scenes, tough to watch.
Kidman is a Hollywood darling though, so they'll cut her slack, and even praise her for taking on the role.
And while I like Bardem as an actor, he looks old enough to be Desi's dad in this movie, not Desi himself. His acting is fine...but again, a lot of disbelief that needs to be suspended here.
Fairly entertaining take on their lives though and good effort on the parts of the actors.
Lucy was something unique and special.
No one was going to truly pull this off without room for question.
A+ for effort, and for having the guts to take it on though.
These Old Broads (2001)
Corny, and quite frankly, really bad
And who were these guys they cast?
Especially the guy who played the producer, or whoever he was. Talk about awful. He was cast for one reason, and it wasn't his acting ability. Sorry, when the guy puts his feet up on the desk, lusting after Joan Collins' picture.
I mean, how cliche can you get.
Had to turn it off out of embarrassment for all involved.
I'll choose to remember Debbie Reynolds and Elizabeth Taylor in their hey day. Not this nonsense.
French Exit (2020)
Three stars...for Paris only...
A movie that tries too hard...for something it really doesn't achieve.
A movie that seems to be saying, 'Look how edgy and though-provoking I am.'
A cast that seems to be saying, 'Look how quirky and attractive we are, and how great we look in nice clothes, sitting in elegant surroundings. And can't you just sense our angst?'
I felt no attachment to any of the characters, and the dialogue felt mostly contrived, with some weak attempt to come off as cerebral but stylish in some Woody Allen"ish" in way.
As for the acting, I felt there was more of a 'look at me' approach to that as well. 'Look how well I play beta noir.'
Most actors with even the remotest sense of ability in acting can pull off the role of the son. Walk around, look sullen, present with flat affect. Again, with the 'look how edgy and thought-provoking I am.' I really couldn't have cared less about his character. And when his "interaction" with his father came on, again, it was like who cares?
As for his mother, I have no issues with her as an actress usually, but any woman with the slightest talent can pull that role off. Put me in nice clothes, with a cigarette between my fingers, and I can give you attitude. With a little pretense, a little angst, a little drama tinged with sarcasm. Not a problem.
As some of my female friends have told me, women are already natural born actresses, starting with their own lives, from the youngest of ages. Acting is not necessarily such a stretch for many of them.
Sorry, this film jjust didn't resonate.
Dear Evan Hansen (2021)
Ben's performance...forever preserved
I saw DEH on the stage with the OBC and was blown away. Platt's performance pulled me in in ways that very few have in decades of theatergoing, both in NYC, and here in LA.
And Rachel Bay Jones....phenomenal. Her connection with Ben onstage was so strong that had I been the director, producer, whoever, on this film, I almost would have chosen to have Jones recreate the role of his mother in the film, and then surround them with bigger names in the kids who were cast. Find some popular younger actors who can carry a tune and leave Ben and Rachel as the centerpiece of the story. Of course, you can keep Connor's parents big names too. But let Rachel and Ben have their mother-son moment again onscreen. It was just so powerful on the stage.
But I digress.
The one thing I've noticed about DEH is the critiques, debates and discussions of the movie seem to often fall into one or several categories.
1. Is Platt's age really that much of a problem? Only a point of discussion for the movie since he was closer to high school age when he performed the role on Broadway.
2. If not his age, is it the nepotism? Are people losing sight of the forest for the trees, no pun intended, just because they are so hung up on his father's role in this movie that they can't see how talented this young man is? And what a strong message this movie can have for so many?
3. For those who CAN claim not to be bothered by 1 or
2, it then seems to be about the sociopathic aspect of the character. He's an unsympathetic character. A sociopath even.
4. For those who can get passed 1 and 2, and can still be forgiving of Evan, it then seems to become about the subject matter. To some it's offensive.
Suffice it to say, there were those who were going to hate on this movie before it ever even hit the theaters. For one or all of the reasons above.
I had a different take...on all the points mentioned above.
Personally I can see this musical for what it offers, without being so overly troubled by the lead actor's age, or his relationship to the producer of the movie. The product is powerful. Nepotism will always play a part in such industries as Hollywood; it's what it is. You can go to some of the best cinema schools in the country...USC, NYU....but it so often ends up being who you know. Not where you went to school.
His age? How many times have we found ourselves suspending disbelief over this? This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. Did he look older? Yes. But it wasn't like it was Antonio Banderas trying to pull it off as a teenager.
As for his character flaws...in my opinion, I don't see Evan as a sociopath. He lies, and hurts people, yes. Is he fully aware of what he is doing? Yes. But as he gets drawn into the lie, does he continue to do so out of malice? No. Does he do so with zero remorse? No. He's a conflicted kid who makes a very wrong decision. And he knows it. You see it in his affect and mannerisms throughout both the play and the movie. It can be argued that he is getting something out of the lie, the girl he wants, acceptance from others, but he doesn't just keep receiving it without any sort of consideration to what it's doing to people. He's very aware of it. Sociopaths aren't usually in touch with feelings of remorse or self-reflection.
Evan is a troubled kid who glommed onto something selfishly, out of desperation, for a need to belong. And to feel like somebody. It got out of hand. Again, was it wrong? Yes. No one denies that. Even Evan. You see it in his character throughout.
For those who argue it's a troubling subject matter. Offensive even. If one gets this feeling from the movie, that's okay. This is what makes cinema so great. The perspectives of audience members will be different. For others though, this movie was cathartic. Just as we see in the array of social media messages that are sent out over the airwaves in response to Evan's speech in the play and in the movie, there are those who are seeing this movie and seeing themselves all over this story in one way or another. They've been "found" by this movie and its message.
Do I see how this movie might be seen as troubling to many? Sure. But again, that's the power behind cinema. It takes us out of our comfort zone and will resonate with some, and not with others. Different viewers will even have different perspectives and takes on certain characters.
Now, to the play vs. The movie. Did I connect with this story on the stage more than I did the movie. Maybe a little. There is something raw. Something intimate. Something authentic about seeing live actors perform this in front of you. And it's something confined to a smaller space which allows you to really focus on the characters rather than all the peripheral stimuli.
But I think the movie did very well with handling this story, keeping it as intimate, and limited in settings as it could.
And having Platt's performance forever preserved is something I'm grateful for. When this play hit the tour circuit, I had no interest in seeing it because I just couldn't see anyone else but Platt in this role. He was just that believable.
Had this movie had anyone else, I wouldn't have seen it either.
My only suggestion would have been to keep "Anybody Have a Map" as I think it served as an important framing device. It's not as much of a "pop" hook for the movie as "Waving Through a Window," but I think it gave the relationship between parents and teenagers greater context to open the show.
I also think "Good For You" allowed Evan's mom even more of a voice which added to the story. It would have fleshed out their relationship even more on the screen.
I think their relationship was very well played out on the stage, and it was raw. And that song added to it. The movie felt a little less effective in playing this out in my opinion because of this. And, of course, Rachel was just so good (not that Moore wasn't; she was fine).
I really liked this movie. And I loved the stage musical. In my top 5 of well over 100 musicals I've seen onstage.
In closing, I'd be curious to see how people would have seen Evan's character had they seen the stage play, which had a different ending.
I think one COULD argue that he was even less sympathetic in the way the play ended versus how they chose to end the movie.
But to be honest, even with the way the play ended, with Zoe only marginally and reluctantly giving him a little time to speak his piece in the orchard, it doesn't get wrapped up with as big of a bow. Not that TOTAL resolution is even met in the movie. Both still leave us with Evan realizing what he has done, and now it's time to move on the best he can. But in the play he doesn't put that message out to as wide of an audience as he does in the movie.
As for Zoe, in the play you sense she has heard him out, but not ready to fully forgive. There's still a distance, and there it's left. In the movie, she's played as one who seems closer to accepting him, even despite what he's done. Not totally, but closer.
Overall, a very enjoyable movie with terrific performances.
Magic in the Moonlight (2014)
Fun and thought-provoking movie
Set against a backdrop that is the beauty of southern France.
It possesses appealing performances by appealing actors, and certainly has WA written all over it.
His choices of music are as enchanting as they always are, and he has a way of capturing the essence of a setting that is exquisite.
I also like the explorations of science and faith.
The skeptic who is adamant about his beliefs, and lack thereof.
But then with a bit of questioning fused in.
In watching interviews and looking at readings related to WA, he comes off as the skeptic, favoring what is rational over the possibilities that might exist beyond our understanding.
It's about questioning those possibilities, while putting aside the rational, and at the same time leaving us to see that maybe faith does have validity and is worth looking at.
I enjoyed it.
365 dni (2020)
Definitely a chick flick....
Full of sex....which women obsess over.
And full of male objectification....which women also obsess over.
Do men think of sex and objectify women? Yep.
But biologically you expect them to.
Women always play themselves up as not being obsessive over such things, while pointing the fingers at men as being one-track minded. Nice try.
Based on the responses here, women show they are actually worse than men when it comes to obsession with sex and body objectification. Congratulations. No more playing innocent.
Light in the Piazza (1962)
The Complexity of Love
On the surface, this is a beautiful love story set against the backdrop of Italy and all its charm and passion.
Lying beneath the surface though we find the complexities of love as seen in a number of different forms.
The love story at the center of the tale is one involving a youthful and seemingly naive Italian named Fabrizio whose charm and innocence captivate the audience in the same way they steals the heart of Clara.
But just how naive is he?
We find out, early on, that Clara was injured in an accident as a child that has rendered her unable to move beyond the mental capacity of a ten year old.
But then again, just how unable is she to move beyond those limitations?
These are the questions that leave you with a small set of unanswered questions. The story will also leave you questioning the mother's manipulation of the situation, as well as the of the soon-to-be groom's father.
Still and all, it leaves you rooting for the young protagonists.
And hoping they are still together today.
Margaret indeed rolls the dice. And we can only hope that the risk she takes in manipulating that situation won't harm her daughter. Because we can only assume that her decision will certainly be a death sentence for her own marriage.
Let's hope she hasn't destroyed both a daughter and a husband.
When it comes to love though, what exactly is normal?
While we might question the relationship between Fabrizio and Clara, because of her inability to be a whole, mature woman (something she apparently is not aware of...or is she?), there is much to be questioned when looking at the relationships between partners in those marriages that are "normal" too.
We have Giuseppe...who is a rounder. As Margaret says, she's glad for him, but not for his wife.
We have Signor Nacarreli and his wife, where there is clearly a disconnect as well. Perhaps largely because he is depicted as the stereotyped Italian man, and such an approach to life, and non-monogamy, is not such an out of the ordinary thing.
Then there is Margaret and her husband whose relationship has also been challenged by their daughter's accident.
Yet where do we see what appears to be true love? It's in the naive Fabrizio, and his impaired love, Clara.
So what is the message? No love is perfect. No relationship is perfect.
But if the love is sincere, perhaps that wins out in the end.
As the story comes to a close, we can go one of two directions. We can question Margaret, and think that this isn't going to end well. When the "honeymoon" is over, will love really be sustained, and is it reasonable to think that as much of a romantic as Fabrizio is, will he be able to continue living with a woman who has been debilitated as she has been?
Or maybe we can be hopeful. And think back to the moment by the pool when Fabrizio comforts Clara. In his eyes he sees something different. And is able to calm her down in a way that her parents can't. Maybe he does get it after all.
And with Clara, perhaps she too has gained some insight into what has happened. Maybe she knows more than we think she does. She may still be stunted, but as she is being read to by her mother on the last night before her wedding, and her stuffed toy remains on the floor next to her bed, maybe she has moved to a greater level of maturity after all. This in addition to the fact that she is able to maintain her emotional composure throughout the episode when Signor Nacarreli suddenly pulls back and we think the relationship will not be allowed to go forward.
I choose to believe that despite the manipulations of Margaret, and the calculated measures of Fabrizio's father, it's the children who get it. After all.
Perhaps Fabrizio knows something is wrong, but accepts her?
Maybe Clara is more in tune with her own differences than anyone thinks, but has found a way to work with them, even though maybe she can't put her finger on what those differences are.
Love has perhaps been the key to opening that understanding of self, and others, in these young lovers.
Overall, I found this a beautiful and captivating movie.
The backdrop of Italy is magical. A picture postcard that pays homage to a country that is almost impossible to photograph in any way that is not romantic or picturesque. Italy is a vision.
This is a beautifully acted movie.
It may not have done well at the box office, but it is more than a respectable outing for both Brazzi and de Havilland who inhabit their characters in meaningful and believable ways.
Mimieux is charming as Clara, and someone you root from start to finish.
While I agree that an Italian actor would have been closer to perfection for Fabrizio, Hamilton holds his own as a very likable and honest young Italian suitor.
My only question regarding casting....who is that brother, Giuseppe? And why wasn't he in more films? Dude is gorgeous. And that smile. Just wow.
In closing, I find this movie a true pleasure. And the questions it leaves only enhances the experience.
Funny Girl (1968)
Still Stands the Test of Time
Some of the greatest music ever.
Presented by the vocal genius that is Barbra Streisand.
I remember my mom having the original soundtrack to the movie and playing it quite regularly.
Overall, a really great movie. Showcasing a talent that would become one of the biggest stars this world would ever know.
Is the movie "funny" at every turn as its title suggests? Not really. But that's okay. It's merely about a woman who was known for her comedic skills that she brought to the Ziegfeld Follies. And often times what was perceived as funny back then, doesn't hold up as well. It's not unlike seeing the musical "Anything Goes" for the first time and the corny, old-fashioned jokes that in the 30s/40s might have tickled the audience's funny bone. But in the 21st century, pretty....well, corny.
For me, I watch Funny Girl mainly for the music, and Barbra Streisand's performance. And super to see some of the songs that she brought to the Broadway stage in the original Broadway production being recreated here.
Would I consider BS a comic genius? No. But she's very entertaining and brings something special to the role.
And that voice.
And again, those songs!
Brilliant.
Sometimes I have mixed feelings with Barbra mainly because her more recent incarnations are largely political in nature, and I don't look to celebrities for political guidance, but whatever.
It doesn't change the fact she is one of our country's greatest talents. And this movie is what brought her to an even greater audience. She's at her purest here. Her first movie, largely unknown to many. Before she became the bigger than life star she is now. It was all about a talent that had come direct from Broadway, and we were seeing her for the first time, experiencing the talent at its origins. Before we would start to see the larger than life public persona that would emerge.
Again, something very original and, well, pure about seeing Barbra at the beginning of her illustrious career.
To Catch a Thief (1955)
A 10+ for the scenery and glamour
For the storyline...somewhat less.
It's not my favorite by Hitchcock. A little too drawn out in some places.
But the scenery and glamour keeps your attention.
And I'm okay with Hitchcock diverging a bit from his usual dramatic fare. Infusing humor into his works.
Grant's witty dialogue is typical of him in many of his outings.
She is also given this type of banter as well in the movie, but with her character, I find them a bit tiresome at times. She's too smooth sometimes. You wonder how many people actually talk like that. And if they do, do they ever let go of the witty, just to be real once in a while. It's like having that friend who always is cracking jokes or speaking with allusions and being witty at every turn. It becomes exhausting.
When he calls her insecure, accustomed to getting men, but not sure if it's because of her beauty or her money, I think that nails it. Well, almost.
Listening to her dialogue the way it's presented in the movie, I would dare say she's no more insecure than Grace Kelly herself was.
Both know they're beautiful. And both know they can have any guy they want.
Kelly, in the movie, doesn't have to work hard to get Grant.
Kelly, in real life, was reeling in a prince. And probably didn't have to do much to make that happen either.
The Big Easy (1986)
An entertaining crime drama....
And set in New Orleans. What could be better?
Interesting though to hear the varied take on the dialect. Some natives of the region say the actors' take on their roles are not great when it comes to their dialect.
Others say it's great. My ex included. He was almost full-blooded Cajun and said that Quaid's attempts at the dialect were actually really good.
Just goes to show two people can come up with totally different takes on the same thing.
As for the characterizations, I agree that it's a little hard to believe that such a driven, independent woman like Barkin's character would fall for Remy so quickly.
This Anne Osborne is at least a little more convincing than the woman who plays the role in the TV rendition of the show that came 10 years later. Something I just came upon last night....didn't even know about it until last night when watching the movie again on Amazon Prime linked me to it. Tried watching it. Just awful.
Anne Osborne from the TV rendition is not only poorly acted, but you almost wonder, is she really an educated professional, or a pole dancer. The way she goes after Remy. At least Barkin's Osborne takes a little longer to fall prey to his charms.
Overall, I have always enjoyed this movie. Great music. Good acting....for the most part. The character played by Persky is just annoying. Can't tell if it's the character herself, or the acting behind it.