ArsLonga Reviews

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Shallow characterizations, so-so acting, but visually sumptuous

[7/10 · 2 December 2006]

What an over-rated film!!!! no wonder HBO is underplaying it; they're barely showing it! the always-terrific Brenda Blethyn saved the day for me; she stole every scene she was in. For those who have not read the books, and/or seen earlier versions, i suppose this was a thrill. but so much character development was lost in the service of showing off Keira K., whose range as an actress is quite limited, that it did a great disservice to Jane Austen.

It came off as the "lite" version...so very much of the delicious nuance lost in translation...Lady Catherine de Beauve (now Buck????). Wickham not fleshed out. Lady Caroline Bingham (Frieda Inescort has no competition) was a total CIPHER, no bite, no real bitchiness nor hauteur. Collins, although seemingly a fool, was much better served by other actors, altho' there was something endearing about this portrayal.

It greatly bothered me that other important supporting characters--Mary and Kitty, Darcy's sister, were relegated to non-roles, a few moments, at best.

BUT, the WORST OFFENSES i will reserve for: 1: this MacFayden fellow, lol, absolutely no match for Sir Olivier nor Colin Firth and, 2: by having Darcy profess his love one hour into a 2-hr. film, ALL dramatic tension was LOST. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Stupid, even.

I guess it's the Cliff Notes film version, for a generation with no patience.

One positive note: i did appreciate the attention to detail...that the Bennets lived among cows and swine, the preoccupation with ribbons -- these are important details missing other times.

PLUS: Elizabeth's visit to Darcy's sculpture hall --- that scene, plus the elk herd-- were moments of genius, imho.

West Side Story (1961)

an education in everything: music, dance, cinematography

[9/10 · 28 June 2006]

just watched it again today thanks to retroplex, and that makes my 60th (?) viewing since i first saw it as a 10-y-o in NYC in 1962. i agree with the featured reviewer, it needs to be heard at loud volume. almost everything in this film is extraordinary and was ground-breaking in its day: the Bernstein score and (whose???) lyrics, the Jerome Robbins choreography, the cinematography... not to mention the exploration of cultural differences which, at 10, i barely grasped but was seriously intrigued by.

i had the record and know every note, lyric, and piece of dialogue by now. while it usually cheers me up (TCM shows it often enough), today i found myself weeping in the early part, 30 minutes in, where Bernstein so brilliantly uses the increasingly insistent xylophones to emphasize the growing frantic tension. i wept because i realized how much repeated listening and watching has taught me about music and dance, not to mention different cultures--the Jets were as foreign to me as the Sharks.

it's intriguing to watch Eliot Feld, aka Baby John, who was not the best dancer in the group, but who went on to form his own ballet company, and the only minor cast member who achieved any success; all i can guess is that he became a protégé of Robbins... moreover, it is so clear that Michael Jackson stole, (or took inspiration from,) a number of scenes, for his videos. and not much became of many of the major stars; not Russ Tamblyn and Natalie Wood, but where did Richard Beymer vanish to? and Geo Chakiris didn't live up to his potential in the film.

this is only the second time i've rated a film at 9. as with the Australian reviewer, i am a huge fan of musicals, but this is heads and tails above all others, incl. 42nd St. and Singin' in the Rain, because the music is so thoroughly integrated and the dancing is so remarkable.

must admit: i no longer have patience for the sappy stuff like "Maria" and the first "Tonight." but John Astin's goofy role at the dance, Chita Rivera's stunning performances, and "Officer Krupke" allow me to forgive any and all few flaws.

Cowards Bend the Knee (2003)

astonishing! give it a chance--an hour well spent

[9/10 · 28 June 2006]

didn't think i wanted to watch this when it came on in the wee hours on sundance 2 nights ago; i needed some sleep. after 90 seconds, i was hooked. i was so stunned by this film that all i could think was, 'clearly a work of genius,', 'the heck with sleep,' and, 'why didn't i set the VCR?!'

cinema and i go way back, way even before college in Paris and the cinematheque in the 1970s, and i rated it a 9, the only time i've ever given my own highest rating to a film here. although Mr. Maddin might not appreciate the comparison, i think his body of work shows a creative mind in league with Woody Allen, in terms of switching genres and excelling most of the time. Billy Wilder is another example that comes to mind. bold risk-takers, all. i just wish i were better to articulate my thoughts on this.

bravo!

Love Actually (2003)

wonderful post-9/11 antidote

[9/10 · 19 November 2005]

i love this film, and i see waaaaay too many, so have a basis to judge. sure, it's not perfect in every respect--few films are--but what a cast!!! i could relate to it on many levels--as a middle-aged mom, as the parent of kids 23-12, as a fan of many of the actors. Bill Nighy's performance is worth the entire viewing. i'm a reformed feminist, and anyone who can't appreciate both the subtle and overtly screwball comedy aspect perhaps has too little sense of humor. the romance between CF and his Portuguese housekeeper stretches belief, but many unusual romances do. i agree it's a great holiday film, except for the few very overt sexual aspects---totally enjoyable on an adult level, but not really right for my youngest. not only have i seen it several times, i actually bought the soundtrack CD, and that was a first.

Um Filme Falado (2003)

puzzler that this stellar cast could disappoint

[4/10 · 17 August 2005]

aw, gee, what a bummer. i'll give any film with either Catherine Deneuve or John Malkovich a fair chance, as i have long been a fan of both actors for many, many years; my critical film watching began in nyc in the late 60's and was sharpened at the cinematheque in Paris in the early 70's. i'm willing to give Catherine Deneuve a lot of slack, because she is so beautiful to watch, but the thing that's troubling me here, in part, is that both she and Malkovich are lending their names to a film where they do little else, as also in the otherwise wonderful "I'm Going Home." unlike Johnny Depp, who has made his home in France but hasn't presumed to impose himself on French cinema, Malkovich keeps turning up but never seems to vary his vocal cadence, nor his basic persona. it's the same character over and over and over again. sad to see two formerly excellent actors walk their way through yet another film to pick up a paycheck.

The Children's Hour (1961)

Excellent! Plus, insightful observation of late 50s-early 60s social mores.

[8/10 · 28 July 2005]

We just watched this again last night for the Nth time; as with all excellent films, repeat viewings reveal new insights. For those who may not be aware, this is a remake of the 1936 movie "These Three," and for cinema enthusiasts, it's difficult not to make comparisons between the two -- but I won't here. Suffice to say that, watching either film, one just wants to reach through the screen and shake Mary, the psycho little trouble-maker. It's a chilling portrait of an evil-minded child, almost more so than "The Bad Seed."

Both this movie and its predecessor are versions of Lillian Hellman's 1934 stage hit. I strongly urge anyone who enjoyed "The Children's Hour" to view the 1936 version; just one interesting factoid is that Miriam Hopkins, who turns in a brava performance as Martha's flaky (alcoholic?) aunt in this film, originally played the role of Martha in the earlier film, a stupendous casting coup, IMHO.

As a child of the 1950's-60's, I am always grateful to have a chance to watch intelligent character studies which reflect the mores of the times, and this one is a stunning example. When I was growing up, male homosexuality was barely hinted at; lesbianism was totally verboten. The mood of the times is beautifully and sensitively reflected in the entire treatment in this screen play. The performances are outstanding. Hepburn and MacLaine need no comment, but I especially appreciated Fay Bainter as the grandmother, a very 'proper' lady of the day; loving her granddaughter, she is both unwilling and unable to see through Mary's quasi-demonic nature, and her apologia scene at the end may be her best on film ever.

My only real gripe with this film was its dreadful editing--rarely have I seen such poor work in a film of its stature and pedigree; in some scenes, it's like a record skipping a beat or two. I suspect there was some pressure to shorten the film by a number of minutes, and it mostly occurs in tight scenes between 2 or 3 characters.

However, it also bothers me that, in the intro page here, there is no mention of the actual screenwriter. In his post-film recap on TCM last night, Robert Osborne pointed out that Lillian Hellman was unable to rewrite the screenplay because Dashiell Hammett was ill; I am sorry I don't recall the screenwriter's name, but I can state that Osborne said Hellman felt this script was "too close" to her 1934 stage play, and should have gone further. Clearly, she was years ahead of her time, but I can only iterate what I said at the outset -- this film had its finger very much on the pulse of the time (1961).