Change Your Image
kastellos
Reviews
Me Before You (2016)
An over-rated old story
This movie benefited by the "halo effect" of "Game of Thrones" (Clarke) and "Hunger Games" (Clafin) because it is not really a good movie. IMDb readers rated it a 7.5 but I don't understand why, so I assume it is because everyone loves "Game of Thrones" and "Hunger Games" and the actors in them (except for me). Ms Clarke is annoying; the movie is overly long, it is predictable, and I have little sympathy for any of the characters. Clarke does not stand up to her unemployed father and sister who wants Clarke to work to support the family so the sister can escape. And although Clafin is horribly injured and one should empathize with his plight, it is not easy to forget that he got injured soon after leaving his girl friend's bed and was hit by a motorcycle while absorbed by his smart phone while crossing the street. Moreover, he and his family have more money than Trump.
The story is an old one. Quirky young woman cares for person with physical problems. It was done much better in "Dying Young," "You're Not You" and "Passion Fish." I recommend these three, especially the latter two and forget "Me Before You."
Jessica Jones (2015)
Over-rated
I was anxious to see Jessica Jones when it was announced, but after four episodes I took it off my Watch List. Jessica is a mess. It is good to see, and I liked the idea of, a "super hero" having flaws. However, flaws is one thing, but being an irrational, overbearing, unintelligent, promiscuous drunk, is a bit too much. She is so obnoxious it is difficult to believe that Pam (her friend) and Jeri (her lawyer-employer) would put up with her and continue to help her. This show is simply annoying - I found myself fast-forwarding through most of it.
David Tennant, whom I enjoyed in Broadchurch, is wasted. Carrie Moss, as usual, is very good. The lead, Krysten Ritter, is not that good, she seems to think screaming and moaning are acting. I have seen her do better work, so the fault may lie with the writing or the direction. Regardless, it is very disappointing and not worth the time to watch.
Outlander (2014)
Very good at first, then downhill fast.
I liked very much the first 4 or 5 episodes, but then............. In the beginning the premise is interesting, unrealistic of course, but it is, after all, fiction. Once Claire is in Scotland, I liked it very much. The Scottish country-side, the costumes, the customs (I liked in particular the pomp surrounding the Laird and the wedding of Claire and Jamie, and I especially loved the Scottish Gaelic. How Claire copes with her new environment kept my interest as did the introduction of the Jacobite movement.
After Claire's marriage the series goes downhill. While the wedding night sex scene was well done and added to the story, the continuous showing of Claire's breasts and her and Jamie's love-making became voyeuristic and added absolutely nothing to the story-line - it is there simply to titillate sex starved women and 14 year-old boys. This type of "Shades of Grey" and "romance novel" exhibitionism is really not interesting. When will the entertainment industry learn that most of us are far too mature to be excited by this stuff. We want a good story.
Furthermore, as an ex-runway model, Ms. Balfe is far, far more attractive with her clothes on, than with them off - she is simply too runway model skinny to look good naked. With clothes on, she is very attractive, some may say beautiful.
I would have rated this a 9 for the first 5 episodes, but then a 3 afterwards. The latter episodes are like the Perils of Pauline (the attack/rape by blackjack Randall, the near attack in the tunnel, the near rape by the deserters, the trial for witchcraft, etc. interspersed with softcore bed scenes. Nothing is added to the story in Episodes 6 on. What started out as very interesting has become mundane.
Her (2013)
Unbelievable
I never thought a movie could be this bad; Her is pure pretentious crap. The plot is ridiculous or worse, some of the acting is over the top and some is wooden, it is voyeuristic (Do we really need to see a naked pregnant woman, what does that add to the story other than voyeurism.), it is very boring (I fell asleep twice, only to wake up to hear everyone talking about f#@$%ng.
This type of pretentiousness is overbearing. Obviously, most IMDb readers are enamored with this kind of crap. Jonze's choice of "Jonze" as his name, versus Adam Spiegel his real name, is a demonstration of the pretentiousness of which I speak. His other work, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation are marginally better than Her, but only marginally, i.e. a rating of 2 to 3. Great directors such as Ford, Kazan, Wilder, Hitchcock, Scorsese, Capra, Coppolo, Wyler, Stevens, Altman, Spielberg, etc., made great movies, that told stories, pulled the audiences into the characters, described conflict, love, and the like. Jonze has directed or written junk, full of profanity, nonsense, etc. He is much like Tarentino, Rodriguez and similar directors that critics and love but to me are grossly over-rated. If Her is rated 8.0, then Kazan's On the Waterfront should rate 100. I rated Her a 1, since a 0 rating is not available.
Sin City (2005)
More junk from Rodriguez
8.1 rating - you got to be kidding. This movie is simply crap. Rodriguez, as usual, relies on graphic blood, cinematographic tricks, violence, stupid people, naked breasts and buttocks (voyeurism, in general), excessive noise, stupid plots (if you can call anything a plot) etc., to attract mindless audiences that get sexually aroused by killings and loveless sex.
Many films rely on some of these gimmicks, but some transcend the Sin City slime pit to actually tell a story. Compare the mindless Sin City, for example, with the TV program Sons of Anarchy. SOA had its fill of breasts, buttocks and killings, but the character development and story lines were very, very good. The main characters had flaws, emotions, dark places, confusion, mixed goals, etc., all of which were translated into drama. Sin City has none of that. I shouldn't have expected more, after all, it is based on Miller graphic novels (i.e., X-rated comic books) that are sold to teen age boys seeking sexual stimulation.
Down the Shore (2011)
Slow, but a very good film
I fully admit my tastes are different from the norm. How IMDb reviewers can rate this film at 5.8 while giving such junk as Snatch and all that horrible Tarantino crap (Django Unchained 8.5 ?????, Grindhouse 7.7 ????, Dusk to Dawn 7.3 ????, etc.) such high scores is amazing.
This film is slow, but is very well acted, especially by Gandolfini, Janssen and Magaro. The story at first seems "pushed" but soon as the characters are developed you come to see these as real people with real issues (unlike the nonsense of most all of Tarantino's junk). Although slow, the plot moves along well and ends with a nice conclusion. Lastly, the cinematography develops the mood of the film and the dying (at least in winter) of the old Jersey shore perfectly.
If you have to see multiple senseless killings with a 100+ decibel score, then skip this film, but if you want to see a well acted film about people, then I recommend Down the Shore.
Before Midnight (2013)
Weakest of the trilogy
The biggest problem with this film, relative to the first two of the trilogy, is the direction and to a lesser extent, the screenplay. Modern directors are infatuated with the hand held camera, long still shots, extreme close-ups and voyeurism. I'm a senior citizen, so I really dislike these four inevitable techniques in modern non-action films. Let's discuss:
1. the hand-held camera: People generally observe the world while seated or standing. When we move, our eye and brain damp out the jiggle. The hand-held camera, which is claimed to be more realistic, in fact, is NOT. Some directors use it so much that one can get sea-sick from watching their movies.
2. long still shots: By "long" I mean in time. This, I suppose, is to make the film more artsy. Hardly, it just makes it more boring. I have no problem with slow films, Cairo Time a recent film I loved comes to mind, but keeping the camera held on a shot with no movement or dialogue, is simply annoying.
3. extreme close-ups: I'm sorry, but I find no interest in the pores on an actor's nose. What do these extreme close-ups add? In the theater, they add a headache or literally a pain in the neck as you have to move your head up and down to take it all in.
4. voyeurism: Do I really have to see an actor sucking on a woman's nipple? What does this add? Do I really have to see a 45 year-old woman sitting topless for 5 minutes. All this voyeurism adds nothing to the story. There is also audio voyeurism. I know I'm old, but I have never been to a dinner gathering, except in a college fraternity, where penises were constantly discussed.
These techniques are used, I assume, to make the film "art." If I want art, I go to the museum. In film, I want a story that makes me laugh or cry or think, or get upset, etc., i.e. hits me emotionally.
In addition to these annoyances, unlike the first two, the main characters are not sympathetic. This is not necessarily bad, but in this film they are irrationally unsympathetic. Jessie's sudden obsession with his fatherhood ("I need to be in my son's life full time...") is not believable. If this were so, he would not have left the US and be with Celine in Paris. Furthermore, Celine's over reaction is demeaning to women. It portrays the stereotype of the illogical, irrational and hysterical woman. And how does the argument end: OK, let's settle nothing, but go have great sex. This may work for 18 year-olds, but not for 45 year-olds. This movie is grossly overrated. See the first two. The only reason to see this one is to see Greece.
The Last Tycoon (1976)
Kazan's only embarrassment
This film is best forgotten.
I doubt if there is anyone who is a greater fan of Kazan than I, and it pains me to write this, but this film is simply horrible. I don't blame just Kazan; the story and characters are illogical and very boring. The sub-plot of Curtis, Andrews and Moreau adds nothing, in fact, is a negative. The point of DeNiro's role is never made. The important theme evident in Kazan's films (Pinky, Gentleman's Agreement, Waterfront, Panic in the Streets, etc.) is completely missing in this film. The greatest fault lies with Fitzgerald, one of most overrated American authors and with Pinter, also overrated. These two, loved by critics, have given this film a halo. If the screenplay was written by John Smith based on a book by Fred Jones, the movie would be rated 2 stars out of ten, if the raters were generous.
DeNiro and Russel are good (Although Russel's character is very annoying.) and Nicholson is Nicholson. The rest of the cast is mediocre. Boulting is not good at all, and in fact, she never went anywhere in her career after this film.
Kazan didn't do a bad job, considering with what he was given to work.
The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)
Simply Horrible
This is an embarrassment. RZA is talentless, the score was typical hip-hop crap, the storyline ridiculous, the acting non-existent and the direction tedious. The graphic killing added nothing of interest to anyone over 14 years old. RZA's name says it all, instead of a real name he uses pretentious initials - immature garbage.
They must have paid a ton of money to Russell Crowe and Lucy Liu to be in this excrement. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I found some of the reviews interesting. Those that say this can not compare to Kill Bill or other Tarantino and Rodriguez stuff are wrong. Tarantino and Rodriguez have unwarranted halo effect on their junk. This movie, if it had either of their names attached, would have been graded at least a 7. Their movies are mostly pure junk and are as bad as this one.
The Newsroom (2012)
GROSSLY Overrated
The first 10 minutes in which we hear Daniel's speech about the US not being so great was super outstanding, because of what he said, not so much how he said it.
After that, this show went downhill fast. By time we get into the second episode it was downright annoying. Especially Allison Pill and Emily Mortimer. They are unbearable to watch. "For one hour I own you," and "I hid under the bed," what crap! The old "we had a relationship" (what the hell is a relationship? doesn't anyone marry anymore?) stuff is so predictable. The sub-plot of the the jerk (Tom Sadowski) treating the intern (Allison Pill) horribly is so old and overdone, and the new producer (John Gallagher) being infatuated immediately with her is ridiculous - she is amazingly unattractive and extremely obnoxious. Two members of the team having inside information from BP, etc., is improbable. Waterston is fun and Daniels is good, but the writing is simply bad.
The show is simply not very good at all. Wait until September and watch Homeland.
Dying Young (1991)
A very good movie, far superior to the similar Love Story.
I guess I'm just not in the main stream. How can IMDb readers give Love Story (1970) a composite grade of 6.7 and Dying Young only 5.4. Julie Roberts is much, much better than Ali MacGraw (proof of who is the better actress is that MacGraw went literally nowhere, as she deserved, after Love Story while Roberts is still a star, an Oscar winner and a respected actress). The story line of both is somewhat predictable, but Dying Young has an infinitely better script. In Dying Young the viewer truly empathizes with the characters, while in Love Story, neither character is worth knowing. Only the most sentimental will tear up in Love Story, while Dying Young bring most to tears. While this does not mean that it is a great movie, it does mean that the characters are believable and well acted and the story line is good enough to overcome its somewhat predictable premise. Curl up with a loved one and a box of tissues. If you are at all the least bit sensitive you will like Dying Young.
Machete (2010)
Typical Rod garbage
7.0! Are you kidding me? I don't understand the fascination people have with Rodriguez and Tarantino. Both have made far too many junk films filled with extreme violence, unbelievable and stupid story lines (if you can discover the storyline between all the blood spattering), soft porn nudity, over the top villains and bad acting with worse direction.
This film, almost as bad as Grindhouse/Planet Terror, is simply worthless. Trejo is stiff, Alba is even more wooden, Fahey is over the top, Seagal is the worst I've ever seen him. Michelle Rodriguez gave the only passable performance - but just barely.
The plot, typical of Rodriguez, is nonsense. A killing machine Mexican Federale escapes being killed by(of course) a brutal beast Mexican drug lord who used a Japanese sword to decapitate the Federale's wife. The Federale lies low as a day worker in Texas for 3 years, where a crooked state politician and militia leader shoot illegals as if they were hunting deer. Come on - this is worse than comic books (Oh! excuse me, I forgot pop culture has upgraded comic books to "Graphic Novels" by making them misogynist, soft porn like, more violent and spattering gallons of blood.).
I know, I know, Crucifixes in urine and Rodriguez movies are "art." Well, for me, it is art I can do without. How I long for Elias Kazan!
Cairo Time (2009)
Great, but subtle romance.
This is a great film, one of the best romances of the decade. It is very, very slow and measured, but you will not get bored. The romance builds at a slow but very constant rate. While many critics praise Clarkson's work in this film, and I agree she is wonderful and I am happy to see her in a starring role, I also felt Siddiq was just as good. The chemistry is powerful. The use of subtle body language, the occasional glance or stare, etc., are used so well to quietly relay the attraction to the viewer. I will draw your attention to the first time while walking together that Siddiq puts his hand on Clarkson's lower back. Another subtle scene is the expression on Clarkson's face when she touches the necklace Siddiq gave her. Those who are used to the spit-swapping, naked buttocks and grunting that pass for romance in most modern films will probably not like "Cairo Time." The sound-bite generation that probably never read a book written before 1900 and few, if any, books at all, will probably not like the slow pace of this great film.
The cinematography is equally wonderful. The glimpse of Cairo portray the seething city as much more beautiful than most would imagine. Lastly, pay attention to the music. Juliette's theme (the piano music) adds so, so much to this film, and the Arabic music also adds a great dimension.
This is not just a "chic flick", it is a wonderful romance; it is great cinema; I urge you to curl up with someone special and see it.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
How could anything be so bad?
It will be very difficult for me to write ten lines about this film. This film is so typical of the way-out artsy stuff that pretentious critics love. These critics talk about good vs evil, about regretting that you get what you wish for, etc. No, it is simply a very bad film. It is pure garbage. Its plot is overwhelmed with senseless noise; it substitutes annoying noise, special effects, stupidities, etc., for plot development. One needs not worry about a spoiler - the movie is so bad that 99% of viewers won't get to the end.
The acting is good, as expected from the well-known stars, but the lesser known ones are good as well. It is a shame that they are wasted on such a tedious story. Anton is annoying. Typical is the scene where he uses slight-of-hand to keep Ledger from grasping the flute/pipe. It is not clever; it adds nothing; it simply annoys. There is a constant grabbing of people, of drunks, punches, whippings, and the like. Plummer is drunk for most of the film. Does this add anything? - NO. It is simply tedious and obnoxious. Will film-makers ever learn that drunks are not really funny, they are usually belligerent, annoying butt-heads.
I didn't expect much from Gilliam - he has been riding the Monty Python wave for decades. Other than "...The Holy Grail" most of Python is not really funny, and even The Holy Grail relies on chopped up bodies and pure silliness (shrubberies, attacking rabbits, etc.) to get laughs.
Many will see this because it was Ledger's last film. This is not a good reason. Don't waste your time; avoid this film.
Grindhouse (2007)
Total Garbage
I'm not sure I can write a 1000 words or ten lines about this movie, but I will try. It is a total piece of junk. Crap disguised as art and enjoyed by the multitude of pretentious people who suffer from the "tyranny of being cool." It has lousy acting (I've seen better at middle school plays), poor cinematography (makes "Blair Witch" look like "Lawrence of Arabia"), stupid story lines (appears to have been written by a committee of 10 yr old psychopaths) stupid "cutiness" (the dumb trailers), and all this in name of emulating 1950s bad horror flicks. To begin with, why emulate junk? I know that the majority of IMDb reviewers really love this type of garbage (Check the ratings of "Snatch," "Pulp Fiction,", etc.), but this really goes beyond bad taste. Hopefully, future generations will be able to see this type of truly meaningless scatology for what it really is.
Marigold (2007)
Not as bad as you may expect.
I decided to watch this film because I generally enjoy some Indian films, especially the older and more "artsy" types of directors such as Benegal and Ray and the newer serious films of Nair, Chanda, etc. I thought, from its description, that this would be a lower quality Bollywood film, the type that I find tedious, overly long and sometimes downright silly.
However, I was pleasantly surprised. This is not a good film, but it may be worth watching for many. The primary theme "Love vs Tradition" is an old one, and overdone in Indian films, but it's a better theme to many than the good guys killing aliens or bad guys which seem to be the themes of most American films.
Larter is quite good, and she is the main reason for my score of a 5. You'll find her despicable in the beginning, and, although her "change" is predictable, she carries it off well, and by the end you are rooting for her. Khan, and most of the Indian cast are a bit too wooden. The music is only OK; I've seen better in many Bollywood films.
Give it a chance, and stick with it. It gets better as is goes on, the women's costumes are terrific and the scenes in Prem's home will make it worthwhile for some viewers, and Jane Austen endings are always nice.
Sof Shavua B'Tel Aviv (2008)
Wonderful
This is not a good film; it is a very, very, good film. Here in the US the Palestinians are painted as pure hateful terrorists killing teenagers in pizza shops. This film is able to show that even suicide bombers are people. The prospective bomber's (Tarek) parents are shown as loving parents and not as fanatics praising dead martyrs and happy if their sons can achieve martyrdom. Tarek himself is a multi-faceted individual, not a focused uneducated fanatic. What I found most interesting are his motives - they have nothing do to with Islam, rather, he is motivated by a sense of family, honor, love of father, and hatred for those that caused the "downfall" of his family and his loss of the opportunity to play soccer. Although his "handlers" are short-sighted and evil people, they make an interesting point when they say "We (the Palestinians) have no Air Force." Indeed, they fight with the few weapons they have. If they had the hardware (and perhaps it is better that they don't), software and training the Israelis have, then their strategy would be quite different.
I also liked very much the portrayal of the Israelis. Here we see that they are a complex hardly homogeneous people. Some are disgruntled refugees from other countries and not happy in Israel, some are intolerant believers, some are border atheists, some are smart, some are not so smart, some are trusting, some are suspicious, etc. I especially liked that it portrays the working class area and people of Tel Aviv - a nice change from the million dollar condos on the sea full of American Jews that we normally see on American TV.
The acting is tremendous. You sympathize with most every character because the acting is so believable. You don't want any Israeli to die because you see them as real (and innocent) people. You also don't want Tarek to die because he also is real and innocent. Also he is torn between his hatred of all Israelis on one hand while on the other hand he has feelings of no hatred, even love, for those Israelis he meets and gets to know in just a few days.
But most of all I so enjoyed Hili Yalon as Keren. One can get lost in her beautiful eyes. Her acting is suburb. She represents so many things - vulnerability, love of parents, non-conformity, naivety, etc.
See this film; you won't regret it.
The Go-Between (1971)
Unbelievably boring
This is one of the least interesting films I have ever seen. Its high rating on IMDb is clearly due to the "Halo Effect" of Pinter and Losey.
I love the cast: Bates, Christie, Leighton and Redgrave, but the material they are given is, to me, simply worthless. The story holds no one's interest because the characters are not at all interesting. It is impossible to either sympathize with, or hate, them. They are amazingly uninteresting. Redgrave is wasted. The young man who plays Marcus is not a very good actor and is most annoying. The plot is relatively predictable and it does not even have a Jane Austin happy ending. Moreover the cinematography, at least as seen on TV, appears grainy and sub-standard. You are much better off seeing "Far From the Madding Crowd," not a great film, but much better than "The Go-Between."
The only reason I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 is because Christie and Bates look so good and I enjoyed hating the bourgeois attitudes of the family.
Dor (2006)
A powerful and engaging film for Indians and non-Indians - don't miss it
I read the review of those that hated this movie and I found their criticism petty to say the least. I am not Indian and do not speak Hindi or Urdu, so I am judging the film based on the sub-titles; nonetheless to attack the film because Chopra should be pronounced Chop-da is worse than petty, it is irrelevant. The story is about love, how tradition is both good and bad, personal courage, the position of women in the sub-continent, how one's sense of honor is easily twisted to serve one's more base needs and desires, etc. Even if the accents aren't always correct, the translations from English to Hindi are sometimes weak, the oddity that the Indian government did not know the home address of the dead husband, etc., I say "Who cares?" One reviewer attacks the love scenes in the beginning of the film. I found them much more real and much more full of emotion and love than the typical teasing but don't touch kissing of lighter Bollywood fare, or the humping, spit swapping of Western films.
This film is wonderful, reminding me a little of the great Shyam Benegal films of 35 years ago, but not quite as dark. The acting is great - those attacking Gul must have seen a different film than the one I watched; I thought both female leads were terrific and very believable. Gul may not be Meryl Streep, but she is far better in this role than 99% of the typical Bollywood "actresses." The two woman develop their characters so well, that I, and I would assume most all others watching the film, cheer for them and pray for a happy ending.
The themes are very nicely woven into the film. The anguish of Shankar's father losing his "mansion" is wonderfully portrayed. While some see the falling of the rich (or powerful) as tragic, others, myself included, see it as sweet justice. The fact that he sends his newly-wed son to Saudi Arabia to earn enough money to bail out his father and thereby allow his father to get back his mansion and then lamenting more the loss of his son's income than the loss of his son is believable. Moreover, he then is willing to sell his daughter-in-law to achieve the same end, is all part of the theme that true "honor" has nothing to do with material things and that his sense of honor is tragically shallow.
I can go on and discuss other themes, but the main themes that revolve around the two young women are very powerful and most satisfying. The development of the themes of love, independence, commitment, position of women, compassion, etc., are wonderfully addressed and make this film well worth watching. It is better than Devdas and most all the other Bollywood blockbusters.
Return to Me (2000)
A sweet enjoyable old style romantic film.
I always like to read what the reviewers say that hated the film. Most who did not like it say it was predictable. In a thriller or mystery movie, that may be an issue, but for a romance or a romantic comedy, I say, "So what?" Some say it is too sweet, again, I'm not sure that being "too sweet" warrants condemning the film.
This movie has much charm, very likable characters (Driver, Duchovny, and O'Conner), good supporting acting (Logia, Hunt, Belushi, Grier, etc.) a good pace and a happy ending. What more do you want? The characters in the "back room" of the restaurant provide the comedy, while the main characters bring the story (and the romance) home; you want them to get together and be happy. Some critics say that the predictability of the gorilla and the dog sensing Driver's uniqueness is mushy as well as predictable - I say, for the sensitive, it brings a tear of joy.
Some attack the happy ending. All of Jane Austen has a happy ending and she wrote some of the most critically acclaimed novels of all time. I like happy endings. If I wanted to see sad endings, I would just watch the evening news.
Lastly, although you really don't see Joely Richardson's long gorgeous legs and she has a small part, just seeing her for one minute and dreaming of those legs warrants the film to start at a rating of 5.
Before Sunset (2004)
Great romance - much better than Before Sunrise
When a move is a sequel it is hard for me to review the film without referring to the original, so here goes............
This is a very, very good film; although sequels rarely are better than the originals, this is clearly an exception. It is better than Before Sunrise. Whereas Sunrise bordered on pretentious, Sunset is very real and on the mark. The main characters in Sunset were somewhat annoying and we had a hard time liking them (which is not necessary in most films, but I prefer sympathetic characters in a romance), while in this sequel they are much more real and the audience can feel their unhappiness with what is, and understand that they may yet have a chance at greater happiness. In the first film most of us can't wait till they separate, while in the second we hope they remain together.
I think that this film is better directed, better paced and better acted. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys romantic films, especially when you are in the mood of remembering your first love and wondering what might have been.
Pilgrim (2000)
Not as bad as one might think.
I will be hard pressed to come up with 10 lines about this film. From the title and since it went (I believe.) straight to video, I did not expect much. However, Liotta gives his usual competent performance and Mueller-Stahl is his usual evil self. The alternate film title, Inferno, is irrelevant to the story and and was chosen only to lend itself to the stupid gratuitous nudity in the strip-bar of the same name. Why writers/directors think the public (at least the public over 17 years old) is still enamored with topless women walking (dancing?) around poles is beyond me. It is obviously voyeuristic, out of place and plainly stupid.
I gave it a score of 7 because the story does generate some interesting suspense and because I truly adore Gloria Ruben. Why she never made it big in Hollywood is a mystery, I find her simply glorious (sorry for the pun).
Arranged (2007)
An uplifting and most enjoyable film
This is a most wonderful film. The acting is first rate, the direction is well paced and the New York backdrop is a joy to see.
The story may appear contrived to some, but to me it was believable. Coming from a strong ethnic background (although not as strong as Jewish Orthodoxy or Observant Muslim), I understood the conflicts "typical" American culture and values place on those that are a little different. While we in America (especially the media) are tolerant of, accommodate and even promote, gays, lesbians, PETA, and most other non-mainstream groups, we don't tend to tolerate religious conservatives. This movie shows that such people are real people. Of course they are lucky to live in America where they can freely practice their beliefs.
The movie works on many planes. The father-daughter relationships are charming. The relationship between the young women and their principal, and with their siblings is also well done. The happy "Jane Austin" ending may not be totally realistic, but it makes most of us feel good inside.
It is both serious and funny. The plethora of ill-suited suitors is very funny; reminds me of the suitors the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding invites to dinner.
The lifestyle of Leah and the women's fellow teachers is a real picture of today's young people. They drink, smoke dope and "hook-up" without a second thought that there may be something wrong with such a life style.
The movie is also about choices. This is made obviously clear when Rachel "tells off" her principal.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I laughed when it was funny and teared up when it was heart-warming, and came away looking forward to see it again. I highly recommend it.
Nights in Rodanthe (2008)
Mushy and predictable, but worth watching
This formula piece was certainly predictable except for the ending, and it was also unrealistic. BUT it presents a romance about which many dream could happen to them, even if it is unlikely and not very real, and that, with Lane's charm and performance, make it worth seeing.
It is unrealistic, but I say, "So what?" We don't always go to the theater to see "reality." We live "reality" every day. It was the last half hour that makes this film work. I can't give it more than a six because the first hour is just too predictable, but Lane, far more than Gere, really makes the viewer believe in the depth of their love. The scenes immediately following her learning of his death are quite powerful. I think even better than Streep, for example, in "Bridges...... (Bridges.. was a better movie, but Lane did a better job at making the viewer feel her pain.
The weakness in the film is in the story line itself, and this fault lies, most likely, with the book. The philandering husband (it is always the husband), the angry daughter (it is always a freakish teenage daughter), the rich good looking doctor (never an unattractive engineer), the stormy night, the magical three day romance, etc., are, I assume, a part of the book; so I can't blame the film.
I suggest that you put up with the formula and just wait to enjoy Lane's performance in the last 30 minutes.
Snatch (2000)
Over the top, pretentious and generally bad
What a complete waste of time. Reminded me of Tarantino films (Death Proof, Dusk to Dawn, Kill Bill) etc.: sick and horribly overrated.
I just don't understand why anyone would like this type of film. It is gratuitously violent, extremely foul-mouthed, totally unrealistic, you can not understand much of the dialog, has a stupid story line, etc.
This type of film (add Goodfellows, etc.) appeals mostly, but not exclusively, to immature young men who most likely suffer from sexual dysfunction and the "tyranny of being cool." This film's plot is nonsense and not at all funny; the only smile that one may get is from their cutesy names. The characters are overdrawn and not even interesting enough to be pathetic. The viewer has no sympathy for any of the characters because they have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Chewbacca is more interesting than anyone in this film.
Rating this in the top 2,000 would be inexplicable, let alone in the top 200. This shouldn't surprise me; IMDb users put Pulp Fiction in the top 10 and Scarface in the top 200; I wouldn't put any of these films in the top 1,000. Rent a Kazan film and don't waste your time on Ritchie (or Tarantino for that matter).