Change Your Image
White_base_groupie
Reviews
Crazylove (2005)
Uh...
Disclaimer: I found the acting in this good, though the dialogue was bad. My biggest problems lie with the story and characterization.
First off, this premise has been done before (see: Benny and Joon.) And may I say it was done a heck of a lot better. You see, Joon actually acted like a SCHIZOPHRENIC. In this movie I have to say that the psychiatric ward was the most romanticized I'd ever seen; people acted a little strangely, but lovably so. And don't get me started on Michael who they said was supposed to have schizoaffective disorder. PLEASE. He had two psychotic episodes throughout the movie, and the last one was a result of not taking his pills (or should I say pill; it appears he only needed one! Man, that must be one HECK of a pill.) Yeah, I'm sure if they had a medicine like that every darn schizophrenic in the country would want it, because they completely subdued his symptoms despite anti-psychotic drugs being, well, not very good. Michael also showed no additional signs of schizophrenia, such as speech problems, flat affect, disordered thinking, fragmented world view, inappropriate emotions, and withdrawal from others. His immediate attachment to Letty was quite atypical. In addition to the lack of schizophrenia he did not appear to ever go through mania or depression.
Then don't get me started on Letty or whatever her name is, Miss "Don't Tell Me Who I Can and Can't Date!" It was soooo obvious that she had no idea what she was in for. I loved when the psychiatrist was telling her about Michael's illness and she was essentially like "Whatevah! I do what I want!" She seemed to think that his mental illness was just a cute little quirk that would result in him taking her ring and sneaking out to order pizza in the middle of the night. I was just WAITING for the moment when she would realize exactly what she had gotten herself into. I expected it to come a lot earlier, and I expected it to be a lot worse than Michael trashing the apartment. But, hey, at least they tried. By the way, my mom left during the movie because she couldn't handle how unrealistic the portrayal of mental illness was.
I also have to say that while A) Their relationship failing and B) Michael having to be re-admitted is the most realistic the movie got, it's also quite depressing. If they're going to show such a rose-colored, public-friendly view of mental illness, why not go all the way and have those two end up together? I felt as if I had wasted two hours of my life.
Really, I see no reason to watch this movie: the psychology is inaccurate, and the romance doomed to disappoint (unless you like that whole "I watched the whole movie and they didn't end up together" thing.) The only good insight it had I felt was in the general public attitude towards mental illness and psychiatric patients, but you could get that in a lot better movies, in my opinion.
The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)
Not very good...
The decision to combine "The Scarlet Pimpernel" and "Eldorado" was a bad one. A lot of things were off: such as Armand's whole scene in "Eldorado" where he tells Percy that Percy doesn't know what it's like to truly love was completely lost of its point, because at that point in the movie Percy and Marguerite were still on bad terms, whereas in "Eldorado" they are on great terms so it had a lot more meaning. Also, the "Scarlet Pimpernel" has action enough without needing to throw in another novel.
Also, showing the courtship was a bad idea. It was too rushed, and we have no idea why Marguerite would fall for Percy. The romantic dialogue was so stilted and awful, I kept praying for when the moment would arrive that their romance would falter and they would get to hating each other so I wouldn't have to hear anymore convoluted romantic tripe. And what was with having Armand sleep with Jeanne/Louise just after he'd been beaten for being in love with Angele de St. Cyrs? Can we say "rebound"? I also didn't like that Marguerite heard the Pimpernel's voice, but didn't recognize her own husband.
The prison scene was not as good as it could have been. In the "Eldorado" novel, it is one of the best parts.
Chauvelin's name is NOT Paul! It is Armand!
None of the actors, save for Ian McKellen, were fantastic. Leslie Howard is a far superior Percy. Jane Seymour had no life to her, or wit--certainly not the "cleverest woman in Europe." I have yet to find a truly satisfactory Pimpernel film, but the closest so far is the 1936 one. I hope that someday Hollywood decides to try this again, then again that could really prove disastrous.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Makes absolutely no sense, when you think about it
It's a good movie when you watch it, you enjoy it and I would watch it again. But when you think about it, it all sorts of crumbles. Why didn't Andy have a lawyer to contact? Why were none of the characters developed? And, finally: WHY IS IT CALLED A REDEMPTION IF ANDY IS INNOCENT? It redeems no one! Andy doesn't need redemption, Red doesn't either (he already is remorseful for his crime.) Why were they afraid to make Andy guilty? It would have been more believable, MUCH more plausible, and then it actually would have been a redemption! If you want a true story of redemption, read "Les Miserables." And, guess what, Hugo had enough talent to not need a fundamentalist Christian warden with a freaking southern accent.
Also, the ending should have cut off much earlier than it did. Maybe "I want to see my friend again." That would have left us wondering, did he make it? I hope he did! Instead, we actually see the stupid scene. Ugh.
The most beautiful scene of this is the Sull'aria scene... but let's face it, what director could make a scene with Mozart playing in it ugly? Except for Joel Schumacher, I suppose.
Light in the Piazza (1962)
Pretty good, but very flawed
I watched The Light In the Piazza movie on TCM yesterday (taped it, too!) At the beginning, I was pretty impressed: it stuck to the book very well and was cute/enjoyable. Margaret was played by an obviously British accent and Clara had a French accent at the beginning but I noticed it less as time went by. Then it started throwing in these random things that never happened. Okay. THEN it pulls the ultimate coup de grace and has Noel (Roy in the musical) come to Rome after Margaret and Clara have left Florence. WTF WTF WTF. All he does when he's there is yell at Margaret, talk about how he signed Clara up for an institution, talk about how dumb it was to come there and miss work for his cigarette company, and recount the story of when Margaret signed Clara up for a normal school. Now, SURELY they could have done this on the phone. Why the heck would they bring him all the way to Italy just for that? I know that they're rich and stuff, but sheesh! As my parents can attest to, when I saw him arrive I yelled out "NOOOOOO MOVIE NOOOOO! You were doing SO WELL!" A major problem for me was the portrayal of Clara. They went out of their way to make her seem more mentally... abnormal. Which is good, but then it kind of ruins the credibility of the story. I mean, during the scene where she has Margaret check for monsters before she goes to bed, I kept wondering if she'd make Fabrizio do that after they got married. XD Anyway, you begin to wonder if Fabrizio and his family are either too dumb to notice or just extremely patient and brave to put up with her.
It doesn't help that George Hamilton plays Fabrizio like he's a total moron. Seriously. He got on my nerves a lot. Add his portrayal to the fact that Clara's obviously worse in this particular version, and you have the audience, or at least me, start to wonder if something's wrong with Fabrizio as well. And this is coming from someone who absolutely loves Fabrizio, in both the musical and the novel.
Another problem was the lack of narrative on behalf of the Naccarellis. I realize that it would have been hard for a movie to show this stuff, but I really missed all of the insight the novel gave us into Fabrizio's daily life, which showed that he had a life outside of Clara, too. In the movie, he's pretty much "the love interest" instead of an actual character himself.
This is a random and stupid complaint, but THERE WERE NO SOUTHERN ACCENTS!! I mean, that was so upsetting! They got Italian, so why not Southern? Southern's a lot easier to fake, too! It seemed dumb to me when Margaret mentioned that they were from North Carolina. I was like "So where's the accent, huh!?" Sorry, random nitpick. XD My last complaint: the flower-eating thing. WTF WTF WTF. The whole point is that Clara is supposed to have gotten a lot better, or at least seem to have, in Italy. That just ruined it RIGHT there.
Aside from these complaints, it was pretty good. Clara's actress did an amazing job throwing tantrums and going into hysterics and whatnot. Olivia DeHavilland was absolutely wonderful as Margaret. And Signor Naccarelli (Dunno his name offhand, but some famous sexbomb Italian actor) was smooooth. The rest of the cast was good, though they didn't have major roles. I thought it was interesting how they gave Clara's Italian professor more of a role so they could use her as a way for Margaret to explain things to the audience.
Great Performances: Les Misérables in Concert (1995)
Problem is that it's a concert
I love Les Mis. I love seeing it staged, I love the book, I love listening to it for hours upon end.
But the thing is, a concert just doesn't work. The actors are obviously very confused. Some overact, some underact, some are very inconsistent because they are in front of a mic and just don't know how to respond to it. I don't blame them. They try their best, but it's hard to do a play when you're not allowed to... y'know... act.
Also, I don't like Lea Salonga that much as Eponine. I am a HUGE Lea fan, but her voice is just too pretty and she's too mature for the role.
Les Misérables (1998)
How the HECK can you be a mayor if you can't read or write!?
This is one of the few movies that will actually prompt me to shout at the TV.
I was willing to be patient with a Les Mis movie adaptation, because the novel is sooooo lengthy and detailed. But they just completely twist everyone's personalities around.
I put up with the characterization errors (the characterization that made the novel so wonderful) but then I turned it off when I saw that they'd made Valjean the mayor when he couldn't read or write. It specifically says in the novel that he learned how to write/read in prison. Again, I wouldn't care, but I don't quite see how any town could flourish under an illiterate mayor.
Here is what all bothered me: - I saw people praise this movie because it didn't change Valjean as drastically, i.e. he sometimes becomes violent and hits people. Valjean was NEVER violent. He was freaking put into prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family. Whenever he attempted to escape, it did not involve violence. Valjean would never, ever, hit anyone--prison made him full of bitterness and hatred, but not violent. - Javert is NOT sadistic. He's certainly not a very likable guy, but his personal experiences gave him a very rigid sense of justice. - Liam Neeson is just too young to play Valjean, I think. They should have aged him up a bit, especially during his stint as Monsieur Madeleine - I also don't think Liam Neeson looked powerful enough. Remember, the man lifted a cart and scaled a wall and bent prison bars. - Fantine and Valjean never had anything between them. She was a little too busy, y'know, dying. - Marius as a political activist is a strange and horrible thought. - Les Mis has many stories inside of it, not just Javert vs. Valjean. - Enjolras is a necessary character - ABC is pronounced "Ah Bay Say," it's a pun - Eponine isn't entirely necessary, but the movie would have been more enjoyable with her - Cosette is not a teenage rebel without a cause who throws a tantrum when she does not get her way - Valjean would sooner hit himself than hit Cosette
I could go on, but I won't. It isn't just the novel mistakes. It's just a very boring and stuffy movie. As one reviewer I saw put it: "You keep itching for someone to burst into song." The characters aren't endearing at all in the movie; I didn't fall in love with Valjean like I did in the novel. I didn't cry over Fantine having to sell her hair and teeth and locket. When you can't really like any character in a movie, you have a big problem.
Troy (2004)
Murder has just been committed, here...
Did you people see the same movie...? I wish that I could post my entire review which was originally four pages, but I condensed it and also included full out excerpts. Sorry, I tried.
What Wolfgang Peterson has done has taken a magical tale and taken the magic right out of it. No gods, no beauty that launched a thousand ships, no prophecies. In fact, when the gods were mentioned it was extremely sacrilegious. It reminded me too much of how people act in modern days, and had the movie been set then it would have been okay. But back then, there was no science to disprove the gods, and in the book everyone, even the cocky Achilles, fears the gods. When he beheaded that statue of Apollo my expression matched that of the guy who saw him do it. No Greek, or Trojan, would dare to defile the Gods. Atheism did not really exist back then.
Another one of my complaints was the glorification of the Trojans. First off, because there were no gods to start the war or keep it going they placed that burden on Agamemnon, who may have been a jerk but was no imperialist. The movie absolutely made you HATE Achilles, like you do in the book, but unlike the books they don't show enough of the other Greeks to redeem the entire side.
And yes, the "romance." I do not understand how anyone who did not know the true reasons for the war could honestly sit through and think that the romance was nothing more than two spoiled brats condemning more than an entire kingdom for their selfishness. Even if the actor and actress involved in it, Diane Kruger and Orlando Bloom, had any chemistry-which they did not-I do not see how any romance could be justified. The problem was the movie kept attempting to make you like it. Even Hector, who in the real version is constantly admonishing Paris for his selfishness, seems to support the two. The movie, of course, says otherwise, but Paris loved Helen no more than a farmer loves his prize pig. She was a bribe, an object.
But because we're supposed to like Paris, and the romance, the movie continues to go out of its way to tell us how unhappy Helen was with Menelaus. And certainly, one cannot disagree, as Menelaus is shown as old, unfaithful, bulky, and brutish when in the book Homer constantly goes out of his way to tell us how handsome, young, and honorable Menelaus is. The movie makes him say that he only wants Helen back so he can kill her himself, when in the book he says nothing of the sort. But no, we're supposed to hate him; Helen continually says things like "Everytime I was with him I felt like walking into the sea and drowning myself," and "Sparta was never my home. My parents sent me there when I was sixteen to marry Menelaus." Never mind the fact that Helen was actually from Sparta, and Menelaus from Mycenae, who inherited the throne when he married her. And never mentioned is the Oath of Tyndareus, in which all of Helen's suitors pledged to protect her marriage, which Agamemnon and Menelaus invoked after Helen left for Troy. My guess would be this is because it would reveal the fact that Helen herself actually chose to marry Menelaus, and we simply cannot have that.
Paris himself is glorified in a way that he certainly does not deserve. In the movie he is the one to suggest fighting Menelaus one-on-one, and rather than going home to have a nooner with Helen like in the book and being yelled at by Hector, in the movie he cowers behind his brother's legs and Hector says nothing. Such a scene epitomizes how the movie treats Paris, like this naïve but well-intentioned hero. Rather than being hated by the city for instigating a war against them like in the book, Paris is loved by Troy. Which makes no sense.
The movie omits, or worse gets wrong, simple details that would have enriched it. For example, they constantly show the ancient Greek burial rituals-and get it wrong every time! I knew this because the fact was explained in a Greek mythology book that I'd read in grade school-grade school, for crying out loud. Speaking of grade school, the knowledge of mythology itself appears to be at that level. The only gods mentioned are Apollo, Artemis, Zeus, etc-mainstream ones. They constantly refer to Charon, calling him the 'Boat Man.' I really was just waiting for someone to ask, 'You mean CHARON?'
Other things constantly screwed up are character backgrounds. I already mentioned Helen, and how I wish that would have been the only mistake. But, oh no, it was not. The most glaring to me was when Hector tells Paris an anecdote from when he was ten. In actuality, because he'd been predicted to be the downfall of Troy, Paris was raised as a shepherd until one day in his early adulthood, Cassandra recognized him as her brother and he was realized to be a prince of Troy. Okay, so maybe they were trying to be realistic, but it was these kinds of eccentric backgrounds that make Greek tales so magical.
SPOILER AHEAD
Far from beyond bastardizing Homer the movie goes on to kill off other stories. Let me just tell you that the movie kind of gets who lives and who dies totally opposite. The people who die live and the people who live die.
I can only think of a few that they got right.
Even if I hadn't known mythology I would have hated it. I like nudity and violence as much as the next person, but they overloaded it on you. And what was WITH that dialogue? Classical movies need classical dialogue... and don't even get me started on the music...