Change Your Image
Hecate-3
Reviews
My Friend Irma (1949)
Horrible
My Friend Irma is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Diana Lynn, the beautiful lead actress, plays such a gold-digging tart, I was rooting for her to get her comeuppance not the predictable "twist" of her falling in lurve with the guy who was broke. He falls in lurve with her too, and this grand romance kindles in less than a day, even though he spends the entirety of their acquaintance wrecking her plans albeit unintentionally while she spends the entirety of their acquaintance being unkind to him. Irma, played by Marie Wilson, was so stupid that it was impossible to have any sympathy for the troubles she brought on herself and everyone around her by trying to "help". She is one of those characters who truly would have done better for the people around her if she had done nothing whatsoever. One can only pray that such an imbecilic creature is sterile. I shudder to think what she would do with children in her care. Her slimy boyfriend was so appallingly selfish I spent the whole movie wishing I could watch him being beaten to a pulp. The good-looking rich man was far too easily taken in for a man who can manage to keep two nickels together for more than five minutes. And Jerry Lewis spent the entire movie talking in a falsetto voice that's ten times worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. Apparently, Lewis mistook being as irritating as humanly possible for humor. He makes every single one of his scenes constant, cringing, unrelieved agony. I thought this guy was supposed to be a famous comedian. I thought he was supposed to have talent. When people said he killed his audiences, they neglected to mention that the audiences died of aneurysms brought on by the stress of unrelenting idiocy delivered in an excruciatingly noxious voice. Did moviemakers mistake rigor mortis grimaces in their audience for grins of delight? That Jerry Lewis was allowed to make even one movie is astonishing; that he was brought back for another one makes me wonder just how good he was at dispensing sexual favors to studio moguls.
The only bright spots at all in the film are Dean Martin singing, so do yourself a favor and purchase one of his albums rather than forcing yourself to sit through this torturous mess. If I could give this movie negative stars, I would. It's such a bad movie that it will ruin your enjoyment of the last three movies you watched and the next three that you watch.
AVOID.
Come See the Paradise (1990)
One of the Overlooked Greats
The unconstitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 is one of those little-known tragedies of history. I had never heard of it until I chanced upon this movie. And although it's not as great a tragedy, I consider it to be another one that this movie is also so little-known.
But this is not a documentary, and although you might learn something, this movie should be appreciated as a work of art. Of course if you're looking for a feel-good, popcorn flick, you should probably look elsewhere, but when you're in the mood for a serious, dramatic work, come back to this one and bring a box of tissues.
The movie follows the lives of the Kawamura family. The parents relocated from Japan and settled into a thriving Japanese community in California known as Little Tokyo where their children were born. Their family, home, business, and friends are all there.
Meanwhile in Boston, Irish-American Jack McGurn has been caught up in some illegal union activities. Disillusioned by his cohorts' lack of principles and fearing arrest, Jack flees the city to stay with his brother until he can sort out his life. He finds a temporary job working as the projectionist in the movie house run by Mr. Kawamura. Jack learns Japanese songs from the movies, befriends his employer's son, and falls hard for his employer's oldest daughter Lily, played by a luminescent Tamlyn Tomita. Jack's and Lily's love story is interwoven with the rest of her family's experiences in the internment camps. Jack, who found it hard to turn his back on the plight of the common working man even for the sake of peace in his family, is later forced to leave his wife and child to endure the camps while he is drafted into the army to fight against the countrymen of his in-laws, people he has come to love and respect.
There is some violence in this movie, but it is neither incessant nor gratuitous. There is also some strong language and sexual content, but that too is neither incessant nor gratuitous. There are also some heart-wrenching moments, and some moments that will make you question what it means to belong to a country and to love a country as your own. I would recommend that parents and teachers screen this movie for themselves before showing it to any minors.
But it is the love that holds the movie together. It is the love that makes the painful moments hurt so much, but that same love makes those moments endurable. Jack and the Kawamuras are flawed human beings making mistakes as they try to make their way through the world, but they are decent, caring people trying to do the right thing, and they love each other. It is easy to root for these people, to hurt with them when things go wrong, and to feel joy in their triumphs. The occasional moments of humor help lighten the mood.
The costumes and production design are so well done it's easy to forget that this is a modern movie and that it wasn't filmed in the age it depicts. The script is top-shelf, and the entire cast is uniformly excellent. Dennis Quaid succeeds in making Jack simultaneously bullheaded but capable of great sensitivity, and he keeps his character human and relatable. Tamlyn Tomita gives an award-worthy performance of the calibre that even if she had never done anything else in film or television, she should be counted a success as an actress. It's all but impossible to avoid falling for her Lily right along with Jack. She might be better-dressed and look more glamorous in other works, but this must be the work she prefers to be known for.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone capable of appreciating dramatic works, anyone with an interest in history, or anyone who enjoys watching a talented cast work together to produce one of those once-in-a-lifetime films. If I could only pack a shoebox's worth of movies to watch for the rest of my life, this would be one of them.
Come See the Paradise. I think you'll be glad you did.
Miss Julie (2014)
Not Recommended
I have now seen Colin Farrell in a lead role in two very different films. In both, he gave a ludicrously histrionic performance. In both, the director either made changes to the source material or arranged the accents of the entire cast to accommodate Farrell's thick brogue. In both, a director with considerable talent produced a muddled film with poor characterization and what should be a riveting plot that drags interminably towards a foregone conclusion. Fans of both films try to turn the criticism of detractors back onto them with blanket statements about what kinds of movies they must not like and what sorts of shallow entertainment they must prefer.
Taking the last point first, I have seen movies before that were nothing more than filmed plays with a cast of only two people in a single location, so even more limited than Miss Julie in those respects. Those movies had even more dialogue and less action than Miss Julie. Those movies were also every bit as grim and depressing as Miss Julie. But those films had quality dialogue, consistent characterizations, and a story worth investment.
I am flabbergasted by the unyielding support of Colin Farrell's fans, but then I'm flabbergasted that he has any fans at all. In addition to having no perceivable acting talent and an accent that he can't seem to shake, despite his character John's comments to Miss Julie about understanding her attraction to him, Farrell isn't even particularly good-looking and has no charisma on screen. On looking up his listings on IMDb, I discovered that he had the lead role in another film I have seen; I do not recall that he ruined that particular film, but then I don't recall much about him from that film even though he was the lead. I have certainly seen no reason to believe he deserves even his limited fame.
Many people have criticized the direction in Miss Julie for poor pacing, but a good deal of the problem is in the writing before it ever got to the set. Although I am unfamiliar with the source material, I gather from comments and reviews I have read that certain key pieces of dialogue were left out of the screenplay, namely the servants' discussion of Julie's broken engagement and the menstrual period which are brought up as explanations for her erratic behavior. I don't know what other dialogue changes might have been made, but both Julie's and John's mood and behavior swing so wildly between various extremes, much of the time with no discernible explanation, that it's almost as though with each exchange, the writers rolled some dice to select the characters' moods that time. Even erratic characters need to be comprehensible. It doesn't help matters much that the characterization that does come through the constantly shifting, random moods are two people capable of appallingly cold selfishness while the remaining character turns out to be someone inflexibly judgmental and narrow-minded.
Despite a costar who tries to destroy most of his scenes, Jessica Chastain and Samantha Morton deliver strong performances. Morton is understated but powerful while Chastain portrays desperation that grows so deep it becomes painful to watch, most notably in the scene where she proposes that all three of them leave together.
** SPOILERS **
I know that the story was written in Victorian times when convenient character death was seen as valid plotting, but I wonder how many modern viewers understand that Miss Julie's situation need not have been as hopeless as a melodramatic maiden raised on romances seemed to think. Even after the loss of her virginity in those restrictive times, a beautiful young woman who is the daughter of a wealthy baron could probably still make some sort of match with an impoverished but ambitious gentleman or with an older gentleman. Even if she turned out to be pregnant, she could have been sent to a convent far from the public eye to have her child. She might have to take orders to hide her disgrace, but she did not need to commit suicide. It's also worth remembering that this story was written and set in a time when the church was inflexibly condemning of suicide, no matter what the reason. Suicides weren't even buried in hallowed ground. It's hard to see John's willingness to prod Julie in that direction as anything other than a man willing to manipulate a young woman into needlessly taking her own life in order to spare himself inconvenience. As bad as Julie showed herself to be from her first scenes, John turned out to be far worse.
In the end, the film turned into a horror movie, and although it's undeniably a cut above standard slasher flicks, it does not reach the level of meaningful classic to which it aspires. Worth watching for the two female leads but otherwise not recommended.
Alexander (2004)
Avoid
Creative writing professors teach that stories should be told in chronological order. Past events make present events more meaningful. Withholding the past robs the audience of meaning; flashbacks inserted later fail to correct this but interrupt narrative flow. A jumbled order of events also makes it harder for an audience to follow what's happening. Again and again, writers flout this simple rule to the very great detriment of their work. This film is no exception. I cannot say that this film would be good if it were in chronological order, but at least it would be comprehensible.
In addition to jumbled chronology, this film boasts horrible direction from a top-notch director, sound effects and music that drown out important speech, poor editing, cringeworthy makeup, cringeworthy hair: dye and styling, and a cringeworthy, histrionic performance from the lead Colin Farrell. None of the acting is good here; not even Angelina Jolie showed to advantage despite being stunningly beautiful. (Incidentally, being approximately Farrell's age doesn't make Jolie miscast, because she's sometimes shown with Alexander as a young boy, and although some people seem to want more signs of aging when she is shown with Farrell, I couldn't bring myself to care about that.) But so many actors in this film were miscast, it's tempting to think that the casting directors were utterly inept, or people were cast on the basis of blackmail material. I will leave it up to others to determine whether the cast blackmailed the production for roles or whether producers blackmailed the cast into appearing in this travesty. I hate to think that these were the performances Oliver Stone wanted and used his clout as an industry giant to force from his cast.
The two battle scenes (that's right: only 2 in a 3.5 hour film about a man who spent his entire adult life conquering) were designed to show savagery in slow-motion close-ups, not to depict tactics, strategy, or outcome; they also used the overworked shaky-cam that is almost never a good idea (looking at you, Gladiator). It's difficult to tell who is being impaled, but the audience was never given any reason to care about any of them anyway. Such confusion might be realistic in depicting a common footsoldier's firsthand experience of battle, but it's not the way to tell the story of a military leader who was a tactical genius. The first battle shows Alexander's legendary strength and courage by having one of his men save Alexander from his own recklessness, making him look foolishly inept. The only other thing that these battle scenes convey is that war in ancient times was brutal. If that was news to you, go read some history before you watch any more movies. And if gore is all you want, horror flicks abound.
The melodramatic music did little but remind me of the emotions the film had not invoked. And no one in Hollywood has ever come close to Shakespeare's St. Crispin's Day speech, but that doesn't keep the hacks from trying. A scene of the war leaders debating tactics would have been much more effective at both informing the audience and building character.
For the people defending the accents: there are generic English accents – U.S. and British – that don't scream "I'm from this particular region." An RP English accent for Greeks and a generic U.S. accent for Macedonians wouldn't distract, so I could focus on what's being said. Farrell's accent makes it impossible to forget that he comes from Ireland. Say what you will, that accent rips me right out of a story about ancient Macedonians. Would you also defend a Texas twang or cockney?
People defending this film claim that its detractors only like mindless action flicks, don't appreciate history, or don't appreciate drama. I like action epics – if they're well made. I enjoy historical documentaries and history books – if they're good quality and informative. I like drama in both films and classic novels – if it's well done. This film fails at all these. It fails as an action flick because nothing happens except for two, brief, gory battles in which no one can tell who's winning. The film fails as history, because it depicts none of the important events of Alexander's life, except perhaps for his dysfunctional family dynamic which is told so out of sequence that no one can follow it anyway. And finally, the film fails as drama because it never gives a genuine sense of who any of these people were, let alone why anyone should care about them. This film neither educates nor entertains. Nor is it artistic; a few allusions, a symbolic eagle, and some acid-trip coloring isn't enough to make a movie artistic. The film succeeds at nothing except perhaps production design and costumes.
This film is more historically accurate than most historical movies, but then again, that isn't saying much. This film portrayed one of the greatest warriors, leaders, and military strategists of the ancient world as a neurotic, weirdly disingenuous, emo brat who is constantly blubbering and whining. Where is the young man whose quick wit and intelligence impressed Aristotle? Where is the young man whose courage, determination, and sound military strategy won the respect of all who fought with or against him? Where is the ambitious, ruthless young man who set out to conquer the world but was wise enough to recognize that actually ruling it required a different approach? As many reviewers have already stated, there is nothing in this film to explain why he is known as Alexander the Great.
I can mostly forgive Braveheart for its historical inaccuracy and even its character assassination of Scotland's national hero. But I can forgive Braveheart, because it's a good movie. Oliver Stone's Alexander is a hatchet job on the man it claims to portray, and it doesn't even manage to be decently entertaining.
It hurts to think of all the resources that were wasted on this.
Journal d'une femme de chambre (2015)
Grim, Bleak, Sordid
This is the polar opposite of a feel-good movie.
The lead actress is lovely, has some gorgeous gowns, and is occasionally displayed in a beautiful location. Everything else in this film is dark, ugly, and depressing. Even the main character's stay with her one and only kind mistress turns gruesome.
From the standpoint of filming, it's well-done, but the motivations for the main character didn't seem consistent. It's almost as though the writers deliberately produced a work intended to be the exact opposite of a light-hearted romantic comedy and then tweaked it until it was sordid to the point of parody. I gather from comments and reviews that the film departs from the original novel that was the source material; that may be the reason for the inconsistent, incomprehensible characterization. But after spending two hours with the main character only to end the film with no clearer understanding of who she is than at the beginning, I felt cheated.
Scary Movie (2000)
Skip It
There is a difference between silly and stupid. This movie wanted to be good silly fun, but it was just stupid. The opening scenes in which Drew was running for her life were the only moments that were even mildly amusing.
Riverworld (2003)
An Excellent Tease Job
Lush scenery. Interesting premise. Decent production values. Reasonable acting. I have not yet read the series of novels and short stories on which the movie was based, so I cannot answer for how well the original story was adapted. Unfortunately, this "movie" ends leaving most of the important story questions unanswered. If it does indeed turn out to be the pilot of a television series, I will certainly give the series a viewing, but if this movie is not followed up, it may be nothing more than frustration to many viewers. Fortunately, those of us who want to know more about the mysterious natives of Riverworld can always turn to the books.
But the made-for-TV movie does raise another question: Why is the villain always so much sexier than the hero? Jonathan Cake might not have classically perfect features, but he does have a lovely physique and a melting grin. I definitely hope to see more of him, whether we see more of Riverworld or not.
La maschera del demonio (1960)
Overrated
This dated work may be "atmospheric" enough, but it is NOT a good film. The characters have no personality. The plot is trite and predictable. Yes, the carriage scene looks slick and stylish, but that is hardly enough to carry the film.
This film is only going to be of interest to serious fans of Bava or Steele, to movie historians, or to people who saw it way back when and are now nostalgic about it. If you encounter a lot of references to it, you might want to watch it just to know what people are talking about. Otherwise, save it for late night viewing when you're getting drunk with your friends and are not up to anything serious.
I'm easily terrified. I watched this film late at night by myself without being really spooked, and I slept quite soundly afterwards.
Fiddler on the Roof (1971)
A Masterpiece
Fiddler on the Roof is the finest musical ever filmed, but it is not just a musical. It is an excellent film and a musical for people who don't like musicals. Topol is outstanding. The movie would be worth watching just for Isaac Stern's violin.
Fiddler on the Roof is arguably the best work of cinema ever produced.
It is the ONLY movie I have rated 10 out of 10.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Excellent Work
This first installment of Tolkein's legendary work "Lord of the Rings" is a masterpiece of modern cinema. Tolkein purists may gripe about some of the changes, but this is a movie, not a book, and even after the changes needed to condense and simplify the story for film format, it's three hours of film. The screenwriters did a marvelous job of translating the story to film, and although a few details are different, it's true to the spirit of the book.
The visuals are outstanding. All the places, characters, and cultures are rendered with perfect attention to detail. This IS Middle Earth, and it's even better than I ever imagined it. At no other time in history has it been possible to create Middle Earth in a movie, and this movie made good use of the effects and techniques available today. The work in producing and combining two scales is especially well done. If the Academy Awards committee does its job fairly (big if), "The Fellowship" will sweep the next awards. Everyone who worked on this film earned his pay.
The action in the fight scenes is fast and brutal, and if you sit too close to the screen, you may have a little trouble following what's happening. But that does make a good excuse for seeing the movie again, and this one is actually worth a second viewing on the big screen. This is not the time to wait for the video.
Elijah Wood was surprisingly charming as Frodo. Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, and Ian Holm give excellent performances, but Billy Boyd as Peregrine "Pippin" Took stole mushrooms, cabbages, and every scene he was in. Watch this young man. There's no telling where he will go after Middle Earth.
If the next two installments uphold the same level of quality, no one will dare even to think of making another version of the movie for at least forty years. Let's hope that the theaters re-release "The Fellowship of the Ring" in November 2002 so that audiences can see it again on the big screen before seeing "The Two Towers".
Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (1996)
Entertaining Picture of Love and Rivalry in India
This is the story of two girls, one a princess and one a servant girl, who were best friends as children but became rivals as adults. Tara, the princess, was voluptuously beautiful, but she could not master the sultry, compelling mannerisms that came so naturally to Maya. Maya resented having to wear Tara's cast-off clothing and was repelled by Tara's crippled but lustful brother.
The story is as much about sex as love, but in spite of the subject matter and several scenes in which girls are being instructed in the art of love, the film is neither erotic nor steamy. If you are looking for nudity, this is not your film, although there may be more bare skin in the Indian version. But the story has its interest. The direction and most of the performances are good. The dancing by Indira Varma and Rekha is delightful. The costumes are attractive. The music sometimes distracts more than it enriches, but it usually provides the proper enhancement. None of the elements are first class, but none are bad, and they come together in an entertaining whole, yielding a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours.
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964)
Incredibly Stupid
This movie got a one because IMDB does not allow a vote of zero, but the movie is definitely a zero. Stupid story concept. Bad script. Bad acting. Bad direction. Bad photography and lighting that often prevent you from seeing what's happening (although that may not be a bad thing). Bad soundtrack that often prevents you from hearing the dialog (although that may not be a bad thing). Bad costumes. Bad makeup. Bad special effects. I cannot think of a single good thing to say about this film. It was bad.
Lexx (1996)
Offbeat but Excellent Entertainment
This bizarre science-fantasy television series boasts a superb cast, the best musical score on television, and moments of pure comic brilliance. The production design and graphics, though not as sleek as some, yield an eerie, compelling environment that, at times, resembles nightmare versions of video games Myst and Riven. The plot concerns a diverse collection of creatures that has become the unlikely crew of the most powerful destructive force in the universe: the giant living spaceship Lexx, which resembles a large wingless dragonfly. The crew includes a beautiful love slave, a vituperative robot head, an assassin who has been dead for thousands of years but is kept in a pseudo-living state by a substance known as protoblood, and the hapless Stanley H. Tweedle: a class 4 (the lowest) security guard who never had a decent thing happen in his life until he got the Lexx's key.
Although it's tremendous fun to speculate on what will happen next, trying to make sense of the plot is an exercise in futility. The show requires an audience that is willing to not just suspend disbelief but chuck it out the window, but the payoff comes from watching this superbly talented group of comedians romp through their unlikely adventures. The script quality is not consistent, and it can take a few episodes for the show's quirky humor to catch on, but when the writers are in top form, they deliver big rewards. No other show on television provides the same degree of creativity, hilarity, and fun.
The humor is dark and not for everyone, and some of the more gruesome scenes are unsuitable for children, but Lexx the Series has a lot to offer. Even if you aren't blown away by the first episode you see, please consider watching more than one episode before you give up on it. And even if the show just isn't for you, Marty Simon's haunting evocative score (available on CD) is well worth the money.
A Cry for Help: The Tracey Thurman Story (1989)
A Call for Viewers
This is a surprisingly good film that deserves a larger audience than it will probably get. The realism in the script may be due in great part to the film being based on a true story, but considering how many Hollywood films based on true stories lack that element of realism, the screenwriter deserves considerable praise. The film is well-paced with just enough detail to convey the essence of Tracey's experience. The entire cast delivers an excellent performance.
There is some violence in this film. Most of the violence is not shown directly, but despite that, the violence is more disturbing than a typical splatter flick, partly because of the realism and partly because the victims earn more sympathy than the typical victims of splatter flicks. It should be okay for most people, but this is not a film for young children.
This film had a similar feel to Baby Snatcher, another Nancy McKeon TV film based on a true story. If you liked one, you will probably like the other.
Excalibur (1981)
Best Camelot/Arthur Movie I've Seen
This retelling of King Arthur's and Camelot's legend is an adult movie that will not appeal to those looking for a dainty, sugar-coated period piece that is a slavish recreation of Le Morte d'Arthur, but the film is worth watching if you can take the graphic violence and sensuality. The music tends to be heavy and ponderous except for the delightful number played for Igrayne's dance, and the acting is dramatic, but these things are inevitable given the story. On the whole, the cast retains interest and sympathy. A notable flaw is the number of battle scenes that look staged - though the gore looks real enough, but the gruesome battle between Arthur and Mordred at the end makes up for any earlier shortcomings by sheer emotional impact.
The film's storyline strays from Le Morte d'Arthur, but Sir Thomas Malory also wrote his own original work that was based on old myths and legends, so Boorman and Pallenberg deserve recognition for making new contributions. None of the actors had the appearance I expected for their characters (except for Sir Kay), but that made it possible for them to redefine their roles. Nicol Williamson's atypical Merlin who blends wisdom and humor in equal measure is the real star of the show.
But the film's triumph is how it balances realism and fantasy, how it manages to capture a hint of the harshness and brutality of a primitive age while retaining the romance and idealism now associated with the ancient myths of King Arthur. Excalibur has the magic of the old legends and a freshness all its own. It is a stirring tale of war, lust, revenge, duty, honor, and the power of hope.
Recommended.
Hook (1991)
Sentimental or Sweet?
Hook is a vigorous, imaginative sequel to the Peter Pan story. The movie boasts a delightful cast (Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins are excellent together.), superbly lavish sets and costumes, a good deal of charming humor, and a stirring score. A visual feast, a heartwarming story, and a gentle sense of humor - this film offers little for deliberately angst-ridden cynics of the 90s, but it's a marvelous confection for anyone who still has a child's sense of fun and wonder, or for anyone who no longer has them and misses them.
The visual representation of London and Neverland are true enough to both Barrie and Disney to avoid nasty jolts to those expecting a recreation, without being enslaved by either. The only change that jarred was Tinkerbell's transformation from common, foul-mouthed harridan to mature, caring lady. (I will bypass the fact that Tinkerbell died in the book on the basis that she was too integral a character not to be included.)
So is the movie sweet or sentimental? How about sweetly sentimental? And to the critics who call it syrupy, I can only ask what's so terrible about a little sentiment? Couldn't our world use a little more?
Le Cinquième Élément (1997)
A Less Emotional Review
I am a sci-fi/fantasy fan. I very much enjoyed Besson's film, The Professional. I have enjoyed a lot of Bruce Willis's films. I enjoyed Star Wars but am not insane about it. I was prepared to like this movie very much, but (unlike everyone else who commented) I cannot say that I loved or hated this film.
I thought the movie had some good parts, and although Chris Tucker usually annoys me, I thought his part in the fight scene was hilarious. I had no trouble following the plot, what there was of one, but I never believed in the motivations of the characters. Some of the characters and their motivations were obviously not intended to be taken seriously, but I never could believe in the love between the principals, even though that was supposed to be what was saving the universe. The only character who involved me was the Diva, and she was a minor character who appeared in too few scenes. Also, maybe I missed something somewhere, but why was a person (Leeloo) who supposedly knew nothing of Earth's languages and cultures able to start sounding out and understanding words simply by seeing some writing? And if she started out understanding writing, why couldn't she start out knowing how to pronounce?
I think it's worth the price of rental to see this movie, but I would not purchase a copy. However, the soundtrack is worth having. Except for the annoying bonus track (Thanks for the extra, guys!) the music is haunting and evocative. Lucia Di Lammermoor is beautifully performed by Inva Mulla Tchako. You might want to rent this movie just to check out the music.
Star (1993)
Comments from Someone Who Is Not a Danielle Steel Fan
It's schmaltzy, but then what else did you expect? The heroine is Cinderella's younger sister complete with wicked mother, sister, and brother-in-law; the hero (if you can call him that) is an ineffectual putz; and the rival love interests are full of melodramatic villainy.
The cast, settings, and wardrobe were all very attractive, and I thought the actors did a superb job considering how weak the material was. The movie was prettily filmed and boasted a soundtrack that was carefully crafted to cue the viewer about what emotions he should be experiencing throughout. Megon McDonough sang sweetly and provided the film with some of its best moments.
If you love Danielle Steel, you will love this film. If you love archetypal romance, you will love this film. I did not. I was able to sit through it, but it was close.