Change Your Image
yelofneb-63037
Reviews
UNHhhh (2016)
Can't be this much fun and not be real, and really endearing.
I'm from an older generation and from another nation, where the freedom to be true to oneself is not entirely guaranteed or protected. Trixie and Katya go that huge and vital step forward, beyond Ru Paul's successful commercialization of drag, to making every aspect of being the opposite of "normal" valid and real. It's impossible not to love them.
Wolf Mother (2016)
a solid four
How do I compare...etc.
it's an indie movie that displays a lot of potential in the 1st half and seems to lose its steam due to reasons that have nothing to do with the team that delivered the tale till then. the actors are great and it's obvious that they were working with a difficult narrative right from the start but they managed to deliver so well that the sudden crash in in direction is overwhelming.
still, it's worth watching. there's good chemistry between the lead actors, and they are good actors, entirely believable in their roles.
it's indie and lacking a completely structured narrative but it's worth watching, especially just to make notes about how not to waste a good start.
I Smile Back (2015)
When you have to wonder where up is
I've always loved Sarah Silverman's gutsy and honest presentation of herself. If she was to bump into me in the street and demand that I listen to whatever she wanted to say, I would willingly be stuck there, until whenever she was done, solely because of her wit and honesty.
I Smile Back is a whole new venture, in that the character she plays, while having the strength of defensive belligerence, is actually completely at a loss about how to play a proper part in the world that she thought she always wanted, mostly due to the fact that there is another world that she secretly left behind.
There is no bravado lone comic at play here--just a brave actress delivering a difficult and unattractive character, who remains nonetheless sympathetic--whether or not the audience is aware of Sarah Silverman.
Escape Room (2017)
I'm a big fan of Skeet Ulrich but WTF is this?
No spoilers necessary.
Honestly, I am a huge fan of Skeet, but this is just a mess. I actually started to yawn half way through, and only watched it to the end to see if some last minute denouement could rescue the escapade. Unfortunately, there was no rescue. Life is too short to waste on this. It's so bad that I refuse to rate it.
Black and White (2002)
This story deserves a better treatment
May include spoilers:
I agree with a previous reviewer that the talents of a whole bunch of brilliant true actors were not displayed nearly as well as they should have been. There are various points where passionate stances are rendered in a manner that makes one wonder about the director's choice as to which take should have been submitted to the editor.
Charles Dance's performance was, as always, impeccable, which, unfortunately, lead to a perceptible imbalance when the chosen takes revealed that both Robert Carlyle and Kerry Fox, though both are accomplished actors with resumees that are ample proof of their ability, simply were not delivering their best.
For anyone with experience of life in Australia, it's an important story in the history of judicial fair treatment but this movie comes across as only a half effort to be true to its inspiration. It's as if the director had lost interest at various points along the way.
In the best of all cinematic worlds, another go at this, with all of the original actors and a new director--especially one who might have known the late Craig Lahiff, who I'm sure had the best of all intentions--would be a blessing to do justice to a far more significant event in Australia's history than this version represents.
There are issues here that deserve far more respectful treatment. Alone the idea of Rupert Murdoch as a white knight in service of justice for the underdog is such an explosive irony, not to mention that an immigrant solicitor manages to have a case heard by the British Privy Council, and on rejection, yet again by a Royal Commission. Please, same cast, new director.
Just to see what I mean, watch this movie.
Quirke (2013)
absolutely brilliant but perhaps only for those of a certain age
For anyone who is Irish, who grew up in the 1960-70's, the Quirke series is like getting a flashback to the time that our parents came of age. For all of us, there was a dark overhanging gloom that we had nothing to do with but had to fight against. That dark gloom is aptly described here.
Lately, a whole lot of attention is given to the impending retirement of Daniel Day-Lewis. He is a great Irish actor but I haven't even seen the last three movies that he has been in. Gabriel Byrne, on the other hand, is the actor whose work I do follow. He has mastered the role of the Everyman, faced with all of the sorrow and joy of life, and the negotiation in between. I have never seen him in a role that disappoints, and he is certainly worth watching in the Quirke series.
I wish that the series could be continued, especially because Irish social history needs that kind of exploration, with exactly the kind of character that Gabriel Byrne delivers in the Quirke series.
I'm giving it 10 out of 10 because it's a great work that has no reliance on anything but the acting performances delivered. It's as if everyone involved had sat down together and agreed about exactly what to do. That kind of intimacy is usually only possible with stage performances. Somehow, the cast and crew of Quirke have managed to achieve that.
There is no reason to not watch all three episodes of Quirke, against a multitude of reasons to sit, watch and study. You'll be glad that you can say that you saw it.
Bouquet of Barbed Wire (2010)
nowhere near the quality of the original
I do realize that the few who would care to read a review of this version of Bouquet Of Barbed Wire are either as old as I am (to have seen the original) or are fans of Brit TV, with time on their hands. To you, the following.
The reason that I gave up so much time in my life, watching this, was because of my absolute fascination with the original, and because of my curiosity about an attempt to remake a gem.
It's not that I am some "original is best" snob that makes me title the review as such. It's just a fact that the original was a better constructed, less convoluted, and far better acted TV event. While I like Trevor Eve, he seems better suited to bland but steady detective roles than to the complex character of Peter, the jealous father, whose petty but intriguing vanity requires a strong actor. Sadly, the same is true of Imogen Poots, who is sorely miscast in the role of Prue. Juno Temple, for example, would have been compelling to watch.
The original roles were played by Frank Findlay and Susan Penhaligon. While Penhaligon's further career may seem, in hindsight, not as brilliant as one might have expected (given her shining performance in the original Bouquet of Barbed Wire) she remains, nonetheless, even in the many lesser roles that she delivered, by far a more interesting and engaging actor to watch than Imogen Poots--whose range seems not to extend beyond either smiling or weeping.
When it comes to the question of Trevor Eve trying to come close to Frank Findlay's performance in the delivery of Peter, it's an even sadder comparison because Findlay was blessed with an immediately perceptible authority, in every role, that forced his audience to patiently wait to see and observe how he went about his work. Mr. Eve, in contrast, at least in this role, just seems to flounder about, from start to finish--as if, somehow, he'll manage to get it right, in the end.
It seems hard to get hold of copies of the original, these days, and the remake is a completely disappointing and unsatisfactory substitute. Almost a double offence, if I didn't have the memory of the original solidly seared in my memory.
Ironically, the entire misadventure of the remake goes to prove the quality of the original, because the novel on which both are based is not high literature, just simply a briefly popular novel published in 1969.
Whereas the original television production was almost an accidental success, in that the right combination of actors deliver a dramatic rendition to equal and even surpass the popular attraction of the book, the remake obviously lacks a comparable impetus. The original London Weekend Television series occurred just seven years after the publication of the novel. The remake appears over thirty years after the LWT production. Given the wan and pallid delivery of the remake, it's painfully obvious that everyone involved in the 2010 production was focused on trying to somehow rekindle a long dead ember of interest that had completely been sated in the better version of 1976.
Christopher Lee is said to have been disappointed by the very idea of a remake of The Wicker Man, suggesting instead that a sequel would be more appropriate, because the original had indelibly hit the mark. Such is the case with Bouquet Of Barbed Wire--a sequel would be far more appropriate than a watery pathetic attempt to remake a gem.
The Shape of Things (2003)
the shape of a play is not the shape of a movie
Neil Labute must be a hell of a nice and convincing guy to get all of those good actors to go along with his movie directorial efforts in The Shape Of Things.
Paul Rudd has commented on the fact that by the time it came to making the movie after so many stage performances, everyone was already very tired. I take that statement as a kinder way of saying that Neil Labute is a good playwright, a good stage director, but not the right guy to direct this movie. His later work shows strong evidence that he learned quite well, since then.
The problem with The Shape Of Things seems to lie in the fact that Labute forgets that huge essential difference between stage and movie audiences. A stage audience's experience in the theater is as visceral as is the job of the actors onstage. Alone in entering the venue, the stage audience is already aware of its own part in an event that is actually already occurring. There is nothing between the actor and the audience except the shared anticipation of the performance, and that is the reason why hushed noise tends to be the rule, on entering a stage venue--as opposed to the noisier racket that occurs in a cinema.
That racket occurs in a venue that is entirely constructed to minimize the the special significance of the event. The admission ticket is cheap and the venue's owners are actively invested in providing cheap and almost poisonous food and drink to be consumed within the cinema venue during the performance. The actors are not present and any disturbance eventually caused them by the audience reaction is filtered through even more distant filters controlled by yet more distant vendors of opinion. In a cinema, one is practically required to indulge oneself in every possible manner that one might even be embarrassed about, when home alone.
The point is that there is a difference between Hamlet onstage and Hamlet in the cinema, quite apart from the length of the former, when delivered in full completion. Where most screen versions of Hamlet have to be condensed to qualify for the two hour maximum audience attention span, The Shape Of Things indulges in the cruelty of not sparing the viewer the director ordered pause between the lines exchanged, which may well be appropriate on stage, so that the audience can absorb the process of moving from one point to the next, but is painfully inappropriate on film, where motion moves diction, because there is no limitation on space in which to act.
The Shape Of Things is probably an excellent play, delivered on a stage, but it's a tired waste of wonderful actors on film.
Danika (2005)
boring and predictable in the first fifteen minutes
***if spoilers, then...***.
I just cannot agree with any of the reviewers who claim to see anything of serious merit in this movie. In a previous review of Ariel Vromen's debut, Rx, I suggested, without having seen Danika, that Rx, with a little adjustment could have been a better class of Lifetime movie. I stick with that opinion and would add that I suspect he detected that himself and constructed Danika with a view to better capturing the attention of that kind of audience.
If you were not surprised by the ending of Jacob's Ladder, then you won't be at the end of Danika, either. While Ariel Vromen can't be blamed for Jacob's Ladder, he should certainly be held to account for Danika. If it's an homage to to some loved person in his past, it is one that can only be treasured by those who knew and/or loved the source of its inspiration, because, for any other intelligent audience, the presentation remains unsympathetic and remote.
I actually like Marisa Tomei but not in this movie. Whoever her agent is, is doing her a great disservice in sending her scripts as horrendous as this. She's a charming actress in roles better suited to her skills, but, ultimately, it's just a boring and predictable piece that no star actress in the world could have redeemed. It's Tomei's fault that Danika is boring, irritating and completely bereft of any possibility of sympathy. Both the actress and the role are victims of the fact that Ariel Vromen's best works as a director are those where the protagonist/antagonist is male, as in The Iceman and in Criminal. Both of these are solidly entertaining, from beginning to end. Danika is just plain irritating, from start to finish, and if it seems a harsh critique to suggest that Vromen should avoid works with female leads, the other two mentioned movies are proof that his talent lies in making the most grotesque males seem sympathetic, without, as in the case of the Iceman, hiding the horrors committed.
That's an invaluable skill at any time in the history of the world, because that is the only way to make sense, and not sensationalism, of the human capacity to sometimes be oblivious to the fact that, in the words of an old spiritual song, you're drifting too far from the shore.
The ideas of guilt and responsibility, of culpability, seem the central issue of Ariel Vromen's catalog, so far--but the delivery of Danika's story is paper-thin and unfortunately far too predictable from the start to be engaging.
Rx (2005)
lot of effort but nothing for it
***could contain unintentional but possibly or, sooner, probably inconsequential spoilers***.
It is almost unbelievable to consider that the director of this movie would go on to make a movie as compelling as The Iceman, but I guess that Ariel Vroman deserves a lot of points for not having given up after Rx.
Having spent 90 minutes of my life watching Rx, based on the great impression created by The Iceman, I'm led to wonder whether Vroman learned by his mistakes, or if it is possible that the investors hacked Rx into the boring unsatisfactory mess of a story that it ends up being. He simply must have had better unrealized intentions here.
It's not the fault of the lead actors. While Eric Balfour isn't well known as a box office inspiration, he is a capable and likable actor who showed particular thespian skill during his run on Six Feet Under. Colin Hanks was born with not only the gene but also the will to be an exceptionally capable actor. His performance as Doug in Alone With Her is masterpiece creepiness, showing the actor's willingness to take the risk of sacrificing likable popularity in order to display his acting chops. Lauren German is, likewise, a competent skilled performer--who delivers the most humanly real performance of all in Rx, despite being starved of substantial lines.
For anyone who feels the need, as I did, to check out Vroman's work before The Iceman, you can skip Rx. In fact, if the plot had focused on Melissa's (German) trip to Mexico, it might even seem like a better class of Lifetime movie; and that, right there, is the problem with Rx--it lacks focus, while pretending, through all of its 90 minutes, to eventually come to a conclusive point.
I could go into more detail about Rx's failings--and they are many--but it has already robbed me of too much precious time. Skip it, unless you should find yourself somehow trapped, somewhere, with only one channel and the only thing on is Rx.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
This is the original
***spoilers are almost inevitable, but i'll do my best to keep them at a minimum*** While Liev Schrieber is one of my favorite actors (consider Ray Donovan, for example), the task of remaking The Manchurian Candidate, a novella from Richard Condon about the paranoia that held a vicious grip on the U.S. during the McCarthy UnAmerican Activities Committee probes, it is best left respected, in honor of the work of the original brave actors who risked their careers in a movie that was actually banned, in parts of the world, for almost 20 years, that no remake should be attempted.
The Schrieber/Close remake can only be considered as a well acted reminiscence of the original, but, the fact remains, there is no substitute for the original and absolutely no need for a remake.
If anyone doubts that Frank Sinatra was an excellent actor, then make this your first stop. Then, after this, check out any other movie with his name in the cast and ask yourself how it is that you never noticed that before. Ol' Blue Eyes wasn't just a jazz singer or a crooner. He was a performer.
That's part of the problem with the remake. The tension that exists and is eventually exposed between the hypnotized victims of capture has a real effect on all of the participants in the investigation of their experience. In the remake, everything is invested in the sordid relationship between the candidate and his mother. In the original, the actual horror at the center of events is that the favored amongst the returned captives--well...watch the movie. To say any more about the plot would to give it all away.
Trust me, the original is the best. Laurence Harvey was a very spooky private character to begin with, but a box-office popular personality at that time. Given his thespian success and that of both Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh, they must, all three have been shocked at the ban on the movie, that lasted for a decade (Harvey was already dead before the ban was lifted), which, again, speaks against attempting a remake, given that the ban is, itself, a distinct qualification that can not be carried out of one age of perception to another.
I have a particular affection for the original version because the author of the story, Richard Condon, a U.S American living in Ireland, had the option as an Irish resident artist to take advantage of Ireland's income tax exemption for artists--an artist's bonus that Bono and the rest of U2 heartily used to their advantage--but Condon chose to declare his income to the U.S. Treasury, in order to keep his citizenship intact. It must have hurt him that the country to which he showed such respectful loyalty would give in to the same paranoia that he tried to expose and lay bare, so that it could be challenged and resisted.
In fact, it is a shame that Condon's work is not on the required list of American author's, instead of boring Paul Auster, who, while he writes well, has never written anywhere near close to this, and whose stories all tend to drift away into nothingness, as if he is afraid to say something wrong.
It takes a lot of time and strength to write even a half decent book, and it is not my intent to put Paul Auster down. I just wish that Richard Condon's work was on the same list as Auster. Gun control would, at least, be reconsidered, maybe even prior to the assassination of JFK, MLK, and RFK--but also Malcolm X. None of them should have died and just a little bit more security could have kept them all alive.
We have been made to become cynical since then, and that is the problem with the remake. When Christopher Lee heard about the remake of The Wicker Man, he said, Why? A sequel might make sense, but why remake a success? Same thing with The Manchurian Candidate. If you haven't yet seen either, go with the original. It even has the author's blessing, and he paid his taxes promptly.
The List of Adrian Messenger (1963)
charming movie
***may thoroughly accidentally contain spoilers*** This is a very charming movie, whereby it's true charm is revealed at its best at the very end.
I recommend it mostly because I believe that fervent movie fans who have not yet seen it will get a big kick out of following it through to the end. It's the kind of movie that English speakers everywhere apart from the U.S. of A. call a lark, a fun exercise for actors, wherever they're from, but an especially great viewing experience because from start to finish, the whole lark is a U.S. of A. breakout into the rest of the English speaking audience terrain. From the director, through the lead actors, to the brilliantly delivered bit parts, it's a crazy splash of fun that has its culmination in a cinematic equivalence of taking a personal bow, whereby the happy grins on each of those actors reveals that it was a pleasure for all of them to take part in a very unique American lark.
Btw, the expression "lark" comes from the habit of the western European lark bird to rise high above the nest, whenever it's threatened, in order to lead the assailant astray with shrill crying. hence lark, as an expression to describe dissembling.
The Chase (1966)
actor packed and brilliant
***may contain accidental spoilers*** There are movies and there are great movies. This is one of the latter--a magnificently mixed up story about good and bad people and not so good and not so bad people working their way through a crazy hot night in a small Texas town where slowly but surely all hell breaks loose. Even though it sounds like a lead-up to your average and common teen horror flick, The Chase is filled with the best actors in US movie history--even the first ever screen appearance of Robert Redford. It has Marlon Brando, still back in the days before he turned into Marlon the Hutt, with then absolutely gorgeous Angie Dickinson as his wife. Jane Fonda is there but only recognizable for her acting skill.
Given such a talented cast, the director, Arthur Penn (Little Big Man and quite a few other little big movies), delivers a tight and perfectly controlled story that builds slowly from languid frustrations through tense dialog, slowly building to a literal explosion. Definitely worth watching.
Boys (1996)
this is such a good movie, it just gets better with age.
**could contain spoilers
I wish that Stacy Cochran had made more movies with Winona Ryder because she got the best out of a brilliant actor who had been unfairly beleaguered by yellow press innuendo, despite a great start in her early career.
Boys is a beautiful movie that transcends the petty moralism that has since taken over the U.S. movie industry and, perhaps, the whole of U.S. society, since that simpler time when it was made.
Watching it for the first time again, since 9/11, it's like taking a very pleasant backwards time trip to a previous more tolerant age, when the idea that love is all we need still mattered. That time seems almost forgotten, now, and it almost seems like rebellion to insist on remembering that finding love, in whatever circumstances, is the best thing of all.
As a matter of fact, that is still true, and this fact is a very good reason to watch this movie again, and again, and again. Be subversive and watch this and other love-positive movies from pre-9/11. Love does not need political definition.
Politicians should think about, as most people do, that making love possible is the primary goal of any proper human society. This movie does that because anyone who has only been in love for a week or even for many more years can't watch this without smiling in approval as the credits roll up to reveal the details of one of the best soundtracks ever in a '90s movie.
It's a great little movie with two great leading actors with excellent on-screen chemistry for their roles, and great support, especially from the younger cast members.
It ages well, and it's unfortunately too unique, because I really wish that there were more Stacy Cochran/Winona Ryder movies.
The Circle (2017)
A movie that makes you go hmmm.
***may contain spoilers but absolutely no gluten or lactose.
A movie that makes you go hmmm.
Emma Watson is known not only for her acting career but also for standing up for issues that she feels deserve attention. Unfortunately, the issues of her concern apparently do not extend to human rights violations by the major investor, the government of Abu Dhabi, in her latest movie, The Circle.
Given that the subject of the movie deals with a very complicated issue in the history of civil rights in the more enlightened parts of the world, namely privacy, the choice of that investor seems almost cynical. In fact, it seems suspiciously part of an ongoing campaign in recent times by many to whitewash Abu Dhabi's reputation.
The Circle is a bit of a mess, as far as any sensible narrative is concerned. The idea that the movie was forced onto the market prior to proper editing is supported by the fact that Tom Hanks also takes part in what amounts to a glib and ultimately ridiculous treatment of the serious issue of privacy rights in the tech age.
Whether or not one is a fan of Tom Hanks, the thing that one could feel assured of on seeing his name in the credits of any movie was that a certain high standard of quality could be expected of the article delivered--and that kind of standard matters, in a world where hype has ever more might over quality.
Even the most cursory glance on IMDb of Hank's career reveals a solid testimony of a dedicated professional acting talent--and this is precisely why one suspects that there must have been a huge miscalculation involved in the too early unedited release of The Circle. While I could not expect an Oscar standard performance from Emma Watson, I still expected more of Tom Hanks. After all, it's not as though he's just working for the money--hopefully--at this point in a long career. Hmmm.
Maybe there's a director's cut hidden in the basement waiting on a time when the lawyers of a famous Silicon Valley search engine enterprise have lost their teeth. If not, then The Circle will only be famous for being Tom Hanks' worst movie, given his lukewarm presence--a rare event in his career--in a role that begs for a strong performance.
Director James Ponsoldt's previous work includes The Spectacular Now, a difficult but narratively balanced eventually-coming-of-age story, and Smashed, also a story about alcoholism that received excellent references from recovering alcoholics, as well as being a selection at the Sundance Film Festival of 2012. Based on the rendered quality of those two movies alone, the suspicion of a forced early release of The Circle looms even larger.
The thing that bothers me most about The Circle is the weak narrative, but there's also the fact that I still haven't yet seen an Emma Watson role that left any lasting impression on me. In fact, if it hadn't been for the names of Ponsoldt and Hanks, I wouldn't have given time to the hope that Emma might shine--as she could have, being in the company of two such solidly proved accomplished movie artists.
The Circle remains nonetheless worth watching, because the issue of privacy invasion certainly deserves serious public consideration, and if it helps younger viewers to consider the privacy effect of greater connectivity, then the viewers' time is well spent--as long as one manages to see beyond the investor's lack of regard for the same back home in Abu Dhabi.
Masters of Science Fiction (2007)
god is dead, just to prove that Nietzsche's was right, all along
probably contains spoilers
I just don't understand why the smartest man in the world since Einstein needs to give his name to a lame series of depictions of the kind of adventurous thinking that we would all be busy with, anyway, in the pub, on a Saturday afternoon.
Maybe I'm dumber than I think I am and have missed a Hawkins bulletin that described a necessary sequential issue of themes that are first dealt with in this series. If that is the case, then I am in error, and I apologize for thinking that this series is a farcical exploitation of the popular interest in Hawkin's ideas.
I wonder if he is even aware of what is, here, being propagated in his name.
While I find it great and wonderful that Prof. Hawkins can continue to make a whole lot of noise, it is his words on paper that matter to me. He is a scientist, not a Saturday night television caricature of himself.
All of those involved may have had the best of intentions, but those of us who would here seek to know even more of Stephen Hawkins will remain disappointed. I'm sure that he must have had serious consideration if not regret about this series.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
not worth the time
spoilers may occur, but i'll do my best to prevent them.
This movie has so little to do with the traditional legend of Arthur, Excalibur and Camelot, that it seems eminently appropriate to direct those viewers who have an interest in better deliveries of the legend to John Boorman's Excalibur.
This current treatment is ideal for those whose experience of cinema began with the advent of gore as the central factor of cinematic experience.
That, in itself, is simply an historical development that has to do with audience expectation and would not, in itself, be so disappointing, if it were not for the fact that The Legend Of The Sword has absolutely nothing to do with the legend that has been preserved in poetry, prose and film over generations--rendered in it's best cinema representation at the hands of Boorman, in Excalibur.
The "modern" or relevant source of the legend has always been Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, and that work drew its strength from a legend that was shared across the Celtic world (yes, the Britons were also Celts) about a redeeming king or savior who would draw his strength from magical sources. That's how the world was at one time. I'm not too sure that it's very different, now.
Mallory's original work is actually a study of human behavior in pre-Christian time, a quasi analysis of pre-Christian morality that suggests an inevitably necessary investigation of the validity of the impending new belief in a single god.
That idea was the central philosophical principle of Boorman's Excalibur. The current treatment, The Legend Of The Sword, has nothing to do with that. It is simply a Quentin Tarantino similar gore fest, and actually not even as entertaining as Tarantino might have achieved with the same material. In short, it's ridiculous, unfortunately ridiculous. It's an embarrassment, given the legend on which it is supposed to be based.
in all honesty, it was a waste of time.
i like Charlie Hunnam--he was great as a hamlet on a motorcycle--but this garbage is something that i hope he becomes famous enough to publicly regret.
Perhaps the worst thing of all was having to wonder about why Jude Law, who has delivered some very worthy performances, and, here, provokes nothing but audience remorse about his career.
Maybe those who've never known anything about the legend might find this movie interesting, but i would worry about the amount of illicit influence they would have to ingest to make that possible.
honestly, it's, unfortunately (given the potential actor talent involved) not worth the the time. it's garbage.
All in all, don't waste your time on this.