Change Your Image
marion-8
Reviews
Dogville (2003)
Dogville's a dog
I can't believe all the critical acclaim this received.
Dogville's minimalist scenery, talky dialogue and overall staginess would have seemed more at home on PBS or an off-Broadway stage than as a feature film. Talky, pretentious, visually monotonous, and worst of all BORING, this is an utter failure as a cinematic production. I tried to give it a chance, but turned it off after about half an hour. I'm glad I rented the video and didn't waste 8 bucks to see it in the theatre. Anyway, don't waste your money on this dog. No, wait--that's unfair to the dog. Better to compare it with what comes out the dog's hind end. Bring your pooper-scooper to this one!
House of Sand and Fog (2003)
Pointless, ponderous, pretentious
POSSIBLE SPOILERS IF YOU PLAN TO SEE IT...but really, don't see it! From one who has been there: Save yourself the rental fee and two hours of misery!
"House of Sand and Fog," which pretends to be a serious, artful cinematic tragedy, comes off as nothing more than two tedious hours of unmitigated depression, from which one emerges with none of the catharsis of good tragedy, and, despite good performances, no real sympathy for the characters, just an immense sense of relief that it's over! The script is awful: the story, which starts intriguingly, quickly turns into a string of absurd, unbelievable plot twists, each more contrived than the last, so that the horrendous climax is in the end quite predictable. Why write, direct, produce (or see) a steaming heap like this? As others have commented "What's the point?"
Till Human Voices Wake Us (2002)
Beware of False Advertising!(possible spoilers)
I found "Till Human Voices Wake us" disappointing. While the premise is intriguing, the film fails to deliver in any of the genres it aspires toward: supernatural tale, or psychological study, or old fashioned love story. I agree with most of the criticisms already made here, so I won't repeat them. I want, however, to say that the advertising on the jacket of this video is extremely deceptive! There are a number of quotations from movie critics that sound quite positive, and which, I must admit, influenced my decision to rent the video. For example, a review from the New York Times calls the film a "romantic love story" (a genre I find irresistible!) and the Village Voice proclaims:"the film is bold enough to invoke Vertigo" (high praise indeed!) After viewing the movie, I was rather perplexed by these comments, so I took a look at the original reviews, and guess what? I found these quotations were snippets taken completely out of context!
Although the NY Times reviewer does call the film a "romantic ghost story," he goes on to say:
"Romantic ghost stories like ''Till Human Voices Drown Us'' that play around with time warps and visiting apparitions either conjure magic or die... But when Guy Pearce (cruelly photographed to appear sallow with every blemish exaggerated) and Helena Bonham Carter lock their gazes, the necessary spark of electrical connection is nowhere to be felt. Without it, the story of star-crossed adolescent sweethearts who enjoy a liberating, supernatural reunion comes across as treacly heavy-handed kitsch."
It gets better. The complete comment from the Village Voice review is: "the film is bold enough to invoke Vertigo, and also lazy enough to resort to watery-grave romanticism" The review goes on to conclude: "Exorcizing his ghosts by literally f***ing the pain away, Sam remembers why he forgets; for the viewer, passive forgetfulness remains the most likely option."
hmmmm....
As Emily Latella used to say "THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT!"
The Tigger Movie (2000)
A movie with bounce!
I thought a movie with Tigger as the main character might be a bit grating, but I have to admit I ended up liking "The Tigger Movie" more than I expected (even with a squirming four-year-old on my lap). The songs are good, the performances excellent, and there are some wonderful visuals (watch for the Tiggerized art masterpieces in Tigger's fantasy sequence!). There's enough to keep both kids and adults entertained, and the lesson Tigger learns about the true meaning of family is sweet and touching and well-developed. A movie with laughter, tears, not to mention a lot of bounce!
Maverick (1994)
A waste of time, money and Mel Gibson
I rented "Maverick" on New Year's Eve, thinking it would be a light, humorous, enjoyable flick. What a disappointment! Even Mel Gibson's boyish charm (and occasionally unclad torso) can't save this one! Virtually plotless, it limps from one broad gag to another like a lame old nag. The scenes with the oh-so-cool Native Americans are especially ludicrous. Jody Foster, a fine dramatic actress, has no gift for comedy, and the chemistry between Foster and Gibson couldn't ignite a match, let alone the screen. Part of the the problem is "Maverick" tries to be too many things: comedy, Western, satire, camp... and does none of them well. Skip this one, especially on New Year's Eve!
Juninatten (1940)
Delicate and lyrical
"June Night" has a delicate, lyrical quality that tempers its melodramatic premise. A pre-Hollywood Ingrid Bergman shines as the troubled femme fatale Sara, making it easy to understand why men can't resist her. A compelling story, fine acting, and beautiful cinematography make "June Night" well worth seeing-- and it's got to have one of the loveliest endings in film history!
Emma (1996)
Funny and charming
Of the recent spate of Jane Austen films, "Emma" seems to have gotten the least critical acclaim. And while "Emma" may lack the depth of "Persuasion" or the richness of "Sense and Sensibility," it is nonetheless a good adaptation of the morality tale of a matchmaker who finds herself out of her league. It is certainly the funniest of the three films!
Director/screenwriter Douglas McGrath understands that it is character, not plot, that drives Jane Austen's work, and even the minor characters come to life with vibrance and wit. The cast is excellent. Toni Collete is delightful as Emma's innocently flaky protegee, Harriet. Sophie Thompson is noteworthy as the endlessly talkative Miss Bates, and Denys Hawthorne is a howl as Emma's hypochondriac father.
Jeremy Northam has been criticized as being too young and handsome for Mr. Knightly, but in fact Northam was about thirty-five when the film was made, only a few years short of Mr. Knightly's "seven and thirty years". There is certainly enough of an age difference between him and Emma to make their mentor/protegee relationship entirely convincing. And just because he is older (and wiser) than Emma doesn't mean he should be portrayed as a venerable old geezer. Indeed, his youthful attractiveness makes Emma's attraction to him all the more believable.
Jane Austen once said that in writing "Emma" she meant to create a character that no one but she would like very much. She couldn't have been more wrong! In spite of (perhaps because of) her failings, Emma emerges as an eminently likeable character. For all her foolishness and arrogance, she is basically good-hearted, and capable of change and growth. Playing a flawed but sympathetic character is not easy, but Gwyneth Paltrow brings it off beautifully, tempering Emma's faults with warmth, humor and charm, making her as likeable on screen as she was in print. I think Jane Austen would have liked her too.
Se7en (1995)
A reprehensible piece of trash
I cannot understand the acclaim this film received, nor how it could by any stretch of the imagination be considered entertaining. I rented "Seven" expecting a taut, suspenseful thriller. Instead, it was the ugliest, most reprehensible piece of trash I have ever seen.
In general I am not opposed to violence in films, provided it is not excessive or gratuitous. But in "Seven," the admittedly intriguing premise--a serial murderer who kills to enact the seven deadly sins--serves as nothing more than a pretext to show scene after scene of the most lurid and nauseating footage imaginable on the large (or small) screen.
I recently noticed that "Seven" was broadcast on network prime time television, and that TV Guide gave no warning advising viewer discretion. I wonder why this film should be shown at all (I imagine it would have to be heavily edited), and why the network would not be more responsible in protecting children (not to mention sensitive adults) from its content.
Normally I wouldn't dignify such trash by writing a review of it. But if my comments prevent just one unsuspecting viewer from seeing this sickening piece of garbage, then they will have been worthwhile. I wish someone had done the same for me.
Waking Ned (1998)
A big disappointment.
Despite an unusual premise, good acting and beautiful Irish scenery, I found "Waking Ned Devine" a big disappointment. The story drags interminably, and except for a few chuckles, the humor is weak and labored, occasionally quite distasteful. The endless jokes about the malodorous pig farmer are tiresome, as are the conversations between the priest and the precociously cynical boy, who seems to have come out of an American TV sit-com.
If the sight of corpses losing their dentures, bare bottoms on motorbikes, and phone-booths tumbling into the ocean, is your kind of humor, then this is your film! My advice to the rest of you--let "Ned Devine" rest in peace!
The MatchMaker (1997)
Disappointing
Despite an intriguing premise, "The Matchmaker" just doesn't deliver. The senator and his aide are nothing more than flat, tired stereotypes, and though the main characters are appealing, the relationships are never clearly delineated enough to make you care. The plot meanders endlessly through beautiful Irish scenery and lacks the the wit, humor and punch necessary to make this kind of thing work.
Carnival of Souls (1962)
A story that creeps up on you and won't let go.
If you're a horror fan, don't miss it! Made on a shoestring budget, totally lacking in special effects, this little known classic relies on low-key acting and haunting photography to tell a story that creeps up on you and won't let go. The ending will make your hair stand on end!