|
 |
Wednesday, September 01, 2004 |
It's hard not to be sarcastic in describing this film. At the very best, it's sort of cute. The theme is so well worn that it's just plain trite. Basically, the idea is - hold your breath now - that true friendship is better than trying to fit in with the "in crowd" in high school and thereafter.
Boy, I'm glad that's finally settled!
See, I couldn't resist. The sarcasm just came right out. Sorry!
The main actor, Mark Ruffalo, is very engaging. I like looking at him. He has a sweet smile that reminds me of one of my best blacksmithing friends. That's about the best there is to say about the film, I think.
We've seen worse, but this is pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel for fun entertainment. It is a romantic comedy, so no horrors are lurking to ruin your sleep. Hence - it deserves at least 1 star.
8:54:50 PM 
|
|
|
Sunday, August 29, 2004 |
I was a little reluctant to rent this film. Did I really want to see a story about a boy who falls in love with a girl, then finds out she's been a porn star? The first few minutes of the film show what high school seniors are supposed to be like towards the end of the year - "going nuts," it's called. A certain generation gap seemed to yawn very wide at that point.
We kept watching, though. Give the kids a chance. The story did get better. It's pretty shaky, but I guess it's about as believable as many movie plots - in other words, not very. The theme seems to be "moral fibre." Maybe it's more moral to do some bad things, if for a good cause, than to be a goody-goody? Is it even ethical to be "too good" if one is a graduating senior in the United States at this time in our history? When "going nuts" and "doing something crazy" might be actual moral requirements?
Well, this proved to be a definite distraction from any personal problems of my own. I had given no thought at all to whether or not I had a moral requirement to "go nuts" just before graduating from high school. This was a brand new dilemma.
Of course, the general question of "do the ends justify the means" is not new, and does apply to us all no matter when we graduated high school. Since the range of possible "unethical means" is very wide, there's plenty of scope for varied storytelling on this theme. "The Girl Next Door" isn't one of the worst.
It does rather trick the audience toward the end. This is risky business in storytelling. The audience may resent it. I did, a little bit.
Well, as I'm writing, my rating has somehow sunk from 3 stars to 2. I keep thinking "not too bad" and "ok." So - if you're kind of scraping the bottom of the movie rental barrel, this is not a bad choice. I'll give it 2 stars.
10:38:19 PM
|
|
This is a predictable but charming romantic comedy about two top divorce lawyers. Pierce Brosnan, who plays the male lawyer, has the look of a misunderstood rake, sure to turn out to have a heart of gold. Frank Sinatra had that same ability to look like a rake just waiting for a good woman to shape him up. Trained on similar films from the fifties, I found this film as easy to enjoy as an ice cream cone.
I don't think there's a single memorable line in the film - hence, it doesn't deserve 4 stars. There are a few surprising twists in the plot, enough to make it fun. And the acting is good. All in all, it's just fun. 3 stars.
10:28:30 PM
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 |
This is the kind of film you know you'll want to see many times. I'd put it on the level of the Italian film, "Life is Beautiful." Both films have a poignancy and glow that makes life feel precious and wonderful.
It's unusual for my partner and me to like a French film. This story is set in Paris. Maybe it was written and/or directed by people not French? Anyway, we liked this one very much.
If I tell you that it's about the friendship between a teenage boy and an older man from Turkey, that really doesn't tell you much. It even sounds boring. Trust me, this film is not boring. It's about sex, love, life, and death. Not boring themes!
Take my word for it and see this film - 4 stars.
10:18:21 PM
|
|
The main interest in this film is that it's set in East Berlin, right at the time the Wall came down and reunification began. To me, the film has some serious flaws. Toward the end, we're left hanging after a climactic scene. So what happened? Huh? We miss the scene itself - just see the start. Afterward, it's as if it never happened. Huh? In my judgment this is cowardly storymaking. Do the difficult scenes! Work it through!
Also the premise of the story is pretty far fetched. It's mildly amusing, just barely believable. I'm good at suspension of disbelief, so that means it's really, really, barely believable.
The film left us feeling sad. I decided it's really about the ambiguities in the fall of communism and the "triumph of capitalism." There's a certain idealism about communism - never achieved in reality - that seems to be the core of the film. So the film shows us - it's gone, and it's worth mourning.
Maybe that makes the film worth seeing. It's just not carried off well, though. I'd like to see a better story about that same theme. I'm giving this one just 2 stars.
10:11:50 PM
|
|
|
Friday, August 20, 2004 |
"Connie and Carla" are a dinner theatre singing team who still haven't made it after all these years. After they witness a murder, they flee for their lives and hide out as - well, maybe I shouldn't tell you. This is a good comedy with some redeeming social value. The music isn't bad either. I'll give it 3 stars - certainly worth seeing.
7:21:21 PM
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 18, 2004 |
Julia Stiles! Yes, I like her a lot. In "The Prince and Me" she comes through again as a serious young woman with life goals - and once again, deals with the conflict between career and love. What happens? How is it resolved? Watch the film and find out.
Yes, I love Cinderella stories. I admit it. "Maid in Manhattan" won my heart too. This is as good or better. It's happy entertainment that won't leave you with a sick "why did I watch that?" feeling afterward. I'll give this 4 stars - of course.
9:41:02 PM
|
|
|
Monday, August 16, 2004 |
Ah! Finally a film worth seeing. This was not bad at all - pretty interesting, in fact. The suspense was great, the characters pretty well developed, and the plot good too. OK, I don't think it was exactly literature - but it was reasonably good entertainment. I'll give it three stars.
If you're in the mood for an interesting suspense film, this should do nicely.
10:44:59 PM
|
|
We started watching this last night. Why we watched past the first two minutes is something of a mystery. Today we agreed to ditch it and not finish watching it.
If seeing one man hit another man in the face - repeatedly - "Don't contradict me" -is your idea of comedy, this might be a film you want to see. But I doubt it. I wouldn't bother with this one.
10:42:54 PM
|
|
|
Saturday, August 14, 2004 |
We chose this film because it stars Al Pacino. Indeed he does act well in it. However, the story lacks something. It's kind of sick-making without much moral direction. Usually we don't even finish watching such a movie, so it's still a tribute to Pacino.
Aside from the general moral idea of "don't do drugs" and "Big powerful politicians can be ruthless," and "becoming a publicist might not be the best career for peace of mind," it's hard to draw much from the film. John Gardner, in his book "On Becoming a Novelist," says that good fiction needs to revolve around a moral dilemma. That's what's missing in "People I Know." It's tragic. It's sad. It's horrible. But it seems unavoidable. There's no dilemma, just bad stuff playing itself out.
So - I'll give this just 2 stars. And one of those is just for Al.
8:26:44 PM
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Catherine Jo Morgan.
|
|
|
