Change Your Image
VaneWimsey
Reviews
The Devil and Miss Jones (1941)
Watch and Enjoy - But Be Prepared for the Weak Ending
Five-sixths of this movie is delightful. The hook is classic and effective - a multimillionaire goes undercover and takes a job at his own store to root out labor agitators, then finds that those labor agitators are sweet people,and what's more, that they have a point.
The script is snappy and the performers are charismatic and endearing. Probably the meatiest part Charles Coburn ever had, and he milks it for all it's worth. Jean Arthur is as adorable as usual and somewhat more subtle and nuanced. S. Z. Sakall is in a rather different part for him, as Coburn's butler, but his performance is gemlike -- every line reading and every facial expression shines.
Be warned, however, after the movie sucks you in and gains your trust, it lets you down with one of the weakest endings in Hollywood's golden era (second only to "Meet John Doe"). This is especially exasperating, as the audience has been looking forward throughout the movie to the Big Reveal -- the moment when the millionaire's real identity is finally disclosed. When it happens, it falls flat -- to put it mildly.
The Chaperone (2018)
Disappointing
If you're expecting a movie about Louise Brooks and the 1920's, forget it.
This movie is mostly about the chaperone. Despite it being set almost 100 years ago, her issues are all very mid-21st century -- gayness, immigrants, feminism, an adoptee identity crisis, and getting laid. And while ordinarily, I love Elizabeth McGovern, she's a little over the top here -- she's working so hard to show every momentary emotion on her face that she's almost twitchy.
Haley Lu Richardson is good as Louise Brooks, but the part is off the shelf -- the snarky, ambitious hot girl. Blythe Danner is also good in a small part.
The costumes are beautiful, but strangely one-note -- there are an awful lot of white or cream dresses paired with brown flowered hats.
Chappaquiddick (2017)
One of the Those Thought-Provoking Movies That Are Now Few and Far Between
This is the kind of movie they should be making but, in this bang-bang boom-boom era, they mostly aren't. It's about the character-defining choices that people make under pressure -- and not just Sen. Kennedy, but also the many people around him. Even the smallest characters are sharply defined. For example, the scene in which the undertaker has a difference of opinion with the medical examiner isn't over a minute long, but both characters make a memorable impression. There are many opportunities to wonder what you would have done in a given character's place. The film is not black and white at all.
The story-telling keeps you hooked; even though I was around when the Chappaquiddick accident happened, I'd forgotten the details. And the script seems very scrupulous about sticking mostly to what is actually known. Obviously, the dialogues between Sen. Kennedy and those who were close to him, such as his father and his advisers, can only be imagined. Nevertheless, they seem consistent with the known facts and the known characters.
My biggest criticism is that the leading actor's Boston accent randomly comes and goes (but mostly goes).
The Imitation Game (2014)
It's a Shame They Dumbed It Down
I enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch and the recreation of the WW II atmosphere. Also, the story, as a story, was fairly compelling.
But in the end, the movie insulted my intelligence by oversimplifying everything. As just one example, after Turing's machine starts successfully decrypting Enigma messages, one team member wants to use it to stop an attack on an Allied convoy. And to make it more melodramatic, his brother is on the doomed convoy. They all have a big fight about it because some of them realize (apparently for the first time) that that might tip off the Germans that their code has been broken. These weren't dumb people. The problem would have occurred to them long before.
Overall, the movie was fake, contrived, and manipulative. I understand literary license, but it went way beyond that.
The Invisible Woman (2013)
Plusses and Minusses
The best thing about this movie is that it convincingly recreated Dickens's world. The sets and the costumes are meticulously reproduced. Real-life personages such as Mark Lemon and Wilkie Collins are convincingly portrayed. It gives the viewer a window into the Victorian era. It's true to all the known and provable facts.
Now having said that, it's not entirely successful as drama -- mostly because Nelly is made out to be way too saintly and long-suffering. The movie gives you the impression that she had strong moral reservations about Dickens's courtship, had sex with him only once, enjoyed an idyllic nine months with him until their child was still-born, and then totally regretted the whole thing. The truth is that they were a couple for at least ten years, and were probably still a couple at his his death. The actress who plays Nelly is extraordinarily beautiful, but she does nothing except look pained throughout the whole movie.
Amazing Grace (2006)
Flawed Biopic
How can you not root for William Wilberforce? He's against slavery! He's kind to animals! He loves his hot girlfriend! So the narrative does manage to carry you along. You might even shed a tear or two.
For me, though, it was an uphill battle. The timeline jumps around wildly. At one point, it's explicitly said to be 1797, but after that, I could never keep it straight; some scenes seem to be flashbacks, but don't quote me. Also, characters aren't introduced properly.
I'm not an evangelical Christian (in fact, I'm Jewish), but the film doesn't do justice to this aspect of Wilberforce's character. It was central to his life and to his abolitionist mission, but the movie reduces it to a sort of animist blithering about the beauties of nature.
And it's full of historical howlers. A royal duke (the Duke of Cumberland) sitting in the House of Commons? "Lord" Charles Fox?!? It's a shame that the screen writing was so sloppy, because the costuming and set decoration are meticulously well-researched. The acting is also quite good. Weak though the script is, the cast manages to bring it to some semblance of life. I don't quite understand, however, why they took the trouble of casting an actor to play Pitt who looks uncannily like him, while the actors who play the other characters (including Wilberforce and Fox) look nothing like the originals at all.
The Head Guy (1930)
Re: Surreal
Surreal.
This was made *80 years ago.* Yet it seems like longer -- or maybe outside of time altogether.
The whole piece is dreamlike and surreal.
Harry, in his white clown makeup, is, initially, shocking and not entirely okay. Nevertheless, he soon becomes sympathetic, though never believable.
Judith Barrett as the ingenue completely lacks any acting ability whatsoever, yet by sheer persistence, she, too, becomes sympathetic.
All through the 30-minute short, there's a detailed, realistic rainstorm going on outdoors, which is absolutely impossible to reconcile with the fluffy fantasy going on indoors.
The true highlight is Harry's anguished soliloquy over the loss of his girl, punctuated by his hungry bites at the sandwich in front of him.
I wouldn't have missed it for the world, but I'm going to have trouble explaining it to my friends.
Cinderella Man (2005)
It worked, and yet I'm SO disappointed . . . .
The story is heart-warming, the characters are endearing, the pictures on the screen are beautiful, even the music is stirring -- so why am I disappointed? Everything is so OBVIOUS. There are no surprises. No complexity, no nuances, no grace notes.
I was really looking forward to seeing this. But apparently there's only one boxing movie that can be made, and it's called Rocky. This is just another remake of Rocky. And Rocky's already been remade four times.
Prepare to be manipulated shamelessly. Not that it didn't work on me -- it did, I just resented it. I enjoyed watching Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger. They're pretty people and they get dressed in pretty clothes. They play nice people, who have three adorable children. You want nice things to happen to them. When bad things happen to them, you feel bad. (Hope that's not a spoiler for anybody.) But why can't Hollywood take all these tremendously talented people (both in front of and behind the camera) and all of its bloody money and throw them at a script we haven't seen before?
Daredevil (2003)
Just Doesn't Work
This movie sacrifices substance for style every time. Thus, it is repeatedly stupid and nonsensical. Yes, I know, it's a comic book, but while a comic book may start with a few unrealistic premises, it should make sense within that self-imposed framework. Daredevil doesn't.
I mean, would even bullies challenge a blind kid to fight? When Matt walks all the way through a restaurant to ask Elektra for some honey, wouldn't she wonder how he knew she -- and the honey -- were there? If Daredevil can perceive bullets coming at him well enough to dodge them, how come he needs it to rain before he can see Elektra's face? I can accept that Daredevil can "see" flagpoles and window-cleaning platforms well enough to work his way down from a roof using them, but if he falls 100 feet and then catches a flagpole, his arms should rip off.
Oh, yeah, and how long does it take Elektra to clean up all the spilled sand in her apartment after her workout?
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
A really funny movie!!!
This is the funniest movie I've seen. It always makes me laugh. It is so funny to see a totally nerdy guy walk around like he's the coolest. My favorite part is definitely when he kills the Fembots. If you haven't seen it, go rent it. I can't wait to see the sequel!