I enjoyed this movie. In reading some of the external reviews for this movie there seems to be universal praise for Renee Zellweger's performance and I would agree. There also seems to be some disappointment in the fact that the two main stars are separated throughout the movie and in this I disagree. Whereas the detractors seem upset that the movie was supposed to be a great love story, I never took it for that. It was true that the two main protangonists are infatuated with each other in the beginning, how can that be mistaken for love. However, each becomes the symbol to the other of the way they want the world to be and not the daily horror the war has made it. It is clear from the beginning that Inman's home coming is going to be long delayed, and that the story is each protagonists' reaction to the war and how they managed to survived it.
Reviews
9 Reviews
100 Mile Rule
(2002)
I liked it
28 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I gave it a nine and I would have given it a ten except for the ending. It was well done and held my interest, because I couldn't figure out where it was going next.
WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW. Romantic comedy, satire, almost murder thriller, it kept me interested. I would have like to see more work done on the final resolution and see if Bobby could have gotten away without paying the blackmail. I liked him and he was clever to dispose of the body the way he did, just if he could have somehow tricked Monica at the end. I mean, I don't have the answer to that, but I did enjoy this movie very much, and a perfect ending would make it one of my all time favorites.
WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW. Romantic comedy, satire, almost murder thriller, it kept me interested. I would have like to see more work done on the final resolution and see if Bobby could have gotten away without paying the blackmail. I liked him and he was clever to dispose of the body the way he did, just if he could have somehow tricked Monica at the end. I mean, I don't have the answer to that, but I did enjoy this movie very much, and a perfect ending would make it one of my all time favorites.
In the Bedroom
(2001)
I liked it. (spoiler within)
14 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
To be honest I avoided this film because the title suggested to me that it dealt only with sex. Wrong. It was a story of life and how a family deals with death. Gripping story and Well acted by all. The scenery selection was excellent. I just loved the hand cranked bridge, something I would not believe existed if I hadn't seen it in this movie.
Spoiler begins. The only problem I had with the film (beside the Title of the film, not the book) is trying to figure that if Matt is so concerned with leaving evidence, why didn't they use his shrimp boat to dump the body in the ocean where it they couldn't find it again if they wanted to. I'm sure he watched Tony Soprano do it (twice for that matter). I mean he is so concerned with leaving evidence that he carefully removes all his clothes after the murder, yet doesn't worry that the body will eventually be found in a shallow grave near a frequently used cabin. Sure his buddy had lots of land but just how far are you going to lug a dead body. Okay perhaps I'm being too critical. But the film made such a sympathetic character out of Matt, I want to be sure he got away with murder. Then again, maybe the hasty grave was to be a prequel to a follow up book, revisiting Matt and Ruth.
Other scene I would have like to have seen is for Ruth, instead of going down and fixing Matt something to eat, she goes downstairs to wash the clothes, which would confirm that she plotted the details along with Matt.
In any event It was a 9.8 out of a possible 10 for me.
Spoiler begins. The only problem I had with the film (beside the Title of the film, not the book) is trying to figure that if Matt is so concerned with leaving evidence, why didn't they use his shrimp boat to dump the body in the ocean where it they couldn't find it again if they wanted to. I'm sure he watched Tony Soprano do it (twice for that matter). I mean he is so concerned with leaving evidence that he carefully removes all his clothes after the murder, yet doesn't worry that the body will eventually be found in a shallow grave near a frequently used cabin. Sure his buddy had lots of land but just how far are you going to lug a dead body. Okay perhaps I'm being too critical. But the film made such a sympathetic character out of Matt, I want to be sure he got away with murder. Then again, maybe the hasty grave was to be a prequel to a follow up book, revisiting Matt and Ruth.
Other scene I would have like to have seen is for Ruth, instead of going down and fixing Matt something to eat, she goes downstairs to wash the clothes, which would confirm that she plotted the details along with Matt.
In any event It was a 9.8 out of a possible 10 for me.
The Bells of St. Mary's
(1945)
Many Times Better than "Going My Way"
26 December 2001
I had the opportunity to watch both "Going My Way" and "Bells of St Mary's" one after the other the other night on cable. Without a doubt `Bells' was of the few sequels better than the original. The only other ones that comes to mind are "Godfather II" and possibly "Indy III" The only thing missing from this sequel was Barry Fitzgerald, but the pure grace of Ingrid Bergeman, more than made up for the lack of Barry's Irish charm. Bells seemed to flow more easily, had some honest conflicts to resolve (social promotion is still being argued today) and an ending I felt was just perfect. It's not that I disliked "Going My Way" on the contrary, but to me it was just a warm up to "Bells". Maybe after the tremendous success of the former, Bing became more confidant in his portrayal of a priest and was able to play it to perfection. A great movie.
Whipped
(2000)
"There's Nothing About Mia"
8 September 2000
I found my self with time on my hands so I thought I would see Amanda Peet in this `Whipped'. I mean she was excellent in `The Whole Nine Yards'. I checked it out on IMDB user comments section and found the reviewers either loved it or hated it, with seemingly no in-betweens. I'm fairly easy to please when it comes to movies, so I gave it a shot. Big mistake.
I went to the late showing at a high market multiplex, where I made up 50% of the audience. I gotta tell you, I didn't laugh once. I guess I just sat through the movie, more or less stupefied, not caring what happened next and fantasying that it would turn into a slasher movie, where Freddie Kruger would come and kill them all (including the writers) and let me go home. There is not one sympathetic character in the movie, not one funny situation, no surprises at all. Just disgusting, if not revolting, behavior.
I think the theme is supposed to be that the woman turns the table on the boorish pigs, but she in fact, is the biggest boor of all. Now it might be that there is gender bias going on here. It might be that women enjoyed seeing Amanda Peet acting like a chauvinist pig, hence the divided reviews. And I, being a male, didn't. All the charm Ms. Peet exuded in `Whole Nine Yards,' was totally absent. I don't think it's her fault, it's the writer's. Boorish behavior just isn't charming.
This movie wanted to be another `There's Something About Mary' but it missed on every count. Save your money.
I went to the late showing at a high market multiplex, where I made up 50% of the audience. I gotta tell you, I didn't laugh once. I guess I just sat through the movie, more or less stupefied, not caring what happened next and fantasying that it would turn into a slasher movie, where Freddie Kruger would come and kill them all (including the writers) and let me go home. There is not one sympathetic character in the movie, not one funny situation, no surprises at all. Just disgusting, if not revolting, behavior.
I think the theme is supposed to be that the woman turns the table on the boorish pigs, but she in fact, is the biggest boor of all. Now it might be that there is gender bias going on here. It might be that women enjoyed seeing Amanda Peet acting like a chauvinist pig, hence the divided reviews. And I, being a male, didn't. All the charm Ms. Peet exuded in `Whole Nine Yards,' was totally absent. I don't think it's her fault, it's the writer's. Boorish behavior just isn't charming.
This movie wanted to be another `There's Something About Mary' but it missed on every count. Save your money.
On the Beach
(2000 TV Movie)
The only thing better about it is that it's in color
8 June 2000
Warning, this compares the original and the remake and might spoil the ending for those who haven't seen them.
I have two complaints about the remake and one solution for both complaints. My first complaint is the length of the movie and the second is the depiction of the submarine crew. The main reason the movie is too long is the added scenes when the sub goes north. The crew's behavior on this particular cruise would be questionable on a pirate ship with Blackbeard as their captain. There is no way the captain would act so undignified when speaking to his assembled troops. No way would the lieutenant be gambling with the enlisted men, certainly not in full view of the captain, and absolutely no way would the captain allow it. No way would a man as emotionally fragile as the captain reach that rank. No way would the captain leave the boat to undertake a dangerous mission. He might send his second in command, but absolutely no way do both senior officers leave the boat, leaving the destiny of the mission, not to mention the crew, in the hands of the third wiper. No way would the captain react as he did after entering the house and viewing the results of the war. He might have gone on the mission and reacted as he did, if Anchorage was his home and I believe that would have made for a more compelling story, like he wants to go to Anchorage and the crew doesn't. The original movie and book did not include the above nonsense and were much more belieable.
I guess my point is that these scenes were only added to make the movie longer and my solution would be to lose them. The movie (if not the world) will be better off without them.
A few of the scenes in Australia could be dropped as well. For instance, the bed scene with Moira and Julian was added either to fill yet more time, or as I suspect, at the insistence of the participating actors. (For those who don't know Ward is Mrs. Brown in her other life.) Dwight's hanging around until his buddy died was contrived to keep him out of the way until Moira and Julian could get it back on. With all the bye-bye pills being passed around like popcorn, why would Dwight's buddy put him (and himself) through that.
There are only two scenes added, with which I would agree. One is the scene where Dwight and Moira witness the family driving off the cliff. This shocks the couple back to reality and I though it was well done. The other scene is Dwight's returning to Moira for the end. A bit `Hollywood,' but based on the remake's premise, that the crew was sick and wanted to die on the ship versus a strange land, true to life. Who would not return to love versus death aboard a coffin ship? This is about the only scene I would consider changing in the original. I wouldn't because it would mean losing that evocative concluding scene where Ava watches from the cliff as the sub departs Australia. Another reason not to change would be that the crew in the original wanted to see their homeland one more time before they died, while in the remake they were sick and would die in the sub. To take his crew home would have been a strong reason to take Dwight away from Moira. Both endings fit their plot lines.
As for the casting, character for character, with the possible exception of Jacqueline McKenzie as Mary, the original cast was better. While Gregory Peck was the epitome of the American officer; Asante was over the top most of the movie, and would have been better cast as the ship's cook. While Fred Astaire was the gentleman personified, Brown didn't convince me that he was an egghead and he seemed to be glad the world was ending. Despite not being Australian, Anthony Perkins seemed more convincing as Peter, and as good as Rachel Ward was, Ava was better.
Some parts of the movie were good, but for the most part they were the parts retained from the original. The only thing better about the remake is that it's in color, allowing the majestic coastline of Australia to be fully appreciated. Maybe what they should have done was saved the money and colorized the original. Maybe not.
I have two complaints about the remake and one solution for both complaints. My first complaint is the length of the movie and the second is the depiction of the submarine crew. The main reason the movie is too long is the added scenes when the sub goes north. The crew's behavior on this particular cruise would be questionable on a pirate ship with Blackbeard as their captain. There is no way the captain would act so undignified when speaking to his assembled troops. No way would the lieutenant be gambling with the enlisted men, certainly not in full view of the captain, and absolutely no way would the captain allow it. No way would a man as emotionally fragile as the captain reach that rank. No way would the captain leave the boat to undertake a dangerous mission. He might send his second in command, but absolutely no way do both senior officers leave the boat, leaving the destiny of the mission, not to mention the crew, in the hands of the third wiper. No way would the captain react as he did after entering the house and viewing the results of the war. He might have gone on the mission and reacted as he did, if Anchorage was his home and I believe that would have made for a more compelling story, like he wants to go to Anchorage and the crew doesn't. The original movie and book did not include the above nonsense and were much more belieable.
I guess my point is that these scenes were only added to make the movie longer and my solution would be to lose them. The movie (if not the world) will be better off without them.
A few of the scenes in Australia could be dropped as well. For instance, the bed scene with Moira and Julian was added either to fill yet more time, or as I suspect, at the insistence of the participating actors. (For those who don't know Ward is Mrs. Brown in her other life.) Dwight's hanging around until his buddy died was contrived to keep him out of the way until Moira and Julian could get it back on. With all the bye-bye pills being passed around like popcorn, why would Dwight's buddy put him (and himself) through that.
There are only two scenes added, with which I would agree. One is the scene where Dwight and Moira witness the family driving off the cliff. This shocks the couple back to reality and I though it was well done. The other scene is Dwight's returning to Moira for the end. A bit `Hollywood,' but based on the remake's premise, that the crew was sick and wanted to die on the ship versus a strange land, true to life. Who would not return to love versus death aboard a coffin ship? This is about the only scene I would consider changing in the original. I wouldn't because it would mean losing that evocative concluding scene where Ava watches from the cliff as the sub departs Australia. Another reason not to change would be that the crew in the original wanted to see their homeland one more time before they died, while in the remake they were sick and would die in the sub. To take his crew home would have been a strong reason to take Dwight away from Moira. Both endings fit their plot lines.
As for the casting, character for character, with the possible exception of Jacqueline McKenzie as Mary, the original cast was better. While Gregory Peck was the epitome of the American officer; Asante was over the top most of the movie, and would have been better cast as the ship's cook. While Fred Astaire was the gentleman personified, Brown didn't convince me that he was an egghead and he seemed to be glad the world was ending. Despite not being Australian, Anthony Perkins seemed more convincing as Peter, and as good as Rachel Ward was, Ava was better.
Some parts of the movie were good, but for the most part they were the parts retained from the original. The only thing better about the remake is that it's in color, allowing the majestic coastline of Australia to be fully appreciated. Maybe what they should have done was saved the money and colorized the original. Maybe not.
Notting Hill
(1999)
Okay, but not one I'll be seeing again
27 December 1999
If you liked Four Weddings and a Funeral, you might like this. I for one, loved Four Weddings and consider it a classic, to be watched whenever available. This movie could have been the same, except for the roommate. If I were one of the powers-to-be, I would consider eliminating this totally unfunny, unbelievable and disgusting character entirely. His only worth to the movie is as a plot device to set up the `Boy loses Girl' `Media on the Doorstep' scene, which could be handled some other way. With absolutely no redeeming values shown, no one can believe our straight arrow hero would even know of such a person, let alone share his home with him.
With Four Weddings and a Funeral, all the minor characters were enjoyable and funny, and with the exception of Spike, so are the characters in Notting Hill. It rare that I let one minor character in a movie, define the movie for me, this however is definitely one of the times. Notting Hill is an okay movie, but not one that I will be watching again, to spare myself having to see Spike again.
With Four Weddings and a Funeral, all the minor characters were enjoyable and funny, and with the exception of Spike, so are the characters in Notting Hill. It rare that I let one minor character in a movie, define the movie for me, this however is definitely one of the times. Notting Hill is an okay movie, but not one that I will be watching again, to spare myself having to see Spike again.
One Special Night
(1999 TV Movie)
A really enjoyable movie
29 November 1999
I enjoyed seeing James Garner and Julie Andrews again in this genuine feel good movie. After watching the movie I felt good just as I was supposed to. Don't expect to see any surprises as the movie is totally predictable; but, hey, that's okay. It's a nice movie about nice people and I enjoyed seeing the chemistry between Jim Garner and Julie Andrews, beginning to end. You can almost bet on a sequel.
Many Rivers to Cross
(1955)
One of my all time favorites
16 November 1999
I saw this movie several times when it first came out and haven't seen it since. I liked it so much I took my first (formal) date to see it. Big mistake. There is a sequence in the movie where Bushrod and his lady are running from the Indians. The audience, my date and I laughed, (that is side-splittingly laughed) for ten minutes straight (and this was the second time I saw it.) Unfortunately anything I managed to say after that wasn't nearly as funny and it went down hill from there. Don't miss it if you have a chance and hopefully you'll see it in a theater and enjoy it even more.
Tell Your Friends