For anyone who has ever been truly, painfully lonely and done really stupid things under the influence of alcohol just to gain a little affection and affirmation, this movie will be like looking in the mirror. I winced when Uma's character literally flung herself at a guy who is, like a recent book popular dating book says, is just not that into her. The pain on Uma's character's face is just too much to take sometimes. I've watched this film twice and even though the I knew what was going to happen, seeing it a second time was just as heart-wrenching and touching. Kudos to all the actors, especially Uma Thurman and Gena Rowlands. PLEASE see every Gena Rowlands movie ever made - you won't be disappointed. She is one of the finest actors of our time.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Important "border theory" film.
13 July 2003
Based on a true story, this is an important film that teaches us about racism, assumptions, and what can happen when someone's words are not correctly translated from one language to another. The filmmaker deliberately chose not to use subtitles, so if you don't speak Spanish you may feel a little frustrated because the Americans of Mexican descent speak only Spanish in the film. (90% of the dialogue is in English.) However, stick with the film to the end and you will understand why this director did not use subtitles. The story takes place on the border between Mexico and Texas and exposes the racist and violent history of the Texas Rangers. The film also demonstrates how media manipulation can create hysteria. A newspaper reporter accompanies the Texas Rangers on their hunt for fugitive Gregorio Cortez. The reporter interviews witnesses who fabricate a "gang" and "gang leader" when in fact there were none in this case. Edward James Olmos is mesmerizing in his first film role as Cortez. There is an "Old West" authenticity in this production that reminds us that most Hollywood Westerns are based only in a "Manifest Destiny" fantasy, not fact.
Hand in Hand
(1961)
Contact me if you wish to discuss this film.
13 April 2003
I updated my email address so that anyone who wishes to share their comments about this film can contact me. Also, I wanted to let you know that I have a Black and White still publicity shot from this film and I'd be happy to send you a copy via email or regular post.
The photo I have shows the girl and boy kneeling and praying together in a church pew. Cany anyone give a more detailed synopsis of the film? I haven't see it since about 1966. I am almost 54 years old and this remains one of the most influential films of my whole life.
The photo I have shows the girl and boy kneeling and praying together in a church pew. Cany anyone give a more detailed synopsis of the film? I haven't see it since about 1966. I am almost 54 years old and this remains one of the most influential films of my whole life.
Fire
(1996)
"Fires" burn physically, emotionally and spiritually in this feminist film from India.
29 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.
A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.
A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.
In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.
The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.
A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.
In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.
The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
A Beautiful Mind
(2001)
I was disappointed. WARNING:contains spoiler information.
12 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILER INFORMATION.
I wonder how much of this bio tale is accurate. The first half, full of paranoid fantasies, was somewhat entertaining, but the whole thing evolved into a disappointing "feel good" ending. There is absolutely nothing about mental illness that ever "feels good". Ron Howard beat out Robert Altman for this mess? What a travesty! Mr. Howard didn't know what to do once he let us know that the character was just imagining the best part of the drama. I wanted to know more about how Dr. Nash spent his "just hanging out" time at Princeton. Like most people, I am intelligent enough to understand more about Dr. Nash's work than the movie let us see.Sam Neil, not Russell Crowe, was the best actor in the picture. And why was the woman who played the wife even nominated for an Academy Award? Granted, she is very pretty and had one scene where she actually lost her genteel temper, but it was not award winning acting. The Academy must have been desperate for nominees. Will someone please explain why Russell and so many other actors have to mumble their lines? Is line mumbling some new hip style that I am too un-hip to recognize?
I wonder how much of this bio tale is accurate. The first half, full of paranoid fantasies, was somewhat entertaining, but the whole thing evolved into a disappointing "feel good" ending. There is absolutely nothing about mental illness that ever "feels good". Ron Howard beat out Robert Altman for this mess? What a travesty! Mr. Howard didn't know what to do once he let us know that the character was just imagining the best part of the drama. I wanted to know more about how Dr. Nash spent his "just hanging out" time at Princeton. Like most people, I am intelligent enough to understand more about Dr. Nash's work than the movie let us see.Sam Neil, not Russell Crowe, was the best actor in the picture. And why was the woman who played the wife even nominated for an Academy Award? Granted, she is very pretty and had one scene where she actually lost her genteel temper, but it was not award winning acting. The Academy must have been desperate for nominees. Will someone please explain why Russell and so many other actors have to mumble their lines? Is line mumbling some new hip style that I am too un-hip to recognize?
Tell Your Friends