Change Your Image
Saturn131313
Reviews
Hawaii Five-0 (2010)
Entertaining and amusing.
I thought this was pretty good, better than I thought it would be. I was somewhat surprised to see the casting choice: I am not very familiar with Alex O's work but I did know who he was. The characters are, as many have said "types", but, folks, there is always room for character development & a back story. The scenes in Korea were not needed but it had all the explosions & gunfire over & done the at the beginning of the show.(It was exciting, too) I thought it could have been eliminated with his attitude being explained with conversation and some flashbacks. I agree he should drop the Bond thing too. If you view it as pure entertainment it's great. (I kept wondering, "Where's the suit and tie that McGarrett wears?" Well, I'll get over that.) I will definitely watch again. Things should improve with time. (Who IS the mole?!!!?)I watched the original as a child and loved it and the theme song also. For a little nostalgia, see the Australian movie called, I think, "The Dish" with Sam Neill. It uses the Hawaii Five-0 theme song in a very, very funny & charming way.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Interesting, with flawless performances from all actors.
Initially I was disappointed in this film and still am somewhat because Woody Allen doesn't explore anything new--nope,not at all. It is well done and does explore unmet expectations in relationships even if the expectation is not a conscious one for the person.
I thought the Maria E. character was overdone--the mood swings were unexplained and one wonders why she was not(or was?) on any medication. The dialog was at times repetitive and just plain silly because it is in the manner of a Mills & Boone novel (and I have read many of them!) The narrator was annoying and enhanced the romance novel effect. And I was hoping that Vicky would somehow resolve her issue and find passion with her husband.
However this movie is great if only because of the skill of the actors involved in the project. I think Scarlett J. is a fantastic actor and well cast as is Rebecca Hall.
Interesting use is made of the various characters and what quality and what conflict they represent in the film. Maria E. out of control and passionate as well as very compassionate & perceptive in helping Christina discover her talent. Cristina, confused and vulnerable and yet the stabilizing influence in the Juan A./Maria E. drama. Vicky, sad, seeking, aware and unaware of her unmet needs. Juan A. the charming, devious (and honest--he admits he uses people) sociopath who is also, at times, kind and generous and (of all people) assists Vicky in finding part of her true self. Judy, the disappointed and yet wise. Juan's father, playing safe and yet isolated. The barely visible husbands who could be the unappreciated and reliable yet seemingly boring and unaware of their wives' conflict (I wouldn't be too certain of that, however!) Plus others whom I can't recall at the moment.
The film is ultimately about the complexity of humans, their relationships, and the burdens a culture places on all of us.
If you can overlook the annoying parts it is a fantastic film. See it!
I Know Who Killed Me (2007)
Don't Bother
I watched this last week because I do believe Lilo does have some acting skills that were shown in some of her earlier work.
Anyway, I wanted to see if this was as bad as people said.
Okay, this is even worse than "Just My Luck". That occasionally managed to be humorous in some places. This is so bad that I can hardly believe anyone would finance it. The plot and premise itself could have been interesting if there was a rational script. The actors themselves performed well enough but nothing could save the movie, not even the pole dancing scene in the strip club. In fact (and I can hardly believe I would actually write this) the pole dancing was probably the most tasteful scene in the movie. (Yes, I am female and resent the way female sexuality is generally depicted in films---so now you know how awful the film really is!) Is it really necessary to show decomposing limbs in what is supposed to be a mystery? I watched the entire movie hoping, expecting it to improve as it progressed. Well, it didn't! I think the producers were trying to show how a crime victim mentally processes and remembers a horrific experience that no human should ever have to experience. Also, perhaps, how society perceives female sexuality. I do appreciate the attempt because it is so difficult to understand if you haven't had that experience yourself or experience the restrictions the culture still places on female sexuality--the virgin/whore good girl/bad girl mentality. Sadly, this film failed to do that.
Out of Line (2001)
Okay film to waste time with on a slow afternoon.
This is a movie with a plot that we have all seen before (good woman redeems bad man who really is a good guy at heart) many times. The main characters are all stock characters and very predictable.
This is a very low budget movie that doesn't even try to pretend to be more exciting then it is by trying to flash things up with car chase scenes,a loud musical sound track (in fact, the music is like a flashback to a 1970s cop show), trashy women and/or men, or beautiful locations.
That said, there are some very able well known actors in the film who deliver good performances despite a mediocre script. There is no suspense that I can recall or any dialog that was important to the plot. The supporting actors all deliver good performances also.
The two leads have decent on screen chemistry and the touching relationship that develops between them is believable. Yes, predictable, but sweet just the same.
If you like Jennifer Beals or Holt McCallany, or movies about ex-cons on parole you might find this mildly entertaining.
Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye (2000)
All excellent performances by actors --good but not great film.
This wasn't quite what I expected (straight up mystery-suspense) but good just the same. It was a bit slow moving, yet I felt a knot in my stomach because I couldn't predict what would happen. None of the main characters are particularly nice or kind people (mostly appearing to have few ethics) yet I did feel concern about them. I believe this is in part because all the actors gave flawless performances and were very well cast in their perspective parts.
I agree with other reviewers that the soundtrack and visual effects added much to the emotional tone (fear and confusion) of the film. Yes, it is a modern day "film noir" and a commentary on the television industry.
The story line was familiar yet had some unexpected twists especially at the end when the Minnow character explained his motives-or did not explain them. He said he saw an opportunity and took it--regardless of the effect his behavior had on others. He was amoral but at times shockingly honest and seemed to bear no one any resentment or ill will.
If you are a fan of any of the actors or of slightly unusual films you might want to check it out.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Much, much better than I expected.
Okay, I admit this up front--when I first heard a remake of P & P was being filmed I thought, "Jeez, not another one?!?" After all redoing something isn't necessarily an improvement. (Think of how many times Jane Eyre (by Bronte,I know,I know) has been produced and badly too!) However being a Jane Austen fan I needed to check this version out. I am certainly glad I did. It gives audiences a different view and interpretation of the story.
I like the way the director decided to present a gentler version of all the characters--Mrs. Bennett is silly and displays at times some improper behaviors as do the younger daughters but they are not portrayed as ridiculously appalling. Mr. Darcy seems remote and dismissive but also appears (even to Lizzy at the beginning, miserable) a little depressed, repressed, even sad. Still he responds to Lizzy's sparkling personality even though he probably doesn't want to acknowledge this to anyone, including himself,when they first meet.
The humor also is charming and well placed in the movie. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is Darcy sitting on an old chair outside the Bennett home, the dog sitting next to him and the chickens pecking on the ground while he waits to receive consent from Mr. Bennett--a clever way of showing Mr. Darcys' true attachment to Lizzy.( Much of what needs to be communicated from the story has to be done not through dialog but in other ways) Another is Lydias' thing with her handkerchief and the marching regiment.
I also appreciate the earthier view of things: the animals about, dust, wind, rain, the regular clothing of the Bennet family contrasted with others of greater wealth. The less than perfectly groomed hair and also the vigorous dancing at the Mereton Assembly are wonderful additions.
Casting actors of appropriate ages for the parts of Lizzy and Darcy (I think they were only a year or two different in actual ages from the characters in the book) is a refreshing change. All fans of the 1995 version please forgive me, but I thought both Firth and Ehle looked too old for their respective parts. Jennifer Ehle is just too beautiful for the role of Lizzy anyway. Please do not misunderstand me: I love the 1995 version, I own it and have watched it probably 50 times at least. I just mean I liked and appreciated the fact the producers could find and cast talented actors of roughly the same age as the actual characters of the book. Matthew McFadyen in particular looked the right age especially in close ups and his blue eyes made him look more vulnerable. Being American, I had never heard his name before but he is certainly an actor whose future work I will follow with interest.
The only real criticism I can offer is I wish there had been more screen time for the development of the secondary characters who do make important contributions to the story. And like many others, I wish it had been longer!
I have never seen the 1940 version and I am not sure I want to but take a look at the 1980 version with Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul if you haven't seen it. It is much like the book and is produced like a play for television. This Mr. Darcy is handsome enough to die for and it is true to the book as well.
Persuasion (1971)
Avoid this one unless a die-hard Austen fanatic.
Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?
The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.
Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.
All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!
The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.
The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.
The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.
I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.
If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.