Addie-7 Reviews

Cast Away (2000)

I thought it missed, despite Tom Hanks

[14 January 2002]

I was sure that I'd like this picture because it had a Robinson Crusoe feel to it, and because I love Tom Hanks. Sad to say, it didn't do much for me. Part of the reason has already been said by others, but in addition to those comments [the last third of the movie being not very engaging, the other characters being too flat, etc] I had a bigger problem. There were two major actions for which I didn't understand the motivation [more later] and [POSSIBLE SPOILER!] I felt gypped by having 4 years cut out of the middle. I was really getting involved with the character, his frustrations, the coping-methods he was discovering, etc. and then he is replaced by a bearded stranger who can do anything, preceded by the words "four years later". His coming to terms with his aloneness in battling the semi-hostile elements was the best part of the film. So why did the director fast-forward the film to hurry to an unsatisfactory conclusion? But my big objection was that two pivotal actions were never explained. Why did he leave one package unopened, how did he choose that particular one, and how did it save his life? I'm not normally obtuse, but I could only guess at the reason. I would have appreciated a little more of a hint. The other enigma was the ending. There is a verbal exchange between Tom and the person to whose house he has just left the package, and they have this brief verbal exchange delivered like lines from King Lear, full of portent. Was that supposed to be a metaphor for something I didn't get? This movie left a lot to be desired -- and explained.

The Sum of Us (1994)

A very gentle film, but puzzling in one aspect

[8/10 · 21 October 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I can't add a lot to what has already been posted about this film, except that I found it to be very -- well, gentle, for lack of a better word. And the relationship between the father and son was indeed tender. But there is something about it that bothered me: the father's acceptance of his son's homosexuality went a good bit farther than that; he was downright intrusive, as if he were trying to vicariously enjoy the flirtation his son was having trying to have] with his boyfriend. To put it another way, what would we think of a father who walked in on his straight son while he was having sex with a girl, or a mother who did that to her daughter who was ditto with her boyfriend? I think viewers have cut this father a lot of slack in thinking that the father is showing only love and acceptance by his behavior. I think he is showing a great deal more than that -- voyeurism maybe, certainly a lack of tact.

POSSIBLE SPOILER. I absolutely loved Russell Crowe's character after his father had a stroke: he was both vulnerable [e.g., saying tearfully "Don't cry, Dad -- you know I can't stand it when you cry"] and tender, taking charge of his father's most intimate bodily needs, and keeping his spirits up in general. I really loved that aspect of him.

Virtuosity (1995)

I think I'm too old to enjoy this nonsense.

[5 October 2001]

This film had two strikes against it [from my point of view] that had nothing to do with its merits or lack thereof. First, I saw it for the first time on October 4th of this year, and the events of Sept 11th were/are too fresh in my mind for me to enjoy the spectacle of wanton killing with a blind eye to the devastating effects on the victims and their families. Easy to say "Oh, lighten up, already; this is a fantasy." I'm sorry, but Sept 11th still got in the way. Second, I think I'm too old for this. [I'm a grandmother.] I couldn't even follow the plot. I got lost and couldn't find the dividing line that distinguished between reality and "virtual" reality. It seemed as though some of the rewind/play-it-over-again/different-results were real, and then they turned out not to have been, but they still affected the reality

Other people liked this film, and I am wondering what they got out of it that I missed. I have a graduate degree, but I never truly understood this plot. But there's a great scene with Russell Crowe in the buff -- now that, I loved!

Rough Magic (1995)

It's got Russell Crowe, but....

[6/10 · 29 September 2001]

I got confused amid the on-again-off-again magic. Sometimes it worked, and Fonda could "magic" her way out of anything, and sometimes Fonda had to suffer the consequences of reality. I thought her acting was okay; I just couldn't figure whar her reality was. As for Crowe, it was nice to see him play a tender-ish character, but two things put me off. 1] He wore that damn fedora all the time, indoors and out. He only took it off to go to bed. I actually remember the '30's, and no men wore their hats so relentlessly. {He's more appealing without it]. And 2] I couldn't figure out his accent for the longest time. He is normally a master of accents -- the male counterpart of Meryl Streep in that regard -- but in this movie, I heard a touch of Australian, a snatch of regular British, some Chicago thuggish, and some New York. I never quite figured which accent he was going for, but probably one of the last two.

Proof of Life (2000)

correction

[7/10 · 9 August 2001]

Message to yoursay.imbd: I just submitted a comment that I was unable to correct. My back button would not take me back to my comment, so I had to submit it as it was. Could you please delete the repetitious phrase that appears disjointedly at the very end? Thanks

Proof of Life (2000)

Don't expect so much and you will enjoy this

[7/10 · 9 August 2001]

I am a bit puzzled by the severity of the negative criticism this film has drawn. Hey, it wasn't meant to be "Hamlet", or even "Gladiator". It has its drawbacks --[I'll weigh in with mine in a minute]-- but I think maybe some fans were expecting something that the movie never pretended to deliver. As for my views, OK, here goes: I found the kidnap part ot the plot very believable. I first got interested in K & R from a Dick Francis thriller ["The Danger"] and read up on it after that. There was nothing unbelievable here. I though Crowe was just fine -- he gave as good a "reading" of Terry's lines as you're apt to get, and his considerable magnetism and presence were just what the take-charge role demanded. I confess to being disappointed in Meg Ryan, whom I greatly admire, because she was so splendid in "When a Man Loves..." and she is certainly capable of rising to the demands of a dramatic role. Maybe the lines just weren't there, or maybe she was poorly directed. I think the supporting roles played by David Morse, David Caruso, and Pamela Reed [in the thankless role of the sister] were as fine as I've seen in the same film in a long time. My quibbles? In Meg's place I would have been hysterical with grief, whereas Meg was mostly querulous and/or sarcastic. Her hair was a joke. Messy and tousled is OK when you wake up in the morning, but why was it so carefully arranged in precisely the same hair un-do in every scene. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Why was there so little enthusiasm in the final reconciliation scene? The script has built us up to expect thatat least Morse can scarcely living without Meg. So, his lines are basically "Well, we made it." That' inconsistent with earlier dialog. Last, that horrible song at the end was too jarring for words, did not match the mood, and ruined the last moments. The singersounded like a singer in great pain who has just been goosed. But I still found it to be a diverting and entertaining flick.

Why was there so little enthusiasm in the reconciliation scene

The Crossing (1990)

An unpretentious little gem

[7/10 · 25 July 2001]

This one sort of snuck up on me. I wasn't expecting anything except to see an embryonic Russell Crowe learning to act, but, hey, he already knew how in this, his first leading role. He was utterly believable -- and touching -- as the potential loser in a love triangle. Both of the other leads were very fine also. The photography wasn't as intense as I would have liked --[some of the scenes look a bit washed out] -- but other than that, it is a fine little film.

No Way Back (1995)

A waste of time

[3/10 · 21 July 2001]

I find it hard to believe that I could dislike any film starring Russell Crowe, but this one is a complete waste of his talent -- and my time. I'd like to say that his acting job was a "rose among the thorns" but I don't think that even he was convincing. He was a foul-tongued protagonist [with an ugly hair-style that even his character couldn't have thought was becoming] who over-reacted to everything in this tortured and unbelievable plot. In retrospect, I wonder why I even gave it a "3".

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

A chilling movie

[6/10 · 19 July 2001]

I acknowledge that this was a very good film, with superior acting throughout. And I normally like to view such films three and four times, both to pick up what I might have missed the first time, and to savor again that which I enjoyed in the first viewing. But I confess that once was enough for me on this one -- it made me too uncomfortable to contemplate a second time. Of course, this is probably a testimonial to how good a movie it is, and I'll throw in the towel and concede the point--[there may be a child in my neighborhood who is exceptionally fine at pulling the wings off of living butterflies] -- but I don't ever want to watch it, and I don't want to see this movie ever again.

Proof (1991)

A delightful -- and unexpected -- surprise

[9/10 · 19 July 2001]

This was a real sleeper for me -- I had never heard of it until I read Russell Crowe's bio on IMDb. I checked the movie out and, as soon as it was finished, I rewound it and played it straight through again. I just wasn't ready to let it go. I liked the story, admired the dialogue, and loved the acting. Crowe was a real revelation; I hadn't seen him in anything but LA Confidential, The Insider, and Gladiator -- in other words, a full-blown star -- and he was uttterly lovable as Andy, a basically decent guy with honest instincts. I have only one quarrel with the story and it is a minor one: Martin hates and distrusts his mother, yet we are given is no basis for this -- indeed, quite the contrary. As we see his mother in flashback scenes, she is a loving woman who patiently tries to teach her son how to listen to his world and see with his ears. There is simply no foundation laid to motivate Martin's antipathy toward her and his subsequent distrust of the world. Other than that, I found this film to be real and lovable, just like Andy.

Pay It Forward (2000)

Beautiful acting makes this a standout

[9/10 · 7 July 2001]

I loved this film, but I am not at all surprised that the critics panned it. They don't go for films with "heart". I do though. To the extent that it may have been not "realistic" or believable enough, I think that the superb acting enabled me to suspend my disbelief. I can't add much to the compliments that have been written by others in this "comment section" but I will say one thing about the negative critics: They would have panned Dickens' "Christmas Carol" when it was written.

Gladiator (2000)

An old-fashioned hero, brilliantly portrayed

[9/10 · 29 June 2001]

There isn't much I can add that hasn't already been said, but what made this movie so special for me was Russell Crowe's brilliant portrayal of Maximus as a genuine hero of Shakespearean proportions. I don't mean to imply that there is any resemblance between Gladiator and one of Shakespeare's plays, or that the dialogue resembles one of them. But the creation of a truly heroic character in a pivotal role is a classical and, unfortunately, out of date device. It requires an actor who can not only convince you that his character possesses a heroic and noble nature, but who can also make you care terribly about what happens to this hero. Crowe does both. The viewer loves and admires his Maximus, and agonizes with him in his travails. In this, Crowe reminded me of Laurence Olivier at a comparable age, although I'd guess he would cringe at the comparison. As to the rest of the cast, I couldn't find a single weak link. In fact, the only thing I didn't like about the movie was the extent of the gore in the battle and gladiator scenes. I can't believe that so many prolonged grisly scenes were necessary to get the movie's point across.

Sliding Doors (1998)

This is a well-written, well-cast film that I have enjoyed many times [videotape].

[9/10 · 1 February 2000]

I think Roger Ebert is all wet. I found this to be an unheralded little gem of a movie. First, it was beautifully cast (with one exception) from top to bottom -- not just Paltrow and Hannah, but the roles of Gerry, Anna, Russell, Clive, James' mother, Claudia -- were believable and well-played. (I think that only Tripplehorn as Lydia was less than topnotch -- she overplayed a part that was over-written to start with.) It would be difficult to find two more appealing leads than Paltrow and John Hannah --(Why hasn't he been catapulted to the foreground like Ioan Gruffudd?)-- and their chemistry was wonderful to behold. But perhaps what really sets this film apart is its script. The dialogue was both sparkling and original. Examples: Paltrow: "I just kissed you." John: "Yeah, I spotted that." OR, Paltrow: "[You only find me] moderately attractive?" John: "Well, lose the sad eyes, the droopy mouth, I could get you an upgrade." // Ebert complains that the sum of the movie can be no more than the sum of its two scenarios. I beg to differ. If each of the two plots had been developed fully, we would be looking at a 4-hour movie.// I think this well-written, well-cast film is a delight. I have seen it several times [videotape] and it has lost none of its appeal.