coco-121 Reviews

Saving Grace (2007–2010)

Very disappointing

[4/10 · 3 September 2007]

Once again, Hollywood has gone overboard. The concept of this series was a good one, with great potential for rich story lines and interesting character development. Grace's encounters with Earl could lead to some interesting dialog and character development; instead their conversations are vacuous and puerile. There's nothing about Grace's character that is admirable or worthy of "saving" from her otherwise self-destructive behavior. Putting aside the incredulous characters, the overdone over-indulgences of Grace, and the overwritten caricature of Earl, the gratuitous nude scenes (for the male audience, no doubt), what exactly is the point of this series? I'm waiting to find out what it is about Grace that is worth saving. The writing lacks intelligence and depth. Holly Hunter's brilliant talent is being wasted on these scripts.

Sell This House (2003– )

Good ideas and common sense

[7/10 · 23 June 2007]

I agree that the potential buyers (?) are terribly shallow (as are the guys who watch the show just to see Tanya), but the point that the show's producers are trying to make is that people buy with their emotions. I just bought a new house, after looking at several dozen, and first impressions make a big impact. If I walked into a house that was dark, in disrepair, cluttered and dirty, I rarely wanted to look any further. If I got a creepy feeling upon entering the house, that feeling usually intensified as the tour continued. Clean floors and walls, open space and light all made a good impression. I don't always agree with some of the colors Roger picks, but I cannot deny that the rooms look much more appealing after he does his work. Tanya's contribution as eye candy for the fellas apparently works. The value of the show is what you learn about playing your audience when selling your home. People don't want to see YOUR things; they want to imagine themselves living in the house. Roger makes that happen by getting rid of distractions and showcasing the selling points. He's got a gift.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

One of my all-time favorites

[10/10 · 3 March 2007]

Taken from a 1920s play, "Death Takes a Holiday," the concept of "Death" (as if it is an entity) taking human form so that it/he can find out why life is preferred over death is an interesting one. This modern version is much richer than the 1934 movie with Frederic March. This was the first movie where I discovered that Brad Pitt really can act. The living character he plays in the beginning is the sort of character he always plays... kinda goofy, getting by on his good looks. But when he reappears as Death, his movements, posture and language are completely transformed; his speech patterns and enunciation are calm, controlled and powerful; his eyes are sharp and focused. There is no doubt that a different "soul" is in that body. The pauses before he speaks, as he evaluates the question before dispensing a one-word answer, are brilliant. The first time he tastes peanut butter; the moments when Susan brushes up close to him; I thought he did an exquisite interpretation of someone experiencing sensations for the first time. What I enjoyed most about this movie is that, when Death decides to gain a deeper understanding of Life, he carefully chooses a person of exceptional character to show him around. Even though most of the time Death is just taking it all in, every now and then, when Anthony Hopkins's character challenges him, Death snaps back to remind William who is in charge. Pitt did an amazing job. Marcia Gay Harden and Jeffrey Tambor were wonderful, and it goes without say that Anthony Hopkins is brilliant. The story is very rewarding and will leave you with a good feeling.

Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

Don't expect 1934 version of Meet Joe Black

[5/10 · 3 March 2007]

The story line is nothing like Meet Joe Black. The only thing the two movies have in common is that Death decides to take human form to find out why the living resist Death. The characters are typical of movies of this era - overacted, overly dramatic, too much makeup, almost comical. Death in 1934 forgets that he's trying to keep his identity secret, and he keeps letting slip little comments that reveal who he is. Death in 1998 has no such confusion; he is who he is, and it's for others to figure out why certain things amaze him so, such as peanut butter, tea cookies and the closeness of a woman. I thought the 1998 version was much richer, the premise was much more meaningful - taking human form so that he could learn from a man of good character why a life well lived had such great value. The 1934 Death seemed to just stumble upon this household of shallow elites who loved fast cars and parties. 1934 Death's focus seemed to be on women, and one melancholy woman in particular who welcomed Death into her life. His grand realization was that romantic love was the reason people resisted Death (huh?). The whole premise of the earlier movie just wasn't as deep as the later version. If you like the overly dramatic silliness of early movies, you'll probably enjoy this one. I was disappointed. In the category of early movies, this didn't come close to films like "It Happened One Night."

Firelight (1997)

Great story, beautifully filmed; outstanding acting

[10/10 · 4 February 2007]

No silly, shallow writing, gratuitous violence and sex, over-written villains, or overacted characters will be found in this film. This is a deeply moving story of love and devotion, enhanced by exquisite photography, and told over the background of bleak, 1830s English winter landscapes. Intelligently written and produced, the performers do an outstanding job of portraying characters caught in circumstances that prohibit all pleasures except the love of their child and a commitment to her well-being. A slight bit of nudity, but tastefully done and congruous to the story. It's a movie I can (and will) watch many times.