The Red Shoes

I suspect MOST people who like this movie so much do so because theyare fans of ballet. Those who are not fans are simply much less likelyto watch it. I DON’T care for ballet, so I felt a little odd watchingit. I know the movie has a fabulous reputation and there was a lot ofgood in it, but I used the DVD remote to speed through the long balletscenes! I know, that makes me a Neanderthal, BUT considering MOSTpeople probably feel about the same way about ballet, this review isintended for those people–not the die-hard fans! Okay–half the movieor so is ballet, so automatically it CAN’T be a great movie to some.But, what did I like? Well, the cinematography was gorgeous for 1948and the acting was generally first-rate. But, the ending of the moviewas a letdown because it seemed a bit silly and overwrought. Plus, Iwas REALLY hoping someone would punch that really pompous producer(Boris Lermontov) in the nose instead–now THAT would have been a greatending! So, in conclusion, if you LOVE ballet, this movie will make yougo nuts because it is so wonderful. But, if you don’t, you’ll probablyfind yourself wondering WHY you decided to watch the movie in the firstplace!

If anything epitomises the self-praising luvvies of the Britishfilm/stage industries, then this is it. It is loved by the critics as amasterpiece of direction and performance. They slap each other on theback, and totally ignore some really bad howlers (called "boners" inthe USA).

For a start, how many pronunciations are there of "Lermontov?" Icounted three. We have a old friend of Boris Lermontov calling him notBorya but Boris, and he stresses the first syllable. Some Russian ishe! If these actors, were struggling with their Russian they need onlyhave asked the Moscow-born Leonide Massine. This is just plain sloppy.Instead of being slapped on the back, these so-called actors shouldhave been punched on the nose!

In fact, Leonide Massine turns out the only decent acting performance.He is superb throughout.

As to Moira Shearer. The Scottish ballerina is a superb dancer but apoor actress. She is supposed to be in emotional turmoil over whetherto choose love or career. Instead, she might just as well be choosingwhether to have porridge or rice crispies for breakfast.

And all the marvellous trick photography of the dance sequences istotally undone by a glaring blunder like high fidelity reception of theBBC Third Programme in Monaco.

If the British luvvies spent as much time perfecting their work as theydo telling each other how marvellous they are, they might avoid ruiningpromising films like this.

Film based around the classic Hans Christian Anderson tale of the ‘RedShoes’, starring Moira Shearer. I’d wanted to see this for quite a whileand even though it didn’t quite live up to my expectations, I couldn’tfaultany of the amazing ballet sequences, which make it easy to see why thisfilmhas become such a classic. A good turn too by Shearer, who shows realemotion as the girl torn between her love of the ballet and her love fortheyoung composer (Marius Goring)

Han Christian Andersen's tale The Red Shoes, first published in 1845has inspired 2 movies (including this one), a Broadway play, an album,an episode of The Twilight Zone and an attraction at a Dutch amusementpark just to name a few. About a girl that receives a pair of red shoesthat makes her want to dance, but the shoes never want to stop, even atthe demise of the wearer. What Pressburger / Powell have done with thestory is made the world that all little girls want to grow up in. Allof the dancers are straight and date the ballerinas, the primaballerina dances in fantastic locations like Monte Carlo, London andParis. Is this what the life of ballet was like in Europe in the lateforties? Probably not, but certainly the image that they wanted out totheir audience both in 1948 and 2007. It is interesting that thefantasy survived the past sixty years and is present today (see 2000'sCenter Stage). I think All that Jazz (1979) is a more accurate pictureof what it is like to be a professional dancer. If you enjoy ballet,you will find this a beautiful movie (If you cannot get your boyfriendoff the couch to torment him at the ballet, than rent this as a goodsubstitute. No tux but it will be excruciating for non-dance fans).

There are lots of great things about this movie: the passion of all thecharacters (though there’s not much real sexual passion), the colour, themusic and, of course, the dancing. The script could have been tighter(couldn’t there have been some other way of getting Anton to work forLermontov without all that exposition?); Vicky’s transformation fromchirpyEnglish rose to suicidal maniac doesn’t ring true, even after we see herasthe ballet dancer who just can’t stop dancing in the Red Shoes ballet;andare we to believe that Lermontov is in love with Vicky or just obsessedwithher as a dancer? (he comes across as too camp to create any sexualtensionbetween the characters). Also when Anton Walbrook announces that "theperformance will not go on (SPOILER ALERT! because Vicky’s carked it), helooks and sounds exactly like Hitler: the hair, the moustache, theshriekingvoice — was that intentional? I mean, the guy who plays Walbrook wasAustrian and the movie was made in England just after the war — were thefilm-makers labouring the point about Lermontov’s fanaticism?

This is one of my favorite films because it takes the story of HansChristen Anderson's Red Shoes and uses it as a backdrop for a touringballet company.

Boris, the heartless head of a profitable touring ballet company loseshis prima ballerina Irina to…gasp…marriage. Everyone is happy forIrina except Boris who you figure out quickly, worked Irina day andnight because he loved dance and had little tolerance for anythingelse.

He finds his next prima, a dancer named Victoria to whom he stages HansChristian Andersen's The Red Shoes for. Not only that, he finds hisnext Maestro at the same time, Jullian, who adapts the music for theballet. Julian and Victoria fall in love, Boris NEVER has time foranything but his ballet and dance and wants everyone around him and inhis ballet company to be the same so this new development upsets himgreatly. And here is where art starts to imitate life.

I've seen this movie only a few times in my life and every time I seeit, I just love it..and those red shoes. I too am bias, I've alwaysloved dancing but I am a compulsive. The Red Shoes would be me, I'ddance and dance and dance…and let the shoes just take over to theinevitable end.

A wonderful motion picture that stands up to the test of time.

This was my first film by the Archers. I saw it two summers ago. I wasmoderately impressed, mostly by the centerpiece, the titular ballet, butfelt that it lacked something, too. I was hoping that it would connect moreon a second viewing, as at least one other Archers film did, BlackNarcissus. Unfortunately, I liked it even less. Let me establish this rightaway: that centerpiece is one of the best pieces of cinema ever created.Buteach of the hours on either side of that is nothing special at best,something awful at worst. The direction is once in a while good, a coupleoftimes great, but the script is generic and emotionless. The actors aregenerally dull. I disliked both Marius Goring and Anton Walbrook the firsttime around (both of whom I liked in other Archers films). I still didn’tlike Goring, but I absolutely hated Walbrook the second time. He seems tobechanneling Hitler through most of the film, or maybe Werner Klemperer(especially when he makes that announcement at the end of the film). Partofit is certainly his character. Pressburger just doesn’t give him anyhumanity whatsoever, and I just can’t sympathize with him. I rememberlikingMoira Shearer a lot the first time around, but I found her acting prettybadthis time. I guess
I was just fooled because she is so beautiful. Thathappens sometimes, of course. Can’t criticize her dancing, though. She doesa lot of mugging with those big, beautiful, deeply blue eyes, but not muchacting. The only actor whom I still like is Léonide Massine, who playsGrischa, the lead male dancer. The script holds 90% of the film’s problems.The characters are very poorly developed, for the most part. Walbrook’swould be good if he weren’t such an execrable one. The plot is made up ofcliches, and the parts that are not seem rather forced to me. Yet I can’tdislike the film. Powell and Pressburger are just too clever with theirdirection. I think, for instance, how romantic that scene in the buggywouldbe if it were to be found in A Matter of Life and Death, my favorite filmfrom the pair. And the centerpiece! Again, I can’t stress how much I loveit. It brought me to tears. Of course, so did the rest of the film, butthose were tears of boredom. I’ll just proclaim that it is, if not thegreatest sequence in cinema, the greatest sequence in cinema to be found ina mediocre film. 7/10.

…that now some of their works ,although far from being disappointing,suffer by comparison.Frankly,I do not think that "the red shoes" is on apar with "a matter of life and death" ("stairway to heaven") "the thief ofBagdad " "black narcissus" or the breathtaking "peeping tom" (sansPressburger by the way) to name but four.It is a very long work andsometimes it’s boring.There’s the ballet which is the piece de resistance ofthe work and is still impressive today:it rivals the best of the Americanmusicals.But what remains ,except for two or three scenes (including thefinal one) is never that much exciting.

Coming from average authors ,it would be enthusing.But coming from Powell/Pressburger ,we expect more,which is certainly unfair.Watch it anyway:its incredible filmed ballet is worth the price ofadmission.

I've been dreading a viewing of this, despite assurances that therewasn't too much dancing (there is!). Despite assurances that a viewerdoesn't have to like dancing to like the movie. (You do (I do) & Ididn't) Despite a review stating that the first 90 minutes were perfect(Am I watching the same movie everyone else is?). Despite assurancesthat this was an extraordinary movie and I would love it… I didn't. Ireally found this movie to be an unremarkable, overinflated beast.

Despite a review that assured me this is the best Powell & Pressburgermovie, all I saw was the standard harangue about Thee-uh-tuh peoplewith all the clichés the footlights can brighten; a Svengali, atalented kid who just needs a chance to prove it. This is a boatload ofclichés without the nuance I've come to expect from Powell &Pressburger. This is a movie with one measly idea, and it takes bothtoo long to get to it, and too long to finish up.

I was watching the clock for the entire first hour. I never found thismovie the slightest bit engaging, because it repudiates everything thatfilm does well. It's like taking the worst part of Oklahoma (the dreamballet) and making it three hours long. It reminded me of the quote"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture," it may alsobe like reducing film to the conceits of the stage. Abstract ballet isstill vital and compelling. Narrative ballet is about as relevant andheavy-handed as silent film, even when done by P&P, even with filmtricks. Perhaps if I was an exceedingly girly thirteen year old… Theonly pleasure I got out of this was when I began fast-forwarding overgratuitous ballet performances and melodrama in the final hour.

Any crappy movie can make you conclude, "Gee, that was pretty." It's arare movie that makes you think. (about anything!) Powell/Pressburgerfilms usually do. But this was exactly the movie I expected anddreaded. I know I'm in the minority but I found this movie frickingawful.

The creepy effeminate bug-eyed dancer went on to be the creepy childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

When a world famous ballet company under the direction of the greatLermontov employs a young hopeful dancer the hope is to turn her into one ofthe world’s greatest. When a young composer (Craster) is also employed itsparks conflict within the creative trio. Craster and Victoria fall in loveto the detriment of their careers as Lermontov begins to realise he is notonly losing Victoria but also losing the chance for her to ever danceCraster’s `The Red Shoes’ ballet again.

With time this film appears to have become more famous and have a betterreputation. This seems to be mainly because of praise and commendationsfrom modern directors like Scorsese and Spielberg who cite it as areference. But to ignore that fact that the film is worthy of praise evenwithout such famous referees to fight it’s corner. The reason that it isworth seeing is simply the richness of the production. While much Britishcinema in 1948 was black and white this film not only used full colour butis a rich vibrant colour which is combined which a lavish production andwonderful imagery.

The ballet scene itself is worth watching it for and is a perfect example ofwhat I’m talking about. By taking it beyond the stage and into the minds ofthe dancers it adds layers of beauty where before we would have only had theaudience in the background. However I don’t hold the same opinion as manywho feel it is one of the greatest films ever made – it isn’t, although Ican understand how it would make such an impression in a black & white world– even now it is visually impressive.

The weakness for me is the actual story. I know that it is loosely based onthe real life unresolved relationship between Diaghilev and his protégéNijinksy but the telling here lacks the wonder and power of the production. Instead much of it is a more mundane love-triangle melodrama that oftenfails to involve. It is still gripping at times and the climax is worthybut it still can’t compare to the overall production that is to thedetriment of the film.

The characters aren’t as full as they needed to be and they don’t involve aswell as they should have as a result. Walbrook is good as the driven balletmaster and adds passion as well as restraint to his performance. Goring isa little less complex and plays it a little plainer for much of the film asa result. Shearer is wonderful when she has to dance but as an actress shedoesn’t always convince. However for all my reservations they all do prettywell for the climax that could have been ridiculously overwrought but isgood enough.

Overall this is a wondrous film despite the slightly weak melodramatictelling of the central plot. However the colour and richness of the filmmore than make up for these problems.

read comments (0)

The Ref

This film almost worked for me, no doubt because there is a great deal oftalent who worked on the movie. But there was one HUGE flaw that seriouslyruined this film. Who was I supposed to like in this film? The thief? Hisstupid partner? The bickering couple? Their annoying son? Quite simply,no one in this movie was likable, and so I didn’t much care what happened toany of them. And as a result, despite the funny moments and decent pacethat kept things moving along smoothly, I just didn’t care about what I wasseeing…and movie flaws just don’t get much bigger thanthat.

This movie tried to be a showcase and to take advantage of Denis Learys’brilliant comedy routine. This was a great idea, and it turned out to bepretty good. But the story that went with it was trite at best. The storyhad been done before and done better. It was also inconsistent, and none ofthe characters had any depth. Again what made this movie watchable wasDenis Leary simply being Denis Leary

I LOVE Kevin Spacey. His acting is remarkable in Glengarry Glen Ross,American Beauty, on theatre, etc. I also love Denis Leary with hissmartass biting humor. I saw this film for them and it was ratherdisappointing, to say the least.

The script is sickeningly pointless…..I know its a comedy butcouldn’t it have made a little sense? What stupid couple could argue somuch to drive an armed man crazy? The scenes with the burglarsympathizing with the son made me laugh more than anything else becauseit was so phony and stupid. I just couldn’t buy the whole tough imageLeary was trying to sell and at the same time believe a family wouldlet go and help a man who had just kept them hostage while the policewere right in front of them. And the fights between Judy and Spaceywere WAY overacted and unrealistic…..and I hate that stupid whinykid…..anyway…that’s my opinion.

Ted Demme’s film ‘Hostile Hostages’ has an awfully clunky title, butalso overtones of a number of other films, most obviously ‘AmericanBeauty’. Kevin Spacey’s burnt out, disillusioned middle aged man isalmost a dead ringer for his character in that later film, and thehints of unhappiness beneath a superficially serene suburbia is anotherpoint in common. While the way in which a family crisis forces decadesof unspoken feelings out into the open resembles Mike Leigh’s ‘Secretsand Lies’. But there’s also a sense in which ‘Hostile Hostages’ is muchless ambitious than either of those movies, for it’s a straightforwardcomedy in which a gunman takes this unfortunate family hostage; theundercurrents are exploited for laughs, but not seriously explored.Laughs there are for real, however, with some great one-liners, thoughsome of the humour is as clunky as the title (and made worse by a diresoundtrack that signposts the biggest jokes with funny noises). Andultimately, the psychology of the characters doesn’t really makessense; while Dennis Leary as the gunman is just too cuddly. Still, itshould make you smile, provided you don’t expect anything deeper thansitcom.

The Ref tells the story of a burglar who takes a married couple hostagein their own house on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, he picked the wrongcouple. They are constantly bickering back and forth, and he can't getthem to shut up. Everything is blown to smithereens when theirdelinquent son and the rest of the family arrives home for a largedysfunctional dinner. Eventually, the burglar ends up having to be areferee for the family. This movie isn't side splitting hilarious, butit has its moments.

After hearing so many great things about this movie, about howhilarious it was, I decided to see it. I couldn't understand what allthe fuss was about. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie. Itcertainly has funny moments. I chuckled a few times, and I think I letout a big laugh once. Unfortunately, this movie was described asnon-stop hilarity, which is a grossly incorrect statement, because thismovie is a comedy/drama, and the dramatic scenes really slow this moviedown. The dialogue is pretty good though. At least the movie isn'tsappy.

The acting is pretty good. Dennis Leary is funny as usual (in thescenes where he was supposed to be funny anyway), and Kevin Spacey isalways good in the roles he plays.

Overall, this is an okay little movie, but it doesn't deserve the hypeit gets.

THE PLOT: A burglar (Leary) takes a bickering couple hostage and soonlearns to regret it especially when the rest of the family comes overfor a Christmas celebration and he is thrust into the middle of alltheir squabbling.

THE POSITIVE: The film starts off with a real bang as it takes a lot ofsatirical pot shots at marriage counseling, people who dress up likeSanta, family party's, suburbia, bickering couples, and of course theholiday season itself. Baranski is top rate as the sarcastic Mother andit is unfortunate she wasn't given more screen time. Even her kids arefunny. Johns is also excellent as Spacey's mother. She takes command ofher scenes even when star Leary can't. For her age she looks fantasticand it is nice to see an older actress playing a character that isn'tjust used as a throwaway device for senile jokes and aging.

THE NEGATIVE: Star Leary just can't seem to act. He shot to fame withhis dark and edgy stand up routines, but here falls into a characterthat is much too watered down and benign. This was supposed to be hisvehicle, but in the end it seems like his character wasn't evennecessary. Baranski's character is far more funny and memorable eventhough she has much less screen time. Spacey and Davis just don't clickas a couple. They share no chemistry and their bickering seems strainedand contrived. The film also falls too far away from its originalpremise. Having a two-bit crook dealing with a bickering couple atfirst seems like a funny concept, but then the film starts to delvemuch too deeply into their personal problems until it becomes like afamily drama that isn't at all amusing or entertaining.

THE LOWDOWN: The film has a few funny bits, but not enough to sustainit the whole way. Leary is very weak in the lead and this thingcompletely loses steam by the end.

THE RATING: 5 out of 10.

"The Ref" is without a doubt a very funny and very entertaining film. Thisis exactly my kind of humour: people being mean to each other. But whatmakes this a comedy better than many comedies is the great acting: JudyDavis, Denis Leary and Kevin Spacey in particular. However, they should’vehave left out some totally un-necessary scenes with a Santa Clause who isgetting drunk. It wasn’t very funny when we –as viewers — are onlyinterested in what happens with the family who is takenhostage.

Over all though: Great entertainment!

Without a doubt, the funniest Christmas time movie ever made. Kevin Spacey &Denis Leary are terrific together. Teamed with a drunken Santa Claus, overzealous Mother-in-law and over-all dysfunctional family, Leary & Spaceyshine.

I specially liked the acting of Dennis Leary and KevinSpacey.They were quick and bright and they must have had a lot of fun on theset.Best line in the movie by Kevin Spacey: "Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me,but the corpse still has the floor". GREAT!!!!!

This movie is very heart warming. It has a wonderful script, terrificactors(especially Denis Leary - you just have to love the guy for being sosuperb), and a great director who delivers excellence. Watch this movie,you’re gonna love it !!

read comments (0)

The Rookie

At best, I would say this makes a very average TV movie. It is boring andtoo long. And I am sure some of the scenes in the movie did not happen inreal life. Like when Jimmy stops his truck on a road at night to throw abaseball past a speed radar. And the radar just happens to have a few burntout lights just in the right place to make a 9 look like a 7. Things likethat ruin a movie that is based on a real life story because obviously thatwas just written for the movie and didn’t really happen. And the wholerelationship between Jimmy and his father was just to much of a cliche forthese types of films. Father and son don’t get along. Father doesn’t supportson to follow foolish dreams. Son proves father wrong and they hug at theend.

FINAL VERDICT: I don’t recommend this unless you are a baseball fan. It istoo boring for the average movie watcher.

Wow, 2 long hours to tell a story about dreams. The first 45 minutes areboring, I wish they showed more from the time on the road. And in 90 minutesyou can tell enough, is my opinion, why 120? By the way, could have usedsome humor

And that son, really, the worst acting since that kid in Last ActionHero.

6/10

Just think, he might have thrown 100 mph if he used a windup. I guess if youcome from Texas and get on a major league team like the Tampa Bay Devil Raysyou consider yourself having made the bigs. I’m still reaching for a reasonwhy they made this picture. Too much idle time on someones hands here.Strictly bush league in every respect.

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn. Another in a long line of ‘lowly underdog strivesvaliantly and comes back to win the big one’ bores. Phony tale of a middleaged man who suddenly discovers he has a major league arm after all. I can’tbelieve this watered down heart wrencher was based on truth. Whose truth?Some Hollywood producer? If you want to see an ‘underdog’ film with a lotmore believability and nervous tension watch "Hossiers". Thumbsdown.

…at the film and you’ll see how amazing this film would have beenwithout the unnecessary and obsessive focus on the son. Really, thinkabout it: what are we focusing on here, the son or the father. Yes,yes, I realize how important the son is to the father’s determinationand, in the end, the unlikely successes, but did anybody realize howannoying the son actually is? Don’t get me wrong: I applaud theoutstanding performance of Angus T. Jones, but it was certainlyunfortunate the part he had to play. The son was literally in everysingle seen and seemed to take the show away. Soon, it got so annoyingthat I started thinking more about when the movie was going to end thanhow good the story was. I can’t help but say that every time I think ofthe worst movie I’ve seen, the first one that comes to my mind is "TheRookie". Disney had their chance to make a memorable film, but insteadput the spotlight in the wrong place.

Once again Disney has been pulling at straws trying to make anotherBlockbuster hit (having only recently succeeded with Finding Nemo, it seems,and being unable to match it).

Dennis Quaid plays Jimmy Morris, a high school baseball coach out of Texaswho makes a wager with his team. Win the championship and he’ll try out forthe majors (making more of this promise to his son than his team). We seehim float around from one dive team to another (and getting equallydiscouraged by his disuading wife and father) before finally being called upfor his shot at the majors. Suddenly, this middle aged man, who dropped outof the minors years ago due to a shoulder injury, is playing top notch forthe majors. It is based on a true story, but when Disney thought it would begreat to spend big bucks on the story, they should’ve thought about reallydeveloping the story into something entertaining.

Despite the true tales of Jim Morris, this movie really lacks a story, or atleast an effective delivery if you want to pay tribute to this guy and his’amazing feat’. Sure, we see this guy struggling as he gets traded aroundbefore finally making it to the majors, encouraging audiences members toremember one thing: stick with your dreams and give it your all through eventhe most difficult moments if you expect to succeed. However, this movieisn’t really entertaining since Jim Morris’s character doesn’t really domuch. Even the baseball action isn’t that hot. We just seem more of one guytraveling from one team to the next and not much else. Plus, the movie isjust too long.

If it’s baseball movies that suit you, then there are plenty of good titlesout there (the classics: Field of Dreams; Bill Durham; The Sandlot; Leagueof Their Own; etc.). The Rookie is just plain and simpleoverrated.

Never too late

The Rookie is based on the true life story of Jim Morris (DennisQuaid), a father, high school science teacher, and a baseball coach.Jim grew up in a military family moving from place to place. Hedeveloped a love for baseball. His ultimate dream was to be aprofessional baseball player. He made it to the minor leagues, butafter blowing out his shoulder, his dream came to an end. He thenbecame a high school baseball coach and a science teacher. His team wasabsolutely terrible, losing game after game. In 1999 he made a bet withhis team. If the team would win the district championship, Morris, whowas throwing in the mid nineties, would try out for a major leaguebaseball team. His team ended up winning the district championship, andholding up his end of the bargain tried out for a team. Shortly after,his was on the road to become the oldest rookie in the Major Leagues. Ifeel that one of the reasons the director John Lee Hancock developedthis film was to say we should never give up on our dreams. This movieis a great story to prove this point. If Jim would have given up on hisdream, he would have never found himself playing in the major leagues.Another message the film sends is the importance to forgive people fortheir failures. He never had a perfect relationship with his family;despite this, he had enough strength to forgive them. This film is oneof the best films I have seen. I found the film to be veryinspirational. It provides the viewers with hope that they can maketheir dreams come true. The acting in the film was phenomenal; DennisQuaid was extremely convincing in portraying Jim Morris. This is agreat family film that will capture one’s attention with anexhilarating plot and story book ending. In the end, thinking thatanything is possible if we believe, I left with goose bumps.

One of, if not the best, baseball movies ever. Combines real drama,emotion, and sports in a combination that makes a great fairy talestory and is fit for the entire family. The acting is superb, thelocations are true to life. The story has meaning and a moral, itemswhich are so lacking in the vast majority of today’s films. As a highschool coach myself, I can vouch for the realism in the coaching sceneswith the interaction between coach and athletes, the motivationfactors, and the love and loyalty between coach and player. To add theicing to the cake, the strong family theme throughout between man andwife, and fathers and sons create the emotional tugs of the heart aswell. It leaves the viewer pleased at the end, and iterates the valueof following through on your dreams, no matter how silly or far awaythey seem, and how dedication and hard work can pay off. All moviesshould be made with this much craftsmanship and quality.

After hearing that they were going to make a rated G baseball movie Iimmediately turned my head. Then I saw that Dennis Quade being therookie! The guy is like 50 playing a 35 year old! But people kepttelling me it was good so I had to put the movie in. It was a goodsurprise.

Dennis Quade was very good. He had the truest expressions as he movedup in the baseball world. Because this was based on a true story, itseemed that Dennis Quade m
ight of had to method act some of his partand that sure did help. As Dennis Quades's character smiles you knowyou could only smile yourself.

What I liked the most about the movie was they're are two stories. Onebeing Dennis Quade coaching the team and how the team was dominating.This took up the first hour of the movie. The second of course beingDennis Quade trying to make it to the major leagues.

The only parts of the movie that bothered me was the sound effect theyhad on the baseball as he threw it. They made it sound like the ballwas going 300 mph instead of 98. This is a great family film and checkit out if you love baseball and know so much about how it works (minorleagues, call-ups, scouting etc.).

I'd give the acting a 9, directing a 6, editing a 7, storyline a 9 andmessage a 9.

I watched this movie once, and I will never watch this, and probablyany other live action Disney movie, ever again. Disney just can't dolive action at all.

I just don't like ANY movie that has to do with the "based on a truestory" like October Sky, and Wild America. The feel of this and thosetwo movies is they are set in the middle of nowhere, in the 50s, withboring plot and music, and is just plain uninteresting.

And this movie is about Baseball, which also makes it worse. BecauseBaseball movies are so dorky, and are all the same. You just can't stayawake, but you have to, because, you could get lots of nightmares. Idon't like Baseball, or any show or movie about baseball. There justisn't anything that you can make out of it. Why would anybody want towatch something about baseball?! Those movies also have the same feelof those "based on a true story" movies that I mentioned.

And this movie revealed that Disney is severely old fashioned and stuckin the past. They are against certain things that nobody else makes abig deal of. Things are censored in Disney like stuff in the 50s was,and they probably are against men having hair any longer than how itwas in the 90s, and they probably love long sleeves, etc.

But this movie is an example and reason on why I am never going towatch anything else in live action that is made Disney ever again…..

read comments (0)

The Royal Tenenbaums

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS / (2001) **1/2 (out of four)

It’s easy to enjoy a movie when we love all the actors involved, and "TheRoyal Tenenbaums" places charismatic, top-notch performers in even thesmallest of roles. Perhaps this explains the film’s overwhelming positiveconsensus-it’s not so much of a good movie as it is a well-cast movie.

In a role he was born to play, a very funny Gene Hackman stars as RoyalTenenbaum. He’s the aging separated husband of Etheline (an eccentricallyelegant Anjelica Huston) and the father of three previously successfulchildren (Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, and Gwyneth Paltrow).

Unfortunately, the kid’s have lived dysfunctional lives since their parentsseparated 22 years ago. Now, Royal understands his mistake and wants hisfamily back. But Etheline, currently in a relationship with her businessmanager (Danny Glover), wants no part of her ex-love. Royal concocts anexcuse: he’s dying and seeks redemption.

Like all Anderson’s films, this is a vivid character study. It includes someharshly funny, but also touches the grim realities of life. The story, byAnderson and Owen Wilson (who also acts in the film), gives the Tenenbaumsplenty of dimension and heart. But there are so many characters to keeptrack of here, we are pulled in far too many directions.

Few of these characters have much to do on screen. Gwyneth Paltrow, OwenWilson, Billy Murray, Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, Seymour Cassel, and BenStiller all fight for our attention, while the relationship between Ethelineand Royal takes center stage. We care about the later characters, so muchthat the others feel like intrusive. They certainly contribute to the uniquestyle of the movie. But they quickly outstay their welcome, eventuallybecoming an intrusion.

Speaking of relationships, "The Royal Tenenbaums" complicates itself withfar too many. The various connections don’t become overwhelming becauseAnderson knows who is who and who is with who and why, and he keeps thedialogue very casual. The film never loses it’s sense of humor. Thus, asconfusing as it is, "The Royal Tenenbaums" is always an easy movie to watch.

Some of these relationships have great truth, but they are mixed within thejumble. Anderson tackles way too much material in a single film…and histalents with style and characters cancel each other out. We’re left with amovie that juggles so many characters and so many emotions, that we don’tknow what to think.

"The Royal Tenenbaums" is the third feature film by Wes Anderson, following"Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." I haven’t liked any of his movies, but Iadmire his inspiration and acknowledge his talents. He’s a fine filmmakerwith refreshing style and a passionate vision, yet his work has yet to makea connection. I eagerly await the moment he learns to blend good filmmakingwith good storytelling.

This film should be hailed as one of the top-ten best ever. Its greatestassets rest in the untold and unexplained bits of the film and thetongue-in-cheek stabs at all of the characters, people (with the exceptionof Pagoda, The Butler) who have been taking themselves way too seriouslyforway too long and their discomfort around their father, a man who nevertookanyone seriously in his life, least of all himself.

The subtle character development IS the story. Unlike most films, wherethecharacters are boring and easily explained within two minutes, this filmrelies on the observer’s knowledge of human nature, their empathy, andmostof all, their willingness to explore a story that doesn’t rely on a big,flashing red arrow pointing out each significant detail.

I loved it!

Obviously, weird/dysfunctional/neurotic families always make forinteresting movies, but "The Royal Tenenbaums" may have brought thegenre to its zenith. Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum, the estrangedpatriarch. Mother Etheline (Anjelica Huston) continued raising sonsChas (Ben Stiller) and Richie (Luke Wilson) and daughter Margot(Gwyneth Paltrow) on her own. Now, Chas has two sons, whom he israising to be as neurotic as he is, Margot has hooked up with thepompous Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray), and Richie is a tennis playerwho deliberately lost a game (I got the feeling that he was obsessedwith his sister). Meanwhile, Etheline has hooked up with the culturedHenry Sherman (Danny Glover). And there’s something up with friend EliCash (Owen Wilson).

In the midst of this all, Royal finds a way to get the whole familyback together: by telling everyone that he has an illness. Getting backtogether, the entire family is forced to reevaluate their relationshipswith each other and how they’ve been living and…look, I can’t dojustice to the movie by trying to describe it. It’s a masterpiece. Youhave to see it.

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (2001) ***1/2 Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, GwynethPaltrow, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, Danny Glover,Seymour Cassel, Kumar Pallana , Grant Rosenmeyer, Jonah Meyerson, StephenLea Sheppard, Alec Baldwin (narrator). (Dir: Wes Anderson)

Gifted filmmaker Wes Anderson re-teams with his childhood buddy Owen Wilsonin telling the tale of a dysfunctional family of genius prodigies going toseed with odd ball affection.

The Royal Tenenbaums (a play on words in the literal and metaphoricalreadings) consist of paterfamilias Royal (the wonderful Hackman, one of myall-time favorite actors who can never do wrong), a wily horrible fatherfinancier who is down on his luck and decides to re-enter the lives of hisestranged progeny: Chas (Stiller), a financial genius who has suffered therecent death of his beloved wife and is now over-protectively obsessed withhis children Ari and Uzi (Rosenmeyer and Meyerson respectively); Margot(Paltrow), the adopted daughter who became a child playwright and now in aloveless marriage to behavioral psychiatrist Raleigh St. Clair (Murray) whois trying to make a breakthrough with the problematic Dudley Heinsbergen(Sheppard); and Richie (Luke Wilson), the international tennis star who hassuffered a nervous breakdown and quasi-incestuous desire for Margot.

Royal’s half-baked deceit is faking the idea of having stomach cancer withonly weeks to live and infiltrate his ex (Huston) Etheline’s good gracesbut finds his work cut out for him when the children (except Richie) don’tseem effected by his condition and the would-be suitor of Ehteline, HenrySherman (Glover), her accountant. The ensemble of truly gifted actors is a wonder to behold and Anderson andWilson’s unique blend of absurdity and J.D. Salinger angst and anomie (theTenenbaums are clearly a secondary cousin of his Glass family in literature)are funny and sad at the same time. Clearly Royal wants to make amends buthis tactless ways are what makes him a display of how some people should notbe parents. His outspokenness is only outweighed by his failures to connectwith anyone including his kids and the manner he goes about them only putshis shortcomings in a garish light. Royal tries to even connect with hisgrandchildren in a montage of hilarity in thumbing their noses at authority. Hackman’s nasty little chuckles of rue are full-fledged underscored ironyand his boisterous manners a breath of fresh air. He’s a riotundone. The ‘kids’ however have their own issues : despair, feeling alone anddirectionless, loveless, desire and finally an innate pain that eachrecognizes but can’t contain a balm to tend to their self-inflected wounds. Stiller’s bottled-up ire has often been in many of his past performancesand only makes his Chas the one Tenenbaum who needs a hug; Paltrow’s Margotis a self-pitying mope who wants love but can’t figure out with who andWilson’s Richie is an old soul coming home to rest with no where else to go. Clearly all three representing generations past and present in the awkwardstages of peaking at an early age and dwindling in the wind as the futuredoesn’t look so bright.
Owen Wilson’s Eli Cash, the Tenenbaum’s childhood buddy from across thestreet, is a hack Western novelist who too wants to be one of them sodesperately he mails his press clippings to Etheline when he’s not sleepingwith Margot. Anderson, who is on a roll from his debut with "Bottle Rocket" to one of myfaves "Rushmore" , has a way of making unlikable characters likable andtheir environs unique (New York has never felt so literal as it does here ina John Irving/Cheever kind of way) as well as a flair for costumes andproduction design. Even the jocular avuncular Baldwin narrating each‘chapter’ headings beguiles the viewer. One of the year’s best and funniestfilms.

Anyone who thinks this movie is boring or unfunny is…well, there aresome anyway, they’re a "tard." This is the best movie in the world. Ithas to be at least in the top ten best since the new millennium. When Iworked at a movie theatre at the time, almost everyone walked awaydisappointed. This is the type of movie that gets better with moreviewings. This film gives off so many different emotions:Life,Art,Love,Death, and the the feeling that any family can overcometheir differences. Nothing in this movie seems unnatural and thecharacters seem so close to home. Since I’m not a writer,filling up aminimum of ten lines seems like a chore. I never liked Gwyneth Paltrowuntil this film. Even the movie poster is great. There are so manymemorable lines in this movie "You sonof abitch," says the Indian manin pink, as he stabs Gene Hackman.

This is a pretty interesting story about one man's love for his family,and trying to spend as much time with them as possible, even the onethat hates him, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it again. Basicallythe meaning of the title being Royal is obviously the father andhusband of the wealthy like family, Royal Tenenbaum (Golden Globewinning Gene Hackman). Anjelica Huston plays his wife, EthelineTenenbaum, Gwyneth Paltrow as daughter Margot Tenenbaum, Luke Wilson asson Richie Tenenbaum and Ben Stiller as his brother Chas Tenenbaum, heis the one who hates his Dad. Basically Royal finds out he has onlythree or four months to live, so he wants to spend that time with hisfamily. By the way, in the end Chas does like his father, he evenaccompanies him in the ambulance at the end. Also starring Owen Wilsonas Eli Cash, Danny Glover as Henry Sherman, Bill Murray as Raleigh St.Clair and narrated by Alec Baldwin. It was nominated the Oscar for BestWriting, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it wasnominated the BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay. Gwyneth Paltrow wasnumber 89, and Gene Hackman number 42 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars,and he was number 31 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

When I first watched The Royal Tenenbaums I was with my dad and hedoesn't really like movies like this, the kind that move quite slowlyand not a whole lot happens but it's about a pretty neat group ofpeople (I guess typical of whats that guys name?'s movies). So my dadand I are sitting on the couch watching Gwyneth Paltrow look miserableand smoke cigarettes and Ben Stiller be a funny dad and that guy fromSeinfeld be another great character (and a dad, although notnecessarily great), and I guess we both got bored so we turned it off.I didn't watch it again for a long time and never really thought that Iwas missing out on anything having never seen The Royal Tenenbaums infull.

But then one day I rented it with a friend with equal "strange-movie"appreciation, and watched it the whole way through. I even laughedaloud at bits and pieces. The best part of the movie, the same as allthe other movies by this guy, is how awesome the characters are: if Icould remember more about them I would describe this in a little bitmore detail. But it was a really great movie and now whenever peopletalk about how much a certain situation is like that one in The RoyalTenenbaums, I can join the conversation because I've seen the entiremovie, start to finish.

Written with love and respect by Megan, for piapet.

If you have any sense of humour then you will be at a loss as to what issupposed to be funny about this film.I would vote this film as one of the worst film of this and the lastcentury.Perhaps it is the fact that I am English and the humour totally missed me,although I doubtit is this, as I usually love American humour. The plotwasridiculously stupid, the acting was held back by a ludicrousscript.All in all, avoid this film unless you want to waste the precious minutesgiven to you, until your demise.

Wes Anderson’s third film The Royal Tenenbaums is the best film from himI’ve seen (though I haven’t seen Bottle Rocket, it’s an improvement overRushmore for me). He and his co-writer/actor Owen Wilson have created afictional group of characters that are and aren’t like people you wouldusually know, in other words, it’s realistic with both comedy andtragedy.

Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum dead-pan as a sneaky, mostly low-downnasty yet also with a bit on conscience side he decides after not seeing hisfamily for a number of years to come back to them with a scheme of havingstomach cancer. His family includes his not exactly ex-wife (AngelicaHouston) who is considering marrying her accountant (Danny Glover), his twosons played by Ben Stiller with accurate bitterness and the other played byLuke Wilson with accurate sorrow and inner-pain, and also his adopteddaughter played by Gwyneth Paltrow who is secretly the apple of Wilson’seye. Other stars include Owen Wilson as a western writer who is into a lotof drugs and Bill Murray as Paltrow’s empty husband.

All of these characters come together (more or less) to create an engagingand really amusing dramedy, full of (possibly too full of) creative ideasfor each character, in particular for Royal which gives Hackman a chance togive one of his best recent performances. This added with some interestingcinematography and writing (sometimes it’s like watching a book on tape)plus the best soundtrack of the year make this a good watch any time. Soundtrack by the way includes The Ramones, The Clash, Paul Simon, TheRolling Stones, Elliot Smith and a cover of the Beatles. A-

I must have seen 25 films in the theater in 2001 and this movie was by farthe worst.

My understanding from the trailer was that it would be a dark comedy. Itwas indeed dark, but it was utterly lacking in comedy. I didn’t laugh onetime, and almost never smiled (and I am generally easy to get a lough outof). I almost enjoyed "Manos, The Hands of Fate" more than thismovie!

I think this quote from a "positive" review almost says itall..

"A mellifluous, labyrinthine thing, indescribably delicious and ambitiouslyliterate."– Walter Chaw, FILM FREAK CENTRAL

"melliflous" means smooth flowing… "Labyrinthine" means maze-like. So wehave that is a "a smooth flowing maze". What I then get from that quote(after translating it back from "intelligencia speak" is that the movie islong, confusing, more or less pointless, and keeps moving along so youdon’thave time to realize how lost and pointless it is until it is all over.

"ambitiously literate." When I hear about a BOOK that is considered"ambitiously literate" I know I don’t want to read it because it willdoubtlessly be "incredibly dull". The last thing I want from a movie issomething as dull as the dullest of books.

"thing" This clinches the issue for me. What you are seeing on the moviescreen when you watch this film is not in fact a movie. It is somethingelse. As far as I can tell it is a book… I will get back to this in aminute…

When I actually sit down to analyze the movie there are a few primaryproblems with it that jump out at me…

Every single character in the mov
ie is a sterotype (All sterotypes rarelyworks unless the movie is a pure comedy). Every single character iscompletely dysfunctional both in their personal relationships and withinthemselves (When EVERYONE is dysfunctional to this degree no matter whathappens the whole movie is usually a downer). Their is almost no characterdevelopment of any character but Royal himself (this is probably because ofthe sheer number of secondart characters in the movie). The lack ofcharacter development is clearly meant to be covered by the fact thateveryone is a stereotype. Clearly the writers felt they didn’t have to domuch more than introduce them to you for you to understand them since theyare all sterotypical. Unfortunately understanding the characters is notthesame as BONDING with the characters. The lack of a bond with any of thecharacters for the first 90% of the movie (you don’t even get close toRoyaluntil nearly the end) means that all the character interactions that takeplace are disconnected from the viewer. Basically the you (as the viewer)end up a disinterested 3rd party watching a bunch of complete losers youdon’t care about try to resolve a bunch of problems that you don’t give adamn about.

By the end of the movie you are supposed to have a connection with Royalandactually be interested in what he does. You are supposed to be rooting forhim to get his life, and hopefully his families straightened out.Unfortunately you know he is an ass and after seeing everything he hasdone,while you have a connection with him, it is a connection of either loathingor pity, or both, depending on your nature. No matter how you slice it youend up feeling very negative emotions and no minor laughs can completelycorrect the problem….Back to the book thing. The movie is presented as a book. In myopinionthat is what it should be, a book, and not a movie. With a book thatactually explored the inner thoughts and emotions of the characters youwould have time to develop the connection needed to empathize with thecharacters and thus be entertained by what happens to them rather thanbored.

The final nail in the coffin is that the humor is just not that funny.Thisis actually mostly a matter of timing. Lots of the best humor is in theintro. Then the rest of it is squeezed into or between scenes that areverynegative. It just doesn’t flow right in my opinion. Also some of thehumoris to quick, some is to subtle, and some is too long. All of it could havebeen tweaked for greater effect I think. At least part of those issues areprobably due to having the writer in the cast and on the set every singleday. Most directors will tell you that most writers just shouldn’t be onthe same set with their work during filming because they don’t havesufficient objectivity to not interfere when something that they thoughtwasgreat on paper ends up sucking on film and is changed.

Anyway, if you want to see it then by all means do so. However when youcome back here give a review based on how you felt as you left the theater(bored in my case), and not just one that makes you part of the crowd.

read comments (0)

The Stepford Wives

This would’ve been a great Twilight Zone episode. It’s a half-hour storypainfully stretched into a full length movie. It’s ultra slow pace comesacross as insulting to the viewer’s intelligence, as if we need to slowlyfigure out what’s going on. For example, at the end, when Katherine Rosssee’s her black-eyed double, the camera pans around very slowly to showtherobot-babe. If Rod Serling were in charge, the camera would’ve whippedaround with a loud sound effect that would’ve made your heart skip abeat.It is definately a classic, however, especially since the term "StepfordWife" remains in our lexicon.

Howdy boy. I happened to read yer li’l comments on the movie and discoveredsomething interesting…you didn’t actually talk about the movie! Call meold fashioned (real old-fashioned in some ways, like, before the dawn oftime) but I know when me or any of the boys read a film review, we actuallylike it to talk about the film at some point! But you jest go on and on andon about how much you and other "dudes" want to get jiggy with robots so youcan avoid having to deal with women.

Ain’t that the sweetest? Maybe you oughta put some moves on your toaster.(You know, I think I may have pinpointed the reason you are "betweengirlfriends".)

In the future, please include some actual comment on the movie and leavethe sad little "girls scare me" fantasy scenario in your head, where I’msure it is thriving.

Oh, and by the way, real good movie. Me and the boys give it a bighowdy!

I guess the premise of The Stepford Wives holds up pretty well todayand it must have been quite edgy back when it was released.

The wives in Stepford have one thing in common; they’re all perfecthousewives. Their main objective in life is to please their husbands,clean the house, bake and take care of the children. Life couldn’t bebetter…but wait, could something be wrong with this picture perfectimage? Are these women being transformed by someone? Who would want todo this kind of thing?

Yeah, men are bastards! I guess the point this film is making couldstill be valid in a lot of households. There probably are men who wouldlike nothing better than to have their wives be their servants andfulfill their every need, and they’d jump at the chance to make ithappen a.s.a.p.

But, talking about the film, the premise is pretty creepy. Seeing theselively and spirited women being transformed into mere robots of theirhusbands desires are images not easily forgotten. That final shot ofRoss sends chill down my spines. But sadly; the film is incredibly slowmoving with a conclusion that’s all too silly (I mean you know they’redoing it, but it’s how they do it that’s beyond me, a better conclusioncould have been found). Pacing kills every momentum here, apart from acouple of scenes perhaps, this really should have been tightenedsomewhat.

All in all; The Stepford Wives has it’s moments, a good basic story anda chilling ending. You could do a lot worse.

She's the perfect suburban housewife, submissive, upbeat,uncomplaining, and a tiger with the cleaning rag and lacy nightgown.But above all, she's unthinking. That might bring on worries that wouldmar her otherwise perfect domestic tranquility. Sound like a malechauvinist fantasy? Probably. But it strikes me as a feminist attack onthe Good Housekeeping ideal that was pieced together from a 1,001 TVcommercials. Then too, there's more than a little Invasion of the BodySnatchers in this 1974 production, but without the panache or panic ofthat earlier (1956) classic.

Stepford's an interesting film, especially when Nanette Newman'sperfect wife starts repeating herself like a stuck record. It's reallya horror film as the thunder and lightning of the climactic sceneunderscores, but the filming plays more like mystery-suspense as we tryto figure out what's up with these women. It could have been a lotspookier than it is. Director Bryan Forbes seems more interested in thestory than in atmospherics; at the same time, events build nicely intoa rather predictable ending. This is, after all, post-Nixon andVietnam. Director Don Siegel wanted a similar ending to Body Snatchersbut the studio wouldn't allow it. Those were, after all, the sunnyEisenhower years when upbeat endings were required.

Two scenes stay with me. Men from the club enter Ross's bedroom, lookaround, then leave in unexplained fashion. Good mysterious note thatlater falls into place. The club meets at Ross's house, her husbandincluded. So what does Ross wear for the all-male occasion– afigure-hugging sheath with absolutely no underwear. I never heard aword of dialogue the whole time. All in all, it's a clever horror-spoofof 1950's suburbia, with one overriding distinction. How many othermovies have had a title word become part of our common descriptivevocabulary.

This line uttered by a malfunctioning, alcoholic, robot/wife turns thisthriller into camp territory. The provocative and disturbing subject matteris turned into a host of tacky costumes, awkward dialogue, and terribleacting, particularly by Katherine Ross. Her discovering of her robot doubleabout to kill her is pathetic. It seemed as if the director couldn’t get abetter cast (there is a Ruth Gordon look-a-like in the supporting role whowas a popular actress at the time) with the exception of Paula Prentice whohas the most fun role. A similar fate occurs with a movie on the similartopic, Handsmaid Tale, but this is much more fun, even if the directing andcinematography are often poor. It’s one of my favorite bad movies.

I had heard this film whispered about for years…it was much differentthanI thought it would be. I didn’t figure it would be a creepy horror film.But where can a guy get a Stepford wife I wonder? Hmmmmmmm? I think inthis high tech day and age we will soon have realistic sex androids you’llbe able to buy. It certainly will make getting a decent looking chickmucheasier. Though I don’t think any guy would want some boring housewifetypegal like the ones in this movie, not me anyways. I think some womenwouldn’t mind a Stepford husband. Some young, strong, good lookin’ BradPitt type who can fix all the stuff that breaks around the house, do thechores, and still take care o’ bizniz in the romantic department quitewellif ya catch m’drift.

But fer me and a lot of other dudes a Stepford wife would be nice for thetimes when you are inbetween girlfriends. Us guys face a lot morerejectionthan females (a LOT more) so a Stepford android would be nice till you canhook up with another compatible real life female. Sounds great, don’t it?In the future that means virtually any guy will be able to have virtuallyany chick. As long as he has the cash to afford an android built to hisspecifications. Not to mention that we will also have real life, state ofthe art virtual reality sex sometime in the near future I imagine. Willvirtual reality sex and Stepford androids make women virtually irrelevant?I think not. Mmm-mmm, I luv technology!

This film serves primarily as a time capsule for people who want a sliceofthe zeitgeist of the late sixties/early seventies, when women wererebellingagainst the suffocating constraints of a social order that demanded theyforego careers, stay at home, take care of the kids, and (gasp!) cook andclean.

It seems positively silly by today’s more enlightened standards, since, aswe all know by now, it is actually MEN who have been carrying most of theload, and getting just as much of the proverbial shaft, if not more so,thanwomen. (I think about these things alot, especially when I’m way up there,scraping the moss off the roof, because, heck, I don’t know, society mademedo it…).

Many people regard this a horror or creep show. Just my humble opinion,butthis film is more camp than creepy. However, I do like many things aboutt
hefilm: it reeks of suspense, atmoshpere, and a certain Martha Stewartesqueambience. It is quite nicely filmed, too, and Katherine Ross - despite hergetting her back up throughout most of the film - is simply ravishing tolook at. But hey, as long as your up, honey, get me a beer,eh?

(I was thinking that when they showed the utter shocking horror of a womanactually doing some cooking and cleaning, they could have thrown in someofthat "scrreeep scrreeep scrreeep" music from "Psycho"…)

There’s some huge 70’s style cars in the picture (so much steel in themyoucould make two of today’s cars out of one of them), and some groovy linestoboot. I liked the line from Tina Louise’s character, Charmaine, whencommenting about a women’s focus group. "A consciousness-raisingmeeting….You mean a bitch session?!"

Finally, if you want to see a good movie (better than this one, anyway) onpeople being replaced, get a copy of "Seconds" (1966) starring the lateRockHudson. Now THAT is a creepy film.

To comply with IMDB rules, I must begin by warning you that this review contain a possible spoiler — which leads nicely to my first point. THE STEPFORD WIVES is a movie that suffers from what I call the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem. If a movie hinges on some key fact being concealed from the viewer until the end, the movie is almost impossible to discuss or review without revealing at least some part of the ending. Therefore, the more recognition the movie receives, the harder it is for you to be a first-time viewer who hasn’t already tripped over at least some of the spilled beans.

You can still appreciate such a movie, however, if you go into it with the right mindset. My mother has always said she enjoys reading an Agatha Christie murder mystery twice — the first time to experience the mystery, the second time to see how all the events in the story were cleverly engineered to lead up to the resolution without actually giving it away. If the resolution has been given away, you can read the novel this way the first time around. In the case of THE STEPFORD WIVES, even if you’ve already been told what the men in Stepford are doing, you can still appreciate how it’s revealed only in stages, along with Joanna and Bobbie’s growing terror as they slowly uncover the secret.

Of course, a smart story teller will anticipates the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem and offer something of interest besides the big revelation. In the case of THE STEPFORD WIVES, this is accomplished partly through the use of the mystery/thriller format, in which the protagonist solves a mystery and uncovers an imminent danger in the process. The mystery is solved before the story’s conclusion, and the focus shifts to averting the danger. Once Joanna figures out what’s being done, the question becomes that of whether she can keep it from being done to her.

But truly makes THE STEPFORD WIVES worth your time, even if you’ve stepped on those spilled beans, are the questions and issues raised by the story. This is a story about the role some men want women to play, and about the lengths those men will go to to force women into that role. It might also be considered an allegorical deal-with-the-devil story, because the men of Stepford are effectively selling not only the souls of their wives, but their own souls as well. This allegorical overtone is interesting, given that this movie is based on a novel by Ira Levin, who also wrote ROSEMARY’S BABY, which involved a literal deal with the devil. (And ROSEMARY’S BABY is a movie that has the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem really bad because it’s a classic.)

Indeed, the horror in THE STEPFORD WIVES is very much a horror of ideas, rather than a horror of physical events, which is likely to frustrate you if you’re looking for a thrill ride along the lines of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have an appetite for gross-out horror as well, but I think it’s important to realize horror can come in other forms as well — which can be just as effective.

I will concede that THE STEPFORD WIVES might have been more suspenseful; at a nice tight 90 minutes, but both the characters and the situation might have come off as flat and wooden. As it is, there’s a much stronger sense of reality, which makes what finally does happen that much more frightening and disturbing.

Finally, I’d like to address one other complaint you may have about this movie — that it never explains the mechanics of HOW the men are doing what they’re doing. The answer is that it really doesn’t't matter how. What matters is that they ARE doing it and WHY they’re doing it. By way of comparison, I would cite Franz Kafka’s classic novella, THE METAMORPHOSIS, in which it is never explained HOW Gregor Samsa turns into a giant insect. It isn’t explained, because it isn’t germane to the point of the story.

I recently saw the original and my brother saw the remake - from thedetails swapped it seems to me that they’ve completely changed the filmand novel from being amazingly feminist stories to bland servings ofNicole Kidman looking too perfect for words.

The original is a brilliant film due to its setting and creation duringthe height of the feminist movement in the states, which is somethingthat adds to the story, and its remake fails to recognize this. Iwatched this with my Mom, and she identified with the time politically,socially and fashionably (!) so much, it was fun to hear her reminisceabout her time … she yes, she too dabbled with women’s lib … but wehave a messy kitchen, so we’re all okay.

A funny little anecdote … the day after I saw this I went into work andthe boss had bought a new dish scrubber for the kitchenette, and we gottalking about it and how much better it was than the old one, whichadmittedly was old and scungy! How Stepford! I felt like pinchingmyself!

The Stepford Wives is simply my all-time favorite movie. It haseverything in it. Sexy women like Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss, aplot that keeps you guessing right till the end and in my opinion themost scariest scene in film history. That scene still gives me thechills to this day.

I like the fact that the film didn’t depend on many special effects. Itwas more of a psychological fright that kept you fascinated.

You have to watch this movie several times to pick up on all the subtlescenes in it. The movie also had some terrific lines in it. I repeatthese lines to this very day. I really wanted to see this movie when itfirst came out in 1975 but my parents wouldn’t allow me to see it. Ifinally saw it for the first time on TV in 1983. The film is unusualbecause it starts out like a pleasant movie and slowly evolves intocreeping horror. What I also found interesting is that Mary StuartMasterson who played

one of the daughters of the main couple also played in At Close Rangeyears later with Christopher Walken who is in The Stepford Wives 2004.

read comments (0)

The Story of Us

This film is supposedly about the inner workings of a couple and theirmarriage, following them on a fifteen year journey as an "us." All I cansay is that if that was what marriage was really like, weddings would beoutlawed. Neither of the major characters (Bruce Willis and MichellePfeiffer) are redeeming in any way. They are both stubborn, shallow andcompletely self-centered, except when it comes to their children which, Isuspect, is supposed to make us see their true caring personas that areotherwise non-existent. The movie was disjointed, all the flash backs werepoorly done and made it seem more like a series of vignettes, wherein thesame actors played multiple parts, than one flowing story. And it can bestbe summed up by a man, speaking to his wife, who was walking behind me as Ileft the theater, "What a piece of #$@%."

This movie is a s***, because it is just for americans! It isn’t a goodfilmfor brazilians or italians.The story is so stupid, look: a man and a woman part and they hide it fromthe sons, that start thinking that there’s something strange, and there’salove end, how cute!

This was quite a surprise for me, because movies about marriages andcouplesare almost very much alike. "The Story of Us", however, is very charmingandit also has Michelle Pfeiffer in the leading role. She is one of the bestactresses in America and turns every performance into something reallyspecial. Bruce Willis was also a surprise, his performance is very down toearth, very realistic. The ending is absolutely unforgetable. Amust-see!

Oh my god ! I will never understand why Bruce Willis agreed to play inthismovie; it’s the worst of it’s kind. Both me and my girlfriend we’rewatchingthe time during the entire movie, wondering when it would finally end.It’sboring, dull and hard to sit out.

Scan the other user comments. when the women write in positively and themen are at best confused by the film…what do you have? CHICK FLICK.Thisis a chick flick with weak story line (okay acting, however). Hey guys,doesBruce Willis seem all that irresponsible in the movie? I think not. DoMP’sfeelings fly all over for 2 hours? Yep. The puzzle is the flashbacks seemreveal a pretty decent guy. Hence my confusion. I’d like to see a show ofhands among the men. Ever known ANY woman that took consistent notice ofthewindshield washer fluid levels in a car? How about inconsistent? Ever atall? I thought not. Case rested. (PS for a couple of writers they seem tohave a pretty high disposable income. Anyone smell Hollywoodhere?

A rare misfire for film director Rob Reiner, this film has very little inthe way of story, emotional push & pull and interesting subject matter. Advertised as a "comedy", and even verified as such by the director, thisfilm does not have one semi amusing part in it. The problem is that thereare scenes which are meant to be humorous, not in the laugh out loud way,but in the way that little things can make serious situations amusing, butthey do not work. This film is about as exciting as watching paint dry-nothing happens, there are no compromises and no one really discoversanything they didn’t already know. In one scene Paul Reiser as Willis’agent states that people who have very little leisure time don’t want toread about a persons life that they didn’t know, and wasn’t famous- it seemspointless. In a few words- we don’t want to watch it either! The filmmakersshould have thought about this, because that’s what this film is- pointless. There is some good acting, and it may be true about there being 6 people inthe bed - but do we really want to know about it over 90 minutes. A totalwaste of time, and an incredibly disappointing effort.

I like this one because it made me laugh and it had some good acting mainlyby Willis and Pheiffer and some good laughs by Rita Wilson and Paul Reiseryou shouldn’t miss this movie mainly because it is a good depiction of a offand on good marriage.

"The Story of Us" is a very real and down to earth movie. Many couples,whether in a relationship or marriage, will be able to identify with thefilm. It was powerfully acted by both leading roles.

The story consists of a lot of flashbacks throughout the couple’s entirerelationship together. There are many good memories recalled. The childrenthink they have a perfect family life, until they start discovering thethings their parents do seem fake and put on. The Willis character thendecides that the two of them must confront the children about theirseparation.

So, overall it was a very well done show, and this is why I love to go tothe movies. —————–8/10

"The Story of Us" depicts a marriage at the brink of divorce…and it doesit very well. This movie works best if you’ve been through such asituationyourself, but also works on an emotional enough level to make anyonecontemplating divorce cause to stop and think.

Bruce Willis sheds his action role suit and effortlessly slips into Ben, aman who after 15 years of marriage, has to adjust to the fact that itsover.He does a wonderful job, and clearly some of the emotions regarding hissplit with Demi show through.

Michelle Pfeiffer does her usual great job as Katie. She too does anoutstanding job of portraying a woman dealing with her impending divorce.You lose yourself in her portrayal….with the most shining moment comingduring a rambling speech at the end of the movie.

Rob Reiner and Rita Wilson lead the supporting cast as Ben & Katiesfriends….She’s a bit brusk and obnoxious, and he seems a bit overlypassive and distant when dealing with Bruce’s character..but overall theydont detract too much from the movie. Paul Reiser puts in a completelyforgettable role as Ben’s agent, who’s primary goal seems to be to debatewhether or not cybersex is cheating.

"Story of Us" is a painful, accurate look into divorce. I recommend thismovie highly. Take your wife to see it, take your girlfriend to see it.Ifyoure in this situation yourself, you owe it to yourself to see it….itmight provide you with "jumper cables" (Gotta see the movie to getthat)

3 out of 4

I wanted to like this movie and was disappointed that it didn’t quite comeup to my expectations. Bruce Willis was the most sincere, believablecharacter. He really has quite a broad capability as an actor. I am sorrythis movie didn’t come up to his potential. He represented a man trying tomake the most of family life. Today too many of us get lost in the detailsof day to day life and forget to appreciate each other. Michele Pfieffer’scharacter was a bitter woman dominated by her role as a mom, which she takesvery seriously to the expense of her marriage.

This is not a comedy, though there were a few brief funny moments. With goodacting from the two leads, Bruce and Michele put in the most notableperformances. The writing for the "friends" could have been far moresympathetic and true to life.

The flashbacks bring some depth and tenderness to the fabric of their lives.

This movie had potential and with some better writing could have been morepowerful. In spite of shortcomings, it was thought provoking, and left mewith a reminder… treasure the ones you are with and work at it… 7 out of10.

read comments (0)

The Stranger

It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now abit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it wasvery predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie thatWelles is the nazi war criminal, and I’ll give you one guess as to whetherhe is caught and appropriately punished in the end.

Not worth watching. It’s sad that Welles only made three movies worthseeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch ofEvil.

Although this is not one of Orson Welles’ masterpieces, it’s a verywell made film that holds up well. It’s an espionage thrillerconcerning the hunting of Nazi war criminals in the quiet New Englandtown of Harper, Connecticut. It’s not a thriller of the modern typewith lots of gunfire, explosions, and car chases to hold one’sinterest. Instead, it depends for tension on drawing us into thevarious characters’ (justified) paranoia. It includes terrificperformances by Orson Welles, Loretta Young, and Edward G. Robinsonthat justify the time spent on their own. In addition it has many ofthe Welles signature touches like strange camera angles and brightfaces emerging from deep black shadows. There is a small detail in thebeginning of the movie which had me anticipating an entirely differentending than what was supplied. Without that one detail, the endingwould have been fairly predictable, but because that detail washighlighted the way it was, the movie managed to surprise me with theending. This was another of Welles favorite tricks, to give ussomething insignificant in the beginning of a movie to influence ourexpectations of the rest of the movie.

I was disappointed with this Orson Welles effort. The story revolvesaround the capture of a well known war criminal ………. I thought theperformances from the cast were a little wooden and the script wasunbelievable. A good overall to the entire film would have benefitedboth audience and cast, it definitely lacked something. It wasn’t oneof Welles better films in my opinion, he could have added a touch ofsuspense and intrigue. As it is, we have a film that goes through themotions of telling the story, which (to me) was tiresome. When youconsider the talents of Welles, Young and Robinson together you wouldthink you would have a chance to watch a pretty good film.Unfortunately this isn’t the case. 5/10

While it contains some inventive visual flourishes and a broodingatmosphere bathed in shadow, "The Stranger" comes off as a rather dryexercise in film noir aesthetics. Orson Welles plays a Nazi warcriminal living in America, teaching at a prestigious college, andarranged to marry Loretta Young, daughter of a prominent politician. Ina great performance, Edward G. Robinson is the DC detective out to reinin Welles and his ilk. While the subject matter is rather daring forits time (the film was released in 1946), it is dated by today’sstandards, and the machinations of the plot putter along rigidly. Savefor some striking imagery, it’s difficult to get worked up over "TheStranger"’s final outcome.

The reason people talk about "The Stranger" 60 years later is becauseit was Orson Welles’ first directorial effort after he was evicted fromthe Mercury Theater cocoon which gave us "Citizen Kane" as well as itsworthy follow-ups "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "It’s All True." Thereason "The Stranger" is worth talking about is because it features oneof the greatest performances by that criminally-ignored actor, EdwardG. Robinson.

Robinson plays Mr. Wilson, an anti-Nazi hot on the trail of awar-crimes-tribunal escapee Wilson hopes will lead him to FranzKindler, architect of the Final Solution. Kindler, we quickly discover,has set himself up as a history teacher, Mr. Rankin, at a Connecticutprep school. There he is about to marry Mary Longstreet, the daughterof a U.S. Supreme Court justice, "a liberal," Kindler relates withchilling amusement.

As Kindler, Welles gives a weak performance. There’s a scene where hechews on more than his dinner as he gives himself away, by saying Marxwas not a German because he was a Jew. Actually, I’d say the jig was upwhen he revealed his novel notions of reconstruction. The scenesbetween him and Loretta Young, who plays his too-trusting bride, areuncomfortably clichéd.

But Robinson is a marvel throughout the film. Of course, he is bestremembered for playing a gangster, but he shone playing good guys, too."Double Indemnity" is the best of them, though "Confessions Of A NaziSpy" is good, too, and somewhat to the point here as it featuresRobinson playing a role similar to "The Stranger," though at thebeginning of World War II rather than the end.

Robinson’s character here, Mr. Wilson, might in fact be "the stranger"of the title, though it seems to refer to Kindler. Frankly, Kindler maybe a Nazi bent on killing innocents, but Wilson is about as coldbloodeda character. From the beginning, he seems to be half-playing a gamewith the Nazi he is chasing, smoking his pipe and staring directly intothe eyes of his fearful prey. Perhaps the war crimes he has immersedhimself in investigating have stripped him of any human kindness. Theway he works on Mary’s brother Noah and his father the judge isremarkable for Wilson’s lack of humane concern, perhaps necessary, butstill bone-chilling. He’s like that all the way to the end. Just thinkfor a moment about that final line he says to Mary, after all she’sjust been through. He’s on the side of the angels, but Robinson turnsin one of his most devilish performances.

There are nice scenes in and around the town of Harper, and I agreewith those viewers who see shades of "Shadow Of A Doubt" in itsdepiction of small-town life, even though that took place in Californiaand this is happening in Connecticut. Billy House as Mr. Potterdominates the scenes he is in with his amiable whimsy and the eyeshadehe dons when he’s in the middle of a serious checkers game (quarterstakes).

But "The Stranger" never really gels as a movie. Welles as director isstrangely ill at ease with Wells as star. Too many cow-eyed portentousstares, not enough subtle moments like that low-key moment with Mr.Potter when he pays for a soda after finding out Mr. Wilson’s hot onhis trail. Young may have been a fine actress, but she doesn’t get muchhelp from a script that serves up every frail female stereotype in thebook. Her every reaction seems more suited to soap opera.

Yet there’s more to like here than dislike. Take the satisfyingconclusion, where Kindler/Rankin has his moment of truth in the churchtower where he has been working on the clock. It’s the one effectivescene between him and Mary, and very gripping. Welles was a giftedartist, but a superb craftsman, too, and if "The Stranger" offers moreevidence of the latter, who are we to quibble? Pleasant dreams…

Robinson is a government agent out to nab Nazi war criminal Welles,who's been living in a small Connecticut town using a false identity.Robinson is terrific as usual whereas Welles is rather wooden as thevillain. This was the second film for young Richard Long (The BigValley). Director Welles makes the most of it but the script is weak,lacking focus. The relationship between Welles and Young is neverbelievable; this can be blamed on the script as well as the two actors.Based on what we are shown about their relationship and given his dourcharacter, it is hard to believe that she would stick with him after heconfesses to being a killer. Welles has done better.

It may well be one of Welles' lesser films but there is some reallygood stuff in here. I loved the length of some of the shots, not asspectacularly long or as complicated as the opening of A Touch of Evilbut still long enough. There's one in particular when Edward G Robinso
nand the boy walk out of the doctor's office and cross the road. There'sno dialogue between them and nothing happens. They just cross the roadand think about what they have just been told - and we the audience getto think about it too. When was the last time you saw a mainstreamHollywood movie that gave you time to think about what was going on?

Or what about the long tracking shot when Rankin and Meinike meet inthe woods? It's wonderful. We get to see the actors really act. Fromthe moment two old comrades meet till the moment one of them murdersthe other. It's hypnotising. There isn't a cut between one of seventeendifferent angles every other word as so often happens these days. Andthere is some lovely acting from here from Welles. Smart and creepy.The way his hands twist and crawl on the back of the pew as he lies tohis wife in the church.

As with all Welles' movies we can only wish the Director's Cut wasstill in existence but what remains is an interesting little film.

I first saw this movie in the theater quite a while ago and found it tobe a well made film but with a forgettable plot. Second viewing doesn'treally change my opinion. It's a suspense movie, not a mystery, so youcan't really complain about the fact that we know who the killer isfrom the very beginning. But even so, a good suspense movie should havea better plot than this one.

That complaint aside, it's a fine film from the great director. Theopening sequences are especially interesting with Welles' famous rovingcamera technique used right away as we see the release of a prisonerwho is going to lead the investigator, Mr. Wilson (Edward G. Robinson)to an escaped Nazi war criminal (Welles), Professor Rankin. What'sinteresting in the basic set-up is that Rankin has managed to ensconcehimself in a small upper crust heartland community and is engaged to bemarried to a federal judge's daughter, Mary (Loretta Young). The film'stextual message, such as it is, focuses on the concept that danger andevil can exist even in the most apparently wholesome and positivecircumstances or environments.

Probably the film's most interesting scene is the dinner scene whereMr. Wilson attempts to interrogate Rankin in a very casual manner.Rankin would almost have escaped if it weren't for his momentary slipup in saying that Karl Marx "wasn't a German, he was a Jew".

Perhaps in a way the film is saying that evil is able to hide sosuccessfully in the midst of innocent and good people because as longas someone is well educated and has mastered social customs, asProfessor Rankin has; and not just that, but the fact that his evilcould only be revealed by a casual slip of the tongue implies that ourordinary social customs do not encompass or do not reveal the truenature of our selves.

Personally I didn't think much of Loretta Young in the role. Not surehow much was her fault, because the role is pretty thin in my opinion.The film never really comes to grips with the idea that this "good"woman was able to be fooled by a bigot into marriage. It would havebeen a more interesting film to me if the portrayal of the townsfolkhadn't been so clearly intended to show them as essentially "good" andWelles' character as totally different from them.

A real buried treasure directed by Orson Welles during his Hollywoodheyday. Welles plays a small-town teacher engaged to local girl LorettaYoung while carrying around a very grave secret. He's a fugitive Nazi!Edward G. Robinson is the government man closing in. THE STRANGER, witha script by John Huston is must see entertainment, not only for Wellescompletists but for noir buffs as well. Welles' typically dizzyingcamera-work is on display and he creates one of his most vilecharacters, one who will kill at even the possibility of exposure. It'sa great performance. Welles is matched by Robinson and the two maketerrific adversaries. The usually hard to take Young is just OK…sheis a bit too glamorous for her role. A very young Richard Long is in ittoo. The film's climax is extremely exciting.

Sadly, the film is in the public domain so finding a decent copy can bea chore!

If you look over the career of Orson Welles, in many ways each film hemade was a reaction to the last one, at least in terms of the problemshe had with the producers and distributors who acted against him. Afterthe butchering of what could have been his greatest film, TheMagnificent Ambersons, Welles decided he would play ball with thestudios, accepting minimal control over a project he neither wrote norchose. The result, The Stranger, was to be his weakest film.

The Stranger has in the first place a fairly absurd storyline. Therewere quite a few of these nazi-on-the-run thrillers made around thistime (Fred Zinnemann made several) and they were usually a little farfetched, but the best of them were at least good suspenseful thrillers.Welles was to make some great thrillers after this, but so far hisstrengths had been in powerful drama and a semi-documentary approach.Welles tries to make something out of the dramatic moments, but iteither needs more drama or more suspense. As it is it is neither onething or the other.

The biggest problem for Welles, and the reason why he was never a greatcollaborator, is that his style relied upon a wholeness of approach.His best films seem totally orchestrated, with images flowingrhythmically into one another, and a sense of balance to the wholeproject. To achieve this he would either need to have collaborators whowere totally on the same wavelength as him, or to be in total controlhimself – from first treatment to final cut. There is a little of thatflowing style on evidence here, with images dovetailing into eachother, and recurring themes like the clock and the game of checkersbeing given prominence, but ultimately this is someone else's movie,and not a very good one at that.

What remains of Welles is his technical style, which was in factbecoming more polished even as the overall quality of his filmsdiminished. He has a very distinctive actor-centred approach to shotcomposition. For Welles the question seems to be not "How do I shootthis scene?" but "How do I film this character?" He doesn't shoot a setwith actors in it, he shoots the actors that happen to be on the set.He even uses actors as aesthetic framing devices, like another directormight use a tree branch or the side of a building. This probably stemsfrom Welles' deep respect for the actors above all else, and the desireto purely photograph a performance.

Speaking of actors, there are three great leads here and in a way it isa shame to see them sold short by a poor script. Welles directs himselfas he often did, getting his teeth into his first really villainousrole, and just about managing to make the war criminal convincing. Ilike Edward G. Robinson as the detective, but it was of course inRobinson's comfort zone, and I wish Welles had got his way and beenallowed to cast Agnes Moorehead in the role – that would at least havegiven The Stranger something unique and interesting. The bestperformance comes from Loretta Young, who has what must be the mostdifficult role, her character having to slowly come to terms withhaving married a monster. It would have been easy for her to slip intohysterical melodrama, but she manages superbly to keep it realistic. Infact, Young's performance is probably the best thing about thispicture.

Orson Welles may be seen as a something of a crusader for the cause ofindependent directors, but his inability to be a team player was initself a weakness, and in this case may have distracted him from reallytrying to make the most of the material he was given. Still, thescreenplay is pure pulp and I don't think there's much anyone couldhave done with it without some major rewrites. Compare this to Welles'much later Touch of Evil,
in which he took a trashy novel and totallyturned it round into a masterpiece.

read comments (0)

The Squid and the Whale

Thank you Noah Baumbach for bringing this jewel of a film to anaudience such as myself who has undergone the pain of divorce in my ownfamily as a child,along with such a talented cast,to make THE SQUID ANDTHE WHALE a warm and wonderful journey to cherish and remember.

The sharp and witty dialog, the brilliance of Jeff Daniels acting,combined with the talents of Laura Linney, topped off with Owen Klineand Jesse Eisenberg, make THE SQUID AND THE WHALE a real joy to watchand contemplate what new swear word might come out of "pickle’s mouth"now. Real honesty shown during the film in the portrayal of young menexperiencing their own pain, along with the humor thrown in withmasturbation, brought the young brothers to life on the screen.

I look forward to seeing THE SQUID AND THE WHALE being honored atGolden Globe and Oscar time. Congrats, Noah Baumbach, for makingdivorce and the separation of our parents a less painful one inretrospect through your film.

After seeing ”The Squid and the Whale” I walked out of the theaterwith that filled up sort of feeling.The film along with the four maincharacters seep inside your gut for hours after.Jeff Daniels characteris not likable and he plays him so well…I actually hard people in thetheater yelling at him…Laura Linny is perfect as the sweet, passivewife/mother who simply loves her children and needs more from herrelationship than Daniel’s character can ever give.Their divorce isinevitable and totally justified.

Walt and Henry..their sons, portray with perfection the aching anddevastation a divorce can bring upon children. Their conflicts withparental unity and sexual awakening are presented with candor and rawtruth. I loved it! Unfortunately the true to life content of this filmwill make those who like to stay in a world of denial quiteuncomfortable.This film should be a must for every parent involved in adivorce.The lessons that can be learned are crucial to proper parentingand sensitivity during a time of total upheaval in a young child’slife.

Every aspect of this movie was right on the mark and if you truly wantto see just some of the after effects of divorce ….buy your ticket asoon as possible and enjoy the realistic ride.

It seems as if this movie was hacked to pieces with editing.If theproducers of this movie ever read this, please release the stuff on thecutting room floor or locked in a closet somewhere. The kid drinks abeer and…the condom falls off and…we are left hanging.What was thatpicture he was utilizing? You want to push the boundaries then don’tretreat. Actually,this movie is a treat from the every day Disney @#$%that we are subjected to but some how it was sanitized by BIG BROTHERand I am fed up with it. Well acted,this is a good movie and some whatshocking.Under reviewed probably because of its content.It is a goodmovie but I absolutely believe that half of it is unreleased.Extreemlydisappointed with the lack of extras.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. On a scale of 1-10 I give ita 1. There is no redeeming moments of this movie. It tries to recreatea real life story but it doesn’t. The characters are flat and not evenlikable. My only advice in DON’T GO see it. What a waste of a Mondaynight. I could have been doing my laundry. It doesn’t have a goodending. It just ends.It must said, however, that many will find theending of The Squid and the Whale frustrating, as if Baumbach hadsimply stopped writing and tacked on only the most perfunctory ofresolutions. An argument can be made that there’s no tidy way to wrapup a story like this - families and their problems don’t just end,after all - but given the care with which he treated the rest of hismaterial, the way in which he ties everything off seems a bitarbitrary.

I saw "The Squid and the Whale" at Sundance last week, and I am proudto be the first to post a review here, and I want to tell you howamazing it is. This film is truly a masterpiece of sorts, and I can’ttell you too much more because I’m not going to post a spoiler.

Jeff Daniels is amazing in this, and so is Laura Linney. The actorsthat play the children are amazing but in my opinion Daniels stole theshow.

I am so happy to have gotten a chance to see this but it is going toriddle me with agony everyday until I can see it once again (intheaters…hopefully soon!!!) and then it will riddle me again until Ican pick up the DVD.

I don’t really want to talk about the content of the film too much,because I don’t want to spoil it for anybody, but I do have to say thatbetween his work in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" and this, I amexcited to say that I have a new director who’s work I will always be afan of and who’s career I will always fallow. This is the most promiseout of a newer director in a long time. I love(d) it!

Baumbach also did a great job separating himself from (what I’m surewill become common place) comparisons to Wes Anderson (simply becauseof their work together and their, sometimes common, styles of writingcomedic dialogue). He has created an original voice for himself and Ican’t wait to see what he does next.

I was lucky to see this film at the Savannah Film Festival and haven’tmet anyone disappointed with it. To call this film a comedy, in thisday, would be to infer that it has silly characters and cheap gags, yetmakes you laugh. To call it a Wes Anderson piece would be infer thatthe humor would be subtle, yet makes you laugh. This film is differentdoes not come off as silly or dry, the characters are fairly dramatic,and when they clash the movie is at its funniest. Superb acting andwriting make for a hilarious movie that doesn’t make you feel dumberbecause you watched it nor dumb because you didn’t get. And it holdstrue without copping out to cliché movie patterns.

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE Written and Directed by Noam Baumbach

So rarely does a film say so much, so genuinely through simple,naturalistic dialogue about it’s characters, their plights, theirstory. And so rarely is it told so beautifully, so painfully and sohonestly without being manipulative or obvious. "The Squid and theWhale" is that unique exception, that kind of film that you walk awayfrom feeling lucky, fortunate for having seen it. This is a film aboutrelationships, ranging from the influences our most intimaterelationships have on us to the lengths we will go to to maintain theserelationships and the difficulties experienced when trying to establishnew ones with ourselves.

The setting for this exploration is the newly broken home of theBerkman family in 1980’s Brooklyn. We know from the moment we see theBerkman’s as they play a doubles tennis game with passive-aggressiveunrest that they’re all playing a losing game. Bernard and Joan Berkman(played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) had been together for nearlyfifteen years and had two children during the course of their marriage,Frank and Walt, both in different stages of adolescence. As theirrelationship is at the point of its dissolution, the focus is placed onthe children’s struggle to contextualize and understand their new jointcustody lives. Bernard and Joan are left to discover a more significantrelationship with themselves, a concept that had long since disappearedwhen their marital problems began to monopolize their attentions.

As Bernard Berkman, Jeff Daniels is superbly understated. As aonce-acclaimed author whose successful past work has stumped him fromproducing anything new or of worth, Bernard is entirely baffled as towhy he has found himself excommunicated from his home and living in abeat up house on the other side of the park. Daniels carries himselfwith pride and pompousness and never allows any hint of remorse orreevaluation to show in his eyes. The rousing performance is both braveand fresh; I felt as if I had seen a whole new dynamic to Daniels’abilities. Bernard’s arrogance becom
es all the more sad andcontemptible when his eldest son, Frank is seen emulating his father’sideals on topics as diverse as literature and women. Like his father,Frank only appreciates high art, carelessly dismissing anything thathis father does not deem worthy despite having no formal knowledge ofthe art he praises. His opinions become hollow regurgitations thatserve only to give himself the appearance of being more cultured thanhe truly is. He knows very much about very little. And like his father,he believes himself to be far more important than he truly is, causinghim to view his relationships with women to be interchangeabledepending on what opportunity presents itself and to see a woman’spurpose to be solely for serving his own needs.

Frank’s relationship with his mother, Joan is almost entirely severedafter the separation. The blame needs to be placed somewhere and as itwas Mom’s decision, this seems to be the best place to put it. Besides,what could possibly make her think she would know what’s better fortheir family than Bernard would? Joan’s presence is sparse and selfish,leaving Linney’s talents underused. Baumbach, pulling double duty asscreenwriter, practically writes her character out of the story. Hercareer as an author is emerging and her sexuality and self-discoveryburgeoning. Her character is more relevant as absent, leaving the mento fend for themselves for some much deserved me-time.

This absence has the most impact on youngest son, Walt, who is justentering his teens. With Frank constantly feeding his father’s ego,Walt is almost useless to Bernard, leaving him to his own devices. Withlittle supervision or guidance, Walt feels his way through mostsituations, often making decisions that alienate him from society,making him reclusive and withdrawn while all the while naivelyparticipating in increasingly more destructive behaviour. It is tooeasy to dismiss Walt as lost cause in response to his behaviour as heis the only character who does not fear the future though he does notnecessarily understand all of it.

Baumbach’s quiet masterpiece is the filet of the broken family genre.By demonstrating the effects of parents struggling to remain involvedand not forgotten as well as reasonably putting themselves before theirchildren, Baumbach shows how the Berkman’s selfishness leads directlyto the children’s scrambling to regain their balance. That theirselfishness is both warranted and understandable is what leads "TheSquid and the Whale" to be the most levelheaded and pertinent filmdealing with divorce I’ve ever seen.

"People can be very stupid," declares literature professor and novelistBernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels) about his divorce. Squid and the Whaleis a successful look at the modern warfare of love and disappointmentin the context of both academic parents and the children who must livethrough it all. Quirky, eccentric, and sharp is Wes Anderson protégéNoah Baumbach, who finds even the smartest parents deficient in theskills to bring children into adulthood.

No one lives in the Berkman household without experiencing the joy ofhaving 2 writers as parents and the sorrow of those 2 parentssplitting. Each boy reacts differently, the younger spreading hismasturbated liquid on the walls, the older imitating dad by puttingdown his girlfriend, "You have too many freckles." Even mom (LauraLinney) is in on the retributions as she takes up with a cloudy-headedtennis coach (William Baldwin) and publishes articles and a novel tothe chagrin of the academically sliding Bernard.

The film’s strength is its knowingness about the effects of divorce;its weakness is a reluctance to use ironic subtlety as Anderson does inthe bookend to this film, The Royal Tenenbaums, a quirkier treatment ofam artier family. Young Walt’s (Jesse Eisenburg) fudging a performanceat a school function by singing Pink Floyd’s "Hey You" as his owncomposition is symptomatic of the disconnection plaguing the Berkmans.Frank, the youngest Berkman, at one point declares to his mother thatshe’s ugly. Because she is played by the lovely Laura Linney, it’sclear Frank has a great deal of maturing to do.

Margaret Atwood caught the vicious effects pf modern divorce: "Adivorce is like an amputation; you survive, but there s less of you."Everyone in the Berkman family is diminished by divorce.

Almost dragged to this film, expecting a tortuous "Royal Tannenbaum"ordeal, I made sure to bring my Indiglo watch. At first I squirmed, butwas pleasantly surprised by the crisp dialog, fast pace, and theexcellent acting. Actually the story wasn’t particularly interesting,but I was really entertained by the director’s style. I was aghast howwell Eisenberg acted. He seemed more like Kevin Kline than his own sonin the movie. The Museum of Natural History had always been a kind of"centering-transitional object" for me. That’s one reason "Catcher inthe Rye" affected me so strongly. Hey everybody, isn’t this really theHolden Caufield story? ‘

I thought that would get your attention. I watched The Squid and TheWhale last night Very dense! Good stuff there. I hope you recognize mytone because I am being pseudo-intellectual like the father in themovie; that’s a literary technique I just used on you. You wouldn’tknow, you probably don’t even have your master’s degree. So somequestions for myself. Listen, you might learn something.

How did the movie make me feel? The divorce was mostly my wife’s fault.I did everything I could to save it. Oh yeah, ex, if you are readingthis, remember Friday is my night.

Did you ever go after younger chicks after your divorce as Bernard doesin this film? Short answer….yes. It’s time to go listen to RadioheadCreep.

What about the youngest little boy in the movie? blank, blank,blankety-blank of an actor!

What degree do you have? (cough) (cough) Bachelors (cough)

So what’s the greatest thing you ever created? Did you know that Ioriginally composed the song Radiohead Creep? I mean I could of if Ihad wanted to.

So what are you going to do about the movie? Go read some FranzKafka…I mean Noah Baumbach.

(This post is not meant for the sarcasm challenged but then you guysprobably don’t read as much as I do).

read comments (0)

The Thin Man

I can see why this was so popular in its day but would lose its appealin today's age where smarter people realize drinking alcohol ALL thetime is not cool, is not funny and is just plain dumb. In this series,especially in this debut film, William Powell is obsessed withdrinking. "Have a drink" is the answer to everything!

That, and a plot this is difficult to understand at times (who is whoand what is what) took away from the enjoyment of this for me. However,I did like several of the sequels, just not this movie.

"The Thin Man," and all the sequels had witty dialog and charmingrapport between Powell and his wife, played by Myrna Loy. "Nick andNora Charles" were definitely a fun couple. For added fun, there wastheir famous dog, "Asta."

But all that booze and smoke looks absurd in this day-and-age.

Eccentric inventor, Clyde Wynant, has overstayed on his vacation and ispresumed missing by his daughter, who hires retired detective Nick Charlesto go out to look. Nick doesn’t really want the case but is insisted by hiswife, Nora, and circumstances such as Wynant’s secretary/mistress beingknocked off, Wynant being suspected off murdering a stool pigeon, and awhole bunch of Damon Runyonesque characters creating more problems en routeto a solution. The movie is full of witty dialogue, great chemistry betweenPowell and Loy, great character acting ( something used in all six movies ofthis series and something you won’t see in movies anymore ), and a nice fastpace. Based on the Dashiell Hammett book ( I felt the movie moved a lotfaster and eliminated some senseless subplots never worked out or solved. ).Followed by After the Thin Man. Rating 10 out of 10.

The Thin Man is everything that today’s movies are not. Sophisticated,witty, and rife with clever reparte. It is a ten-star jewel not to bemissed.

One of the best 30s comedies and one of my top five favorites. Thedialogueis clever, fast-paced and witty, and holds up well on repeat viewing. Nomatter how many times I see it, I cannot remember who-dun-it until theveryend. William Powell and Myrna Loy are brilliant together and really bringthe characters to life. One of the only movies I can think of where thefunbegins AFTER the main characters get married.

Nick and Nora Charles are the funniest characters ever.William Powell and Myrna Loy are excellent.Asta, the dog, is very funny.Everyone should see this movie.

A comedy/mystery/romance that succeeds on all levels. Films like this one,that are able so successfully to mix so many elements, don’t come aroundvery often. William Powell and Myrna Loy are a truly great acting duo. Ifyou like classic movies and you like comedy, mystery, and/or romance, youshould see this film.

"Overrated"… Look, I know that you, the innocent IMDB user, have noparticular reason to believe me rather than this "Kyle Furr" person, but,for whatever it’s worth, my opinion is that he or she could not have beenmore wrong. I think _The Thin Man_ is highly underrated, ifanything.

It is not easy to make a good comedy or a good mystery but to combinetwo genres together and make Comedy / Crime / Mystery as sparkling,funny, elegant and dynamic as 93 minutes long "The Thin Man" (1934)directed by W.S. Van Dyke is incredibly marvelous. The film owes a lotof its charm to the great working chemistry between two maincharacters, the husband and wife sleuths, Nora and Nick Charles, a richand adventurous woman and her ex-detective husband. Nick is not toointerested in going back to work on the case because "it's putting himway behind in his drinking" but Nora sees it as an exiting adventure.They solve a murder case (actually, three murders case) somewherebetween couple of drinks during the never-ending party at their house.Bill Powell and Myrna Loy deserve Oscar for the Best On-Screen Coupleof the Year.

What a wonderful movie to start a collection of comic mysteries. Thefollowing sequels are just as great. William Powell ,I feel, neverreceivedhis just rewards as a classic comedian. The whole series of Thin Manmoviesare good enough to viewed over and over. The tough choice is which one towatch. Get them and enjoy as much as I do.

William Powell and Myrna Loy are the top two reasons why this is such adelightful comic mystery, but "The Thin Man" also features aninteresting story with good characters, entertaining dialogue, and somevery amusing moments. Although this is the kind of movie that was muchmore popular in earlier eras, it has lost nothing over the years, andit still seems as fresh as ever.

Nick and Nora are wonderful characters, and they seem almost to havebeen made for Powell and Loy to play them. Both stars not only haveplenty of charisma, but they also work very well together, making theircharacters so believable and appealing that they almost seem like yourown old friends. It’s almost not necessary to have much of a story, butthe mystery - while certainly not as complex as an Agatha Christie -holds your attention in its own right. There are some good turns, eachone handled with wit and charm by Powell and Loy, and everythingpackaged together skillfully by W.S. Van Dyke.

This is one of the movies that typifies the best of its era and ofclassic film-making. It’s enjoyable even after several viewings.

After years of muddled sound and grainy prints, I had begun to growsuspect of the supposed quality of most 1930s films. With moderndigital cleaning, coupled with DVD sound and picture, a different viewis presented. Such pictures as "Modern Times", "The 39 Steps", and, yes"The Thin Man" are revealed to be more stylish and clever than manypictures until the 1960s. W.S. Van Dyke shot the film in a shocking 12days, and we are seeing many first takes. This adds an extra level offreshness and brilliant to a film that is over 70 years old.

William Powell and Myrna Loy are blessed with a majority of Hammett,Hackett, and Goodrich’s dialogue, and oh, are they up to the challenge!This picture is an absolute masterpiece of screwball comedy, and wassure to have been a wonderful polar opposite to the world of The GreatDepression.

8.6 out of 10

read comments (0)

The United States of Leland

I was looking forward to seeing this at Sundance, and I have to say, Iwas abit disappointed. This was beautifully filmed, and the actors werewonderful in their roles, so as a film, I couldn’t find much fault withit.Kevin Spacey was awesome in his small role. My problem with the film isthat it was rather one sided. The director, after the showing Iattended,got up in front of us and said that he wanted to show both sides of thestory, but I don’t think he did. The goal seemed to be to show thatmurdering teenagers are not monsters, as most people seem to think theyare.They have issues. Well, yeah, I suppose that’s true. But I didn’t seemuch sympathy for the victims of such horrible crimes. Yes, some of thecharacters referred to the murdering teen protagonist as a sick messed upkid, but then they met him and found out there was more to him. Themotherof the autistic victim didn’t even shrug, much less shed a tear when hersonwas killed. I can’t say this was a bad film, but I don’t think I wouldseeit again.

"The United States Of Leland" is one of those movies where you'realmost afraid to admit that it did nothing for you. Don't be. How couldyou feel any other way when the characters keep saying profane things("there's so much sadness in the world") that are supposed to be reallymoving and deep.

Not only because of the presence of Kevin Spacey and Jena Malone doesthis movie feel like a mixture of "American Beauty" and "Donnie Darko".In fact, if you took Donnie Darko with his constant blank expressionand put him in "American Beauty" this movie would be the outcome.Really, the parallels are stunning and I'm amazed that Kevin Spaceywould want to star in a movie that similar again.

As in "American Beauty", at the beginning of "Leland" we learn that amurder has happened and the story is being told in retrospect. The linethat I quoted above about the sadness in the world is being repeated afew times and it's more than just a little reminiscent of "There's somuch beauty in the world" as said in "American Beauty" byannoying-guy-with-a-hat-and-a-camera, another one of those blank facedteenage characters that some people in Hollywood seem to thinkrepresents today's youth so poignantly. Hell, the similarities even goas far as both movies referencing the U.S.A in their title.

At the end of the day "The United States Of Leland" is nothing but apoor rehash of other movies that weren't that great in the first place.It's trying hard to move you, but fails to do so. Instead the makersannoy with their perception of the problems in modern society. As DenisLeary once put it: "Life sucks, get a f…. helmet!"

I’ve watched this movie two times and I still don’t think I know whatit’s all about. I mean I know what was film about but I can’t getpoint. It was hard to watch this movie because it shows to us howcomplicated and weird are world and our minds. We can’t imagine howsome perfect child can killed someone and doesn’t even cared. In myopinion the most important moment in "US…" is when Leland says "Itdoesn’t change anything but I’m sorry" and for me that’s the point. Thecreator wants us to understand that when we did something wrong and wewant to make it right, first we gotta understand that we made somethingbad and no matter what it was our fault. This movie teach us about muchmore things and I really recommend it.

"Everyone has excuses"

THE UNITED STATES OF LELAND (2004) *** Ryan Gosling, Don Cheadle, JenaMalone, Chris Klein, Kevin Spacey, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, MartinDonovan, Ann Magnuson, Kerry Washington, Sherilyn Fenn, Michael Welch.Gosling stars as a young man whose killing of his girlfriend’s youngermentally challenged brother sets the stage for stunning heartbreak,anomie and angst and in general disbelief with the big question of WHY?With the feel of a novella come to life novice filmmaker Matthew RyanHoge has a lot to say about the state of America’s seeminglynumbification and social strata crumbling in suburbia as well as towhat is expected of as a human being and what is not. The film has thefeel of a tragic event unfolding with an almost hypnotized cast in anether that cannot be broken until the film’s unraveled last act whichmakes up for some of its prescience. The ensemble cast is excellentwith stand-out turns by Cheadle, Malone and Donovan has one singularmoment of articulated rage that speaks volumes for anyone whose everlost a loved one under the scrutiny of the media. Nice also to see Fennback onscreen in a sadly sweet turn. Spacey produced through hisproduction company Trigger Street Productions.

I was surprised when I saw the high rating this movie had on imdb.combecause I didn’t find it that great. First of, I did like it fairly but Ifound it to be a little slow and long lasting for my taste. This is probablynot the best film to watch if you are sitting with your friends on a Fridaynight ready to enjoy a movie. The story is simple; a guy stabs another guyand kills him for what seems to be without reason. In prison he meatsteacher Pearl Madison who is very interested in finding out why Leland didcommit this horrible crime. The more they talk with each other the more yourealize that Leland is, well I am going to be frank, crazy. That is myopinion though. I will not tell you more about this movie because I want youto make up your own opinion about it. But to sum it all up, it is enjoyablebut a little long and slow and filled with odd characters. And by the way,Kevin Spacey is hardly even in the movie although they have put him as oneof the main characters. I rate this movie 6/10

An anonymous California city where time goes by in an ordinary way seesone day something devastating and unexpected. The whole plot, split inmany unnecessary subplots, focuses on everybody (citizens, media, theentire community) trying to figure out what exactly and why itoccurred. Telling this story of teen violence and family dysfunctiongets thinking a lot, it’s very provocative but the final results aremore melodramatic than convincing. In spite of Ryan Gosling’s sensitiveperformance, the movie finally looks like a serial TV drama and doesn’tsucceed in answering all the questions. Kevin Spacey, a very talentedactor, is here under his usual standards.

While this is clearly a very good movie with an excellent performancefrom Don Cheadle, I actually didn’t get what it was all about. I mean,what really happened here? I think the parts were actually bigger thanthe sum, or something like that. I felt the same way after seeing TheLife Of David Gale, and Kevin Spacey was in that too, so if a film hasKevin Spacey in it maybe I should pay more attention. While watchingthis I also couldn’t help but think, "This is Donnie Darko". Some otherthings that made me think of Donnie Darko, was the gun in in shoebox.That was right out of Donnie Darko. This is a good movie but I liked itthe first time i saw it and when it was called Donnie Darko

This film is great in many ways. it gives us a different view of ourlives and who we look at ourself in everyday lives. The title of thisfilm is another great example of the film. Acting in this film is greatas well Ryan Gosling betraying the role of Lealand is great. the rolesuited him very well in showing his emotions in the film. Don acting asthe teacher who cares about Lealand and actually wanting help himrather than his dad (kevin Spacey) and wanting to get a book at theend, don in the end finally learns something from Lealand. This film isworth watching by yourself and actually makes think at the end and seethe world through his eyes more.

In a world awash in frivolous, inconsequential movies targeting thelowest common denominator (not that all of such are with
out a certainamount of entertainment value), "The United States of Leland" is ablessedly thought-provoking film, full of substance and significance.

Ryan Gosling is extraordinary as Leland P. Fitzgerald, a detachedteenager coming to grips with his feelings of disillusionment anddisconcertion regarding the meaning of his life, and in doing so,commits an unforgivable and seemingly meaningless act of violence.

Don Cheadle, playing Pearl Madison, the teacher at the juveniledetention facility to which Leland is sent, is as always, fantastic.The complexity of his character fluctuates between infidelity with hisgirlfriend; to a genuine concern for Leland; to his self-servingstruggling, part-time writer alter-ego that pushes him to find thereason and circumstances behind Leland's inextricable actions.

Kevin Spacey plays a part he seems to have been born to play: Aself-absorbed, callous man, insensitive to those around him who sufferhis wrath. Playing a successful writer (Albert T. Fitzgerald, Leland'sfather), his condescension and distance toward others lays, in part,the foundation of the implied decline of his marriage, and perhaps, thereason lurking behind his son's ultimate horrific decision.

Jena Malone (who played 'Mary' in "Saved!") portrays Leland'sgirlfriend, a young teen fraught with personal demons, the least ofwhich is a drug addiction that threatens to destroy her most intimaterelationships, as well as herself.

An extremely well-written script, and a supporting cast of actors suchas Lena Olin, Chris Klein, Ann Magnuson, and Sherilyn Fenn contributingfine performances, create an unforgettable portrayal of a teenager'slife in emotional turmoil.

This film is not for anyone looking for a quick fix to boredom, or apicker-upper for those feeling down or depressed. It is an utterlyabsorbing character study filled with heartache and desolation, as wellas a very telling example of life in these United States.

OK, so there's this kid who had a not-so-great life and, like, did thisbad thing. He goes to a kiddie-jail and makes friends with his teacher.His teacher does some good things, but he also does some bad thing,too. But not, like, as bad as the things the kid did, but, like, stillbad things. And then some, like, stuff happens, and like, you neverreally find out why. It's there just to be there.

Like, the end.

Garbage. Total garbage. Anybody who says this is a movie worth watchingis such a pretentious ***hole that they forgot how to see crap whenit's staring them in the face.

read comments (0)