FilmNutgm Reviews

Final Days of Planet Earth (2006– )

Liked it--although I think it focused on the wrong character

[6/10 · 16 January 2009]

I usually wouldn't comment on a TV movie I saw a week ago, but when I looked up this title and saw all the negative comments, I thought, "Wow!I liked it--guess I'm in a very small group." This miniseries played as one four-hour (with commercials) movie on an independent TV station. I didn't expect a huge blockbuster, so I wasn't disappointed. Given the limits of television as opposed to a movie studio budget, I thought this movie had a lot more character development and pacing than I've come to expect from low-budget sci-fi movies. I think the movie would have been better served if it had focused on the character played by Campbell Scott--not only because I think Mr. Scott is a fine actor, but because I thought the astronaut's plight was more poignant and interesting. I generally like Gil Bellows' acting, but as written, the character he played was cold, charmless, and muted for so much of the film that it made it hard for me to stick with the storyline. Frankly, I stuck with it because I kept hoping the story would explain what happened to Scott's astronaut character. I can agree with a lot of the criticisms of the film--its budget made for more gab than gore; there wasn't a consistent tone; the ending needed to be more fleshed out, but as someone who watches way more sci-fi that I normally would because I'm related to a sci-fi fan, all I can say is that while the movie had problems, it had some characters I could care about, some good actors doing their best, and a few genuinely scary/creepy scenes--that's about all I expect out of a free movie on an independent channel. SPOILER: I was very moved by one of final scenes where the astronaut is reciting the 1969 Mets roster--if you've seen the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. If the whole film could have sustained that level of acting and emotional involvement, I don't think it would be getting such poor reviews.END OF SPOILER I've seen a lot of movies with bigger stars, bigger budgets, bigger what-have-you that I didn't enjoy nearly as much so I cut this movie a lot of slack. It's a very watchable "B" movie that you can enjoy in the comfort of your living room while munching homemade popcorn. In these times, that's a pretty good thing to be.

Fish Don't Blink (2002)

Shouldn't like it, but I do!

[6/10 · 29 August 2008]

It's funny--I can totally agree with the criticisms levelled at this film. It is derivative and some of the supporting performances are way too hammy and one-dimensional, but I'm a sucker for movies and plays set in diners. I like the idea of strangers trapped together in a self-contained environment and having to work out their lives among people they would probably only meet on the road or in a roadside café or a bus depot. I found the situation interesting and, while the characters were put through some very stereotypical paces, I was interested in what happened next. Maybe it was because it was on television at a time when I needed a break from all the Olympics coverage; maybe it's because "The Petrified Forest" is one of my favorite vintage films, but I cut this film a lot of slack--more than I probably would have if I had had to pay to go see it--and I enjoyed it and would watch it again. Do I wish some of the acting had been better? Do I wish some of the direction had been tighter? Do I wish there had been a few more surprises in the plot? Sure. That said, every film doesn't have to be a big-budget blockbuster or an exercise in searing, probing character development. Sometimes it's just fun to chillax with what in the old days would have been a B movie second feature. I thought Grieco and Thompson brought a lot to roles that weren't written to be as deep or shaded as they could have been. I thought Dee Wallace Stone and the older gentleman playing a diner customer were wasted in basically bit parts. Wil Wheaton should probably never try to play a drunk scene and the actress playing the female on the run appeared not to have as much experience as might have been necessary to help her make more of an underwritten role, but all the actors were still interesting to watch. Be sure and stay tuned for the credits--they give more information about what happened to the characters.

Mitch Albom's for One More Day (2007 TV Movie)

Enjoyed it, but wasn't as swept away by it as I felt I should have been

[10 December 2007]

I was eager to see this film since I had enjoyed "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" so much. This film just wasn't in the same ballpark--pardon the allusion to baseball since the main character's overwhelming need to re-live his brief baseball glory days is a major plot point.

Don't get me wrong: Imperioli and Burstyn give the kind of fine, heartfelt, and nuanced performances that audiences know they can count on them for.Imperioli has a way of making you feel for his character even when you want to slap some sense into him. Even though it's pretty obvious where the movie will go, there are a few surprises in the plot. So, if I was very moved by the lead performances and was already interested in the story, why didn't I like it more? Well, the framing device immediately distanced me from the movie and became an annoying intrusion as it went on. I felt the movie could have easily gone on for another half hour to flesh out key plot points. SPOILER: Also, even though I'm pretty sure the ending followed the book--I haven't read it, but the author wrote the script--, it added: A)more of the aforementioned annoying framing device of a third party narration and B)ended a film on an somewhat downbeat note that cancelled out the hopeful feelings the film had just engendered. Since I found the ending so hurried, I couldn't fully process and therefore fully feel all the emotions I feel the film wanted to elicit.

I appreciated the excellent acting and fine attention to period detail. I just wish I'd liked it more.

Back Roads (1981)

Improves with repeated viewings--Did misguided ad campaign kill its chances?

[6/10 · 16 November 2007]

Years ago, when the movie trailer ran on television, it was touted as a "wacky road comedy." SPOILER: They used this one scene where the two characters are trying to jump on a moving train and ultimately end up in a mud puddle. END OF SPOILER. Yes, that scene was funny in a slap-sticky kind of way, but it also set the audience up to expect a totally different movie. I didn't watch it at first; those two actors just didn't scream comic foils to me; eventually, it was on TV and I watched it expecting a comedy. I hated it! The grubby sadness of these characters' lives just didn't strike me as funny. Melancholy, seedy, frustrating--yes; Funny? No. Years pass. It's on TV again. I decide to watch it and forget that the ads and reviews and video stores place it in the comedy section. This time I liked the film so much better. I eventually got the DVD and have enjoyed it every time I've seen it. Don't get me wrong: It's no classic; but, if you expect a character study instead of romantic comedy, you might enjoy it more. Oh, and I'm embarrassed to confess that I even hated the theme song so much that I wondered if the singer got the job because she was related to the producer or something. Now,I realize the bittersweet lyrics and pleasant, but world-weary singing suit the movie perfectly. Again, if you're not expecting a comedy and can get modern movie themes' bombast out of your ears, it's another melancholy pleasure one can glean from this film.

Studio One: There Was a Crooked Man (1950) Season 2, Episode 41

Decent representation of early television dramas--Spoilers

[5/10 · 17 May 2007]

This episode was included as one of the 50 films in the "Dark Crimes" mega pack. This is an example of early television as presented in the anthology series "Studio One." Yes, the picture quality is grainy and dark and many of the actors appear to be using their stage training for television, but rough, cutesy, hammy beginning aside--one of my favorite character actors, Robert Emhardt, really munches more than Gouda (if you watch the episode, you'll know what I mean)--it's a nifty little mystery involving a stolen letter, murder, and other chicaneries. The main couple has an easy-going charm--with some banter that's a bit risqué for the times--and the viewer is treated to some fine character actors one didn't get to see much of. If you modernized the episode a bit, it wouldn't be out of place on an episode of "Perry Mason" or "Matlock," so if you like those program and are a fan of early TV, this will be a treat. And dig the ad for the "big screen" television--at least I think it's on this episode.

Avalon (1990)

Trailers misled me: waited 16 years to see it and wish I hadn't

[15 August 2006]

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS: I missed this film when it came out and eagerly taped it when it recently came on television. The trailers emphasized the nostalgic feel and I vaguely remembered it being a period piece about how modern life--especially television--splintered close family ties. What I didn't expect is the movie's journey to hyper-realism. When a film starts out like it's going to be in the same vein as, say, "A Christmas Story", I didn't expect it to end up like a documentary on the indignities of old age. Imagine every report on senility and its toll on everyone and you get an idea of the end. It isn't this movie's fault that the trailers portrayed it as one thing, and it was something else. It isn't the movie's fault that I just wasn't in the mood to see what's happening in real life in homes all over this country. If the movie does have a fault, it's that the director/writer, actors, and set designers, etc., were so good at setting the tone for a gentle trip down memory lane, it was just so jarring when realism intruded at the end. I think the same thing could have been accomplished by stopping at the "hypnotized by TV" holiday dinner--with a lot less scenes of heartbreaking decline. I know that wasn't what the filmmaker wanted to do, but it would have been a film I would have enjoyed seeing more. We should be depressed by what this story says about us; I just wasn't expecting a lesson on the topic when I taped this film. That's my fault, but so many people use the terms "feel-good" and "nostalgic" to describe this film, and I didn't feel good after watching and I consider nostalgia to be something that leaves you with a happy, positive feeling about the past. For all this film's fine acting and great set design, it did not leave me with anything but regrets--maybe that was the point.

Vig (1998 TV Movie)

Undercuts the charm and goodwill of a talented cast

[4/10 · 5 June 2006]

*****CONTAINS SPOILERS******* There's no way for me to discuss this movie without revealing plot points because the way the script squanders its cast and an interesting storyline is what disappoints me most.

I'd never heard of the film, but any film with Peter Falk, Tyne Daly, Timothy Hutton, etc. should be interesting, right? Well, the pity of the movie is that they DO start out with an interesting premise. They have actors who radiate intelligence and charm and, because of their past works, carry a lot of goodwill--especially with audiences who are old enough to want to watch this film because Peter Falk is in it and not because they want to see Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s early work.

Peter Falk and Tyne Daly make a charming, believable married couple.Tyne Daly's speech about some tough times early in their marriage is particularly moving. You feel for the Lauren Holly character. You wish the Timothy Hutton character would get a clue. There's a chance for a slice of life movie about a bookie who's as ethical as such a profession will allow him to be and what happens when the vultures want to muscle in--a particularly annoying plot point by the way, since Falk's character has said he's retiring in a year and we believe him.

As soon as the Freddie Prinze, Jr. character takes center stage, the movie goes wrong. It's not Prinze's fault. He's playing a cruel, stupid, violent, perverse gangster wannabe whose story arc sends the movie in a different, starker, more hopeless direction. It's as if I started out watching a movie directed by Gary Marshall and ended up with a movie directed by Quentin Tarrantino. "The Lemon Drop Kid" plus the most bleak episodes of "The Sopranos" = this movie. The cast and set-up deserved a less nihilistic ending. It's an ending calculated for maximum "bum-out." It made me sorry that I watched it until the end.

The actors are always worth watching. The script should have served them better.

American Inventor (2006–2007)

Really makes you admire others' drive and creativity--I love it!

[24 March 2006]

This show has been described as sort of a cross between "American Idol" and Thomas Edison. A lot of really intense and dedicated tinkerers explain why their invention should be "the the next big thing" to a panel of four judges--one Brit, one woman, one quintessential New York ad-man type, and one bespectacled male inventor with a penchant for harsh criticism and tacky Hawaiian shirts.

Sometimes I feel for those who poured all their time and resources into an interesting product only to have their hopes dashed by two "NO" votes; sometimes I wonder why no one who truly cared about the would-be inventor didn't just clue him/her in that their product/idea was seriously messed up. Yes, guy who invented a cape/covering so people could urinate in public, I'm talking about you! It's especially difficult to see children's ideas shot down. I really feel for the contestants who poured money that they obviously couldn't spare into an idea that only they can see the value of. I also would like more time spent on the viable contraptions and less time spent showing disappointed contestants crying, but any show that makes the point that not all Americans are just sitting mindlessly in front of their televisions or passively buying whatever products that are out there. Creativity and innovation are alive and well--and often weird!

Warhead (1977)

Disappointing--especially for David Janssen fans--"SPOILERS"

[1/10 · 1 March 2006]

I found this movie to be tedious, stereotypical, and a big disappointment. One side in the conflict was portrayed in such a cartoonish fashion that any hope that a credible account of a serious ongoing conflict was forthcoming was quickly dashed. I don't expect a low-budget 1970's movie to be a balanced documentary, but I do expect characters that are written as people; not symbols. I expect actors who are not either phoning it in or mugging. When characters are in danger or even killed, I expect to feel something besides "Oh my Lord, can this film get any more over the top?" Characters die and I feel nothing but the filmmaker's contempt for his audience. It's as if the filmmakers said: "Why bother with good dialogue, well-rounded portrayals or logical action sequences? People interested in the subject will watch anyway." I'm a big David Janssen fan, but this time he could have sent his performance by telegram. Christopher Stone gave the best performance, but the rest of the cast was either overblown or so deadpan that I wondered why they bothered to be in this film at all--bills to pay or lost a bet, perhaps?. This subject deserved a thoughtful, decently-acted movie. Keep looking--you'll find nothing like that here.

Jane Eyre (1983)

The book illuminated

[9/10 · 4 May 2005]

*SPOILER ALERT: I wish I could discuss this without revealing specific plot points, but I can't. Sorry.*

I was looking for an IMDb review of the George C. Scott movie when I stumbled across the summary and reviews for this version. It had so many positive reviews that I decided to order it even though: (a)while truncated and rushed, I thought George C. Scott embodied the tortured nature (and physical appearance) of the book's Rochester to a T; and (b)even while looking at the DVD's cover, I was thinking "Isn't Timothy Dalton too good-looking for the role?" The latter concern was reinforced by the fact that I decided to re-read the book while the DVD was on backorder. That said, the minute I started watching this, I was captivated. At first it was disconcerting to hear 1840's dialog spoken as written--with little or no attempts at modernization--but Dalton and Clarke threw themselves into it so thoroughly, that I actually enjoyed the fact that the adapters trusted the audience to follow archaic speech. To have so much of the book up on the screen was an extra bonus. I know someone who won't watch any versions of Jane Eyre because "who wants to see a film about a man who keeps a poor crazy woman in the attic?" Frankly, if someone who hadn't read the book stumbled across the hour and a half or two hour versions, they would think that's pretty much all the story entails--Rochester's secret and its affect on everyone around him. Luckily, this version is actually about Jane Eyre's whole life.

Some people have criticized the casting. Dalton is too dashing; Clarke is too reserved. I can't argue against the first point, but he is so "in the moment" that I believe he IS Rochester. To me, Clarke's performance is on the mark. Jane Eyre is quiet, guarded. If one remembers the book, so much of the adult Jane's fieriness and passion occurs during her private struggles. Some of the criticisms baffle me. Reviewers say Clarke is too short or isn't pretty enough. The book goes on ad infinitum about how small and plain Jane is. Ms. Clarke shouldn't be tall and the filmmakers toned down her looks to make Jane's declarations of her lack of beauty credible. She can scarcely help it if Dalton is tall. Some say there is no chemistry between the leads. What?!! The scene when Jane finally comes out of her room after the wedding fiasco fairly vibrates with passion and longing and sadness and regret--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.

I do agree with some of the other criticisms. I too missed more scenes with Helen Burns and the Rivers siblings. Some of the dialog was oddly truncated. When Rochester declares, "Jane, you misjudge me. I do not hate her because she is mad," I waited for the rest of the exchange when Rochester explains how if Jane were to go mad, he would still love and care for her. It's a powerful moment in the book, and I wish it had been included. I think it was a mistake to bring a scene with Rochester into the part of the story where Jane is on her own. It might have been done for clarity's sake, but I found it jarring. I wanted the sly humor of the scene where Jane opines that Rochester's ardor will cool and he'll become gruff again, but he may "like" her again by and by. Dalton's performance is so good that the rare misstep is glaring--when Rochester weeps in the library, I saw him as an actor doing a crying scene, not as Rochester. As for the sets, if anyone has ever caught an episode of the 1960's show "Dark Shadows," one knows what to expect--very stark and sometimes rickety looking interiors. Others have commented thoroughly and succinctly about the make-up job Rochester sports at the end. Yikes! It IS bad. The conclusion is too abrupt. After all that anguish and suspense, I wanted a more rounded off ending. And, on my copy of the DVD, having credits at the beginning and end of all eleven 25-30 minute episodes gets to be a bit much. That said, I am so glad I have this film and will watch it again and again.

The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case (1932)

Better than Basil--Sorry, Mr. Rathbone

[5 October 2004]

I recently saw this film simply because it was in a multi-pack of "B" mystery movies. I was very dubious since I had eagerly watched the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and didn't expect this film to best his performance. I was wrong. Arthur Wontner was able to convey Holmes' intelligence without the superciliousness that often mars other actors' portrayals. The Holmes/Watson relationship was one of equals instead of Super Genius/Amiable Bumbler. It was a refreshing take on a relationship that can grate as portrayed in the Rathbone films. There are drawbacks to this film, however. The sound quality is not first-rate--at least not on the DVD. The audience is not introduced to Holmes and Watson until 15 to 30 minutes into the film and the main villain's thick Cockney (?) accent made his dialogue heavy slogging--at least to these American ears. Is the print perfect? No. Can the pace be slow? Yes. Don't be deterred. See a wonderful Holmes, an intelligent and rakish Watson. It's a welcome eye-opener for those who have only seen the Rathbone films or the Brett television versions. Don't get me wrong--I think the above-mentioned actors are marvelous and had fine takes on Sherlock Holmes. I just prefer Wontner's ability to portray a wry braininess and the rapport he shared with Ian Fleming's superb Watson.

Pay It Forward (2000)

Liked it in spite of its flaws/Wish they'd made one casting change

[1 September 2004]

I did not see this movie until it came on network television recently, and even though I can agree with all the criticisms about the disjointed structure and stereotypical characters, I bought a copy of the film as soon as I could because I wanted to be reminded of what the film could be--a discussion of what we owe the world and what we can do to demonstrate true compassion.

I thought the performances of Kevin Spacey and Haley Joel Osment were very moving--even when the dialogue faltered. When Kathleen Wilhoite--as the Helen Hunt character's AA sponsor--came on the screen, I couldn't help but wish that she had been cast as Trevor's mother. She has a gritty earthiness and emotional rawness that I think would have served the character better. I guess the producers just felt that they had to have a big name in each of the the major roles. I guess the only chance they wanted to take was on the ending. (I think enough people have raked that over the coals--and rightly so. And, yes, I know it was in the book.)

So many other reviewers use the phrase "What might have been. . ." and I have to agree. With a good central idea, some powerhouse actors, and an interesting setting, it could have been marvelous--but less than gutsy casting choices; a supercilious attitude toward "have-not" characters; and lapses in dialogue mar it. I'll still watch it because it makes me question the status quo. I'll also always wish it had been better.

Reversible Errors (2004 TV Movie)

More Huffman and Macy/Might have worked better as a 3 hr. movie

[27 May 2004]

This movie deals not only with a heinous crime, but with the relationships of two different couples (Huffman/Macy and Potter/Selleck) and how those relationships intersect and impact the criminal investigation. I prefer Scott Turow's writing to John Grisham's--mainly because I feel Turow's writing has better character development and dialogue--and he seems better able to write believable female characters--but, he keeps you guessing as to whether the "good guys" are going to survive--much less win-- and that can be exhausting.

Other people have done a fine job of delineating the plot. I can only add that I felt the movie suffered every time the Selleck/Potter storyline was the main focus. I felt that it just didn't have the emotional resonance of the other subplots. Since I have not read the novel--yet--I don't know if this is the script's fault or the actors'. I DO know that I didn't want the story re: the defense lawyer and the judge to end. The movie brightened every time that couple was on the screen. Was it because of better writing or better acting or because I enjoyed seeing a married couple play a couple--who can say? I also must say that I felt since a character's life was literally at stake that it would have been nice if his plight was explored more fully. Movies or books can be interesting without a romantic subplot.

This film might have been more effective as a three hour movie shown on one night rather than a miniseries spread over two nonconsecutive nights. There were so many plot twists that I lost track of some characters' actions and names from one night to another. It also didn't help that CBS showed upcoming scenes and trailers that spoiled one of the key twists. I have never understood why networks or studios will spend a fortune making a movie than spoil it by giving too much away in the advertising! Perhaps it will play better--and tighter--on video.

Places in the Heart (1984)

Nostalgic look back--especially for anyone who's lived in TX; an overlooked performance; and the folly of watching a movie once too often

[22 March 2004]

SPOILERS INCLUDED:

Others have done an excellent job of describing both the plot and the fine lead performances. I think this is a film that speaks strongest to those who have either tried to make a living off the land or have/had grandparents or great grandparents who fought to survive on a hardscrabble farm during the Depression. Spending some time in Texas and getting to know the lay of the land probably ups the enjoyment factor, too.

Many people have rightly pointed out the superb performances of the leads, but the more I watch this film, the more impressed I am with the performance of Terry O'Quinn, who played Buddy, Viola's husband. I'm so used to seeing him play either psychopaths or hard-charging soldiers or ruthless businessmen that it was a real treat to see him play such a "normal" character. In his short screen time, he conveyed warmth, tenderness, and concern and made you wish that the secondary story of the affair between Wayne and Viola had been fleshed out so you could understand how two people who had apparently loving spouses could decide to cheat on them--and by extension, their best friends. His performance really sticks with me.

I know some people are dismissive of the trio of people who band together as just "a handful of cliches", but ask yourself: How could it have been written any differently? A drifter HAD to be the one to suggest that Mrs. Spaulding grow cotton. As concerned as friends and loved ones were about her, they not only lacked money to help her, but had seen her as the physically delicate, genteel sheriff's wife for so long that it never would have occurred to them to suggest she take up farming. A stranger had to point that solution out. If the drifter had been white, the underlying messages about racism and prejudice would have been lost--and the film would have been poorer for it--and some audience members would have been disappointed that the drifter and the widow didn't get together. Because the racial divides of this time and place have already been graphically illustrated, the audience doesn't expect a typical Hollywood foray into a romantic subplot. As for the blind character, he was there because he had nowhere else to go and the way he became a boarder pointed out how under the thumb of anyone who had money and/or power people like Edna were. She didn't want to take in a sightless boarder; she was pressured into it. If he could have seen, he would have been living by himself and the vignette that very powerfully delineated how the bank held Edna's life in its hands would have been lost.

I like this film so much, I watch it often--and there's the rub. The more I see it, the more I wish the adultery subplot had been developed; the more I wish minor characters like the dance band leader or the flashy-looking beauty shop customer had been fleshed out. I start to wonder why the sisters laugh when one mentions who made the funeral cake. Was she a notoriously bad cook or a good one that bragged constantly about her baking prowess? The most startling thing I noticed on a recent viewing was how quickly the crux of the film--will back-breaking labor save the farm?--really played out. When we see characters out in the hot sun-- literally crawling on the ground--to get the crop in, I felt like these poor souls had spent months like this. I suddenly realized that it had to be about a week or two. I'm NOT belittling the effort it takes to plant, chop, and pick cotton. I was just a little shocked to figure out how compressed all that exhausting harvesting time was. See what I mean about watching a film too much?

I love this film. I'm glad I saw it the first time. I hope to enjoy it as much the tenth or twentieth time I see it. It's a great antidote for those days when I just want to give up because I'm broke and/or have too much to do.

Fallen Angel (2003 TV Movie)

Potentially intriguing cast defeated by gooey script

[24 November 2003]

***SPOILERS--No way to detail complaints without them******************* This movie has a promising beginning. We see a motherless nine year old boy who is already beginning to realize that his father is so consumed with his job as caretaker for the big city rich who summer in his Maine hometown that he will never have time for his son. The young boy meets a pampered rich girl whose parents are that age-old cliche--nice guy/tennis and ski bum who married into money and the cold wife who never lets him forget who holds the purse strings. These children and the upper class father are in an accident that will break apart the young girl's family. The children will not meet again until thirty years later and anyone who saw this film's television commercials--or has even see a TV movie-- knows what happens next, but, my god, the writer and director could have tried harder to inject a little verve and originality into the formula! I mainly watched this so I could see one of my favorite actors play something besides a tortured, corrupt soul, but Gary Sinise looked so uncomfortable or stiff much of the time that all this movie showed was that either he should never try to play a romantic lead or that he felt so defeated by the script that he gave up before filming started. Poor Ms. Richardson has to deliver such clunky lines--has the writer ever heard an actual woman talk?--that she should get some sort of combat pay. The best part of the film deals with the children and the teen-aged Terry's alienation from his father--after that. . .SPOILER ALERT: I especially resented the "let's ice skate, fall down and laugh" scene--gee, I've never seen this before--instead an honest attempt to portray a burgeoning relationship. In one of the few surprising moments of the film, we find out the female lead has a daughter who is blind. Maybe the child actress who read for the part was actually blind and they wrote it into the script, but if that wasn't the case, then I see no reason for this plot wrinkle AS IT WAS PRESENTED except to add just one more heart-tugging element to a film that was already dealing--in a superficial and ham-handed way--with death, homelessness, estrangement, and guilt. The whole situation just seemed like one more cheap ploy to pull pathos out of a film that didn't know how to use good acting and sharp writing to earn it.

Morning Glory (1993)

A little more care and it could have been great instead of pretty good

[24 November 2003]

The story has a lot of interesting elements in it and I always enjoy a period piece, but I felt that if the director or writers had been more exacting, the film could have been so much better. One of the things that struck me immediately is how annoying the film score was! It almost put me off watching the film. It was droning and syrupy and grating and came close to ruining some good moments in the film. I also wish the two leads had loosened up a little bit. Someone who watched it with me said that a drifter and a woman who's such a loner would be stiff and unsure in their interactions, but I thought that both actors could have livened up the latter half of the film considerably if they'd let some of their natural warmth and charm and humor shine through. I enjoyed watching the film and would watch it again, BUT I still wished they'd tightened up the score and loosened up the actors! I especially liked the opportunity to see one of my favorite character actors, Lloyd Bochner, in action. (Also, was I the only one who was a bit shocked when someone mentioned paying a worker $25 a week? I thought that seemed like big wages for the Depression-era South, but since I didn't live through that time, maybe it wasn't.)

Adaptation. (2002)

See this for Chris Cooper's performance

[12 December 2002]

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD** Describing the plot would just spoil some surprises--let's just say it's a meditation on finding passion and creativity in your life--whether it involves writing or orchid hunting or something else. Nicholas Cage is so good playing twin brothers--Charles, a neurotic, emotionally and professionally blocked screenwriter and Donald, a free-wheeling, slightly goofy and vulgar scriptwriter wannabe--that the person I saw it with briefly thought Cage had a brother who also acted. It was also good to see Meryl Streep play something besides the "martyred/meddling mother" and "inspirational teacher/mentor" roles that most over-40 actresses get stuck playing. As good as they were, however, I wanted to see this because of the wonderful, underrated Chris Cooper. Even when playing a hygiene-challenged, front-toothless, profane orchid poacher, there's something so charismatic, so magnetic about his portrayal that you immediately understand why other characters are drawn to him. Watch the telephone scene when he explains how he lost his mother and uncle and ask yourself why this man doesn't have an Oscar yet. The vulnerability and humor and gravity he brings to what could have been a quirk-filled, mannered role is just amazing. The movie is billed as a comedy-drama, but frankly, it was all dark comedy until the last 15-20 minutes. The abrupt shift was unsettling and, I felt, unnecessary. It changed my feelings from "Wow, how funny and clever and true. What will the writer and director do next?!" to "Why the devil did they do that?" (I would have later sought out the video or DVD so I could watch it again and again until the mood took a U-turn). Earlier in the film, Charles Kaufman attends a screenwriting seminar that espouses such rules as "no voice-overs," "no cheating the audience," "no deus ex machina (spelling?)." Maybe the director and writer wanted to prove that they could throw the rules out the window. To me, they went too far and made me wish they'd ended the movie 10-20 minutes earlier. Irony's fine--but NOT kicking the slats out from under your audience is better. The plot twist isn't exactly a "movie-killer", but for me, it changed the film from one I loved to one I could admire 80% of. Bottom line: See it for the lead performances--especially Chris Cooper's and Spike Jonze's wild, clever visuals. Also be prepared to have a sudden desire to read "The Orchid Thief." (I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the real Susan Orlean and John L. saw their portrayals on screen. They must have a great ability to laugh at themselves).

The Love Letter (1998 TV Movie)

The Beautiful Parts Make Up For A Flawed Whole

[2 July 2002]

NOTE: I tried submitting a review once before today, but did not get a confirmation that it went through, so I hope I am not double posting. **SPOILER ALERT--There's no way I can critique this movie without giving away plot points** I found most of this movie to be evocative and poignant. Campbell Scott's performance was superb. He made the most of a part that with a lesser actor would have slipped into moon-eyed sappiness. Jennifer Jason Leigh was very convincing in her portrayal of someone who was trapped in a society that valued conformity above all. Daphne Ashbrook brought charm and dignity to the thankless part of the modern-day fiancee. (I also want to thank the writer for allowing the fiancee to be likeable. Too many films make the present girlfriend/boyfriend so odious that the audience automatically want the main character to dump her/him and end up with the other lead. I appreciate the writer for respecting the viewer enough not to simplify this part of the plot.) I also enjoyed Estelle Parson's portrayal of Scotty's mother--we should all be so lucky to have such a mother; although I could not help thinking that if Mr. Scott's mother, Colleen Dewhurst, had still been alive, it would have been marvelous to see them act together in this work. The scenes where Scotty and Elizabeth were acting out their "communion through letters" was so right that I wished the movie had continued in this vein. I felt the movie derailed when it introduced the Colonel Denby sub-plot. Yes, I thought the battles scenes were well done; and, yes, it was well-acted, but I also felt it was a sop to the audience--it was as if the writer thought the audience would feel cheated if Scott and Leigh didn't have any scenes together. While I felt this diluted the story's power, the person who watched it with me thought it was fine, so I guess it was just me. However, we BOTH felt that the movie went seriously wrong at the cemetery scene. Not only did this part make it seem as though Scotty could and would lay aside his grief so lightly--when his personality and actions in the film indicated otherwise--but, the dialogue was so banal, the female character in the cemetery was so pallidly written, that I wanted to shout at the television: "You people are so boring. This mundane character is supposed to replace complex and fascinating Lizzie? I don't think so!" I will watch this again because the acting is so good, and the film is 90% wonderful, but I thought that limp ending sabotaged a satisfying, melancholy film.

Any Place But Home (1997 TV Movie)

Unexpectedly surprising and well-done

[23 June 2002]

When I recently saw the commercial on PAX, I wasn't expecting much, and frankly, the trailer made me think this was a movie about a family fleeing mobsters or in the Witness Protection program. *SPOILERS* I was pleasantly surprised to see a movie that started as a botched kidnapping and ended as an exploration of how child abuse affects lives and how the family that looks so perfect is often the most screwed up. The acting was good, and the plot kept you guessing. For the most part,the pacing was fine. I don't want to give away too many plot details--having them unfold is part of the charm of this movie. My only complaints are minor ones: I thought the sister- and brother-in-law were drawn in too broad a "White trash/redneck doofus" stereotype mode; the ending was too abrupt; and on a personal level, I'm tired of seeing movies where the only way the writers can prove that a character has worked through a trauma or solved a personal problem is to announce that they want to have a baby--(especially when all the parents in this movie proved in ways big and small that reproduction is no proof of being mature or well-adjusted.) Those carpings aside, the main couple had good chemistry, most of the cast had "good acting chops", and it was a pleasant and often touching way to spend two hours.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

My feelings about Moulin Rouge! are as schizophrenic as the film itself!

[4 April 2002]

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS** throughout. I saw this film last year after it reached the second-run movie theater market. Had I paid $7-10 to see it instead of $1, I might be more harsh about what I felt were the movie's shortcomings. As it was, after being absolutely flummoxed by the beginning--(and wondering if I should cut my losses and leave), I stayed to the end and found that I could enjoy many moments of the film. My problem is that after reading many of the reviews on this website--and quite a few on other websites--I find that I can agree with pretty much everything anyone says--(EXCEPT the criticism of Ewan MacGregor's singing. I thought it was marvellous and saved many of the musical numbers.) As for the movie: It was too frenetic. The love story did need time to breathe to have emotional resonance. I too had trouble deciphering whether the director was satirizing romantic musicals or paying tribute to them. That said, I also can agree with those who found it moving and dazzling and fascinating. My feelings about the film fluctuate as much as the camera work. I love opera so you know I can suspend a lot of disbelief, but even I need some emotional sincerity to hang my hat on. The scenes where Satine and Christian are falling in love had that; as did the scenes of the friendship among the "Children of the Revolution" and their creative struggles. The death at the end did not because I did not feel that Nicole Kidman, who did a good job with a"woman as symbol" role, and Ewan Macgregor, who was charming and credible in a role written as more of a type than a flesh and blood person were not allowed uninterrupted, non-gimmicked up screen time to give their scenes emotional richness and space. I think this is one film where I'll always cherish certain scenes from the film, but never end up whole-heartedly loving the entire picture. If the director had toned down his delight with various bags of tricks and avoided the temptation to try have his romance/satire/parody cake and eat it too, this film could have been a classic. Love that ends in heartbreak and death can rarely co-exist with looniness and glitter. I wish more filmakers would remember that. There's nothing wrong with ungilded sentiment. That said, when I see the film again, I'll probably have yet another set of opinions about it. I guess I should just be glad that anyone dares to make a film that isn't so bland that everyone can agree on it.

You Can't Take It with You (1979 TV Movie)

Haven't seen it since it first came, but remeber it fondly

[22 January 2002]

It's been years (23, to be exact) since I saw this television version of the play, but I still remember it fondly. Even though I have seen the 1930's Frank Capra version and the wonderful tape of the 1984 stage performance--which is my favorite--with Jason Robards, I still belive this is one of the finest versions of the play. The huge cast was energetic and well-cast; the message that there is more to life than the "having and getting and keeping of money" is just as relevant as ever and I think people who have only been able to see the Frank Capra/Jimmy Stewart version, which appears to be the only version available, would, if they could ever see this, be pleasantly surprised. Not only is this TV movie more like the play, but the large cast is perfectly cast and really brought out all the humor and pathos and zaniness of the work. I wish this version and especially the 1984 stage version would be released on video and DVD so everyone could enjoy this play.

Great Performances: You Can't Take It with You (1984) Season 13, Episode 4

Why oh why is this tape out of print? It's marvelous!

[22 January 2002]

I'm so happy to hear others speak of this wonderful film. I too found it at Kmart years and years ago and snapped it up! I loved this tape so much and watched it regularly until my VCR ate it. I agree with those who mentioned the great Jason Robards' performance and those who pointed out that this is more like the play. The whole cast just hums along as if they really were that family and any work that tries to get us to, as some wise person has said, "make a life, not just a living," is sorely needed. When I first saw this, I thought some of the cast playing the younger generation were a bit mature for their parts, but the heartfelt acting won me over. I still wish the characters of Donald and Reba did not have to be treated in such a stereotypical way, but the play was very much of the 1930's and this performance reflects that. What a cast of Broadway legends--Robards, Dewhurst, Rose, etc. And it was such great fun to see the wonderful Jack Dodson who was so great as Howard Sprague on "The Andy Griffith Show" get to play a different role. Why isn't this marvelous film still available on tape? So many of that wonderful cast has died since this was made in the mid-1980's that it would be nice if these actors' fans had a souvenir of their superb work. See it if you can and if you're fortunate enough to have a video copy of it, don't let a hungry VCR get it!

Promised Land (1996–1999)

Wish this show were still on the air

[12 December 2001]

I really enjoyed the family dynamics of this show and the way that the characters had to face tough problems which weren't always automatically solved by prayer. I really don't understand why this show was cancelled while "Touched By An Angel" is still on the air. This show asked difficult questions and wrestled with faith and the main characters had to wonder if they were doing the right thing. In "Touched By An Angel" when the going gets tough, an angel shows up and outlines solutions and brushes away all doubt with a "God is mysterious" or "God loves you" without acknowledging the fact that sometimes such bad things happen to good people that they are left shaken and confused and need more than platitudes. In my opinion, the acting on this show is richer and deeper and makes you think more about spirituality. **POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD** I must admit that I was disappointed when the show decided to settle in one city for its' last season and I missed that year, but now that the show is in syndication on PAX-TV, I'm catching up on the shows I missed and find that it's good to see the characters having to deal with situations that they can't just drive away from. I also liked the last season's cast additions--especially Eugene Byrd. The only part I found unrealistic about the show was how well Clare always got along with Hattie--a daughter-in-law and a mother-in-law trapped in a trailer with no major battles--now that's a miracle!

You've Got Mail (1998)

Why keep remaking classics?

[26 November 2001]

Since "The Shop Around the Corner" is one of my all-time favorite films and since I also think that the only time Hollywood should remake older films is when there is something fundamentally wrong with the original (i.e. almost fatal miscasting, a studio's insistence on an ending that belies everything that came before it, etc.), I avoided this movie when it came out in theaters. When it recently came on TV, I watched it because disliking a film one has never seen is just goofy. If I had never seen the original film on which it is based, I might have had fewer qualms about the film, but as it was, I had enough problems with the film on its' own merits. Why did the writer immediately shoot herself in the foot by having Joe and Kathleen in "as committed as these two can ever get" relationships at the start of the film? It immediately marked these characters as people who don't have the guts to end unsatisfying relationships and who don't have the character to break free from other people before moving on to something else. This hardly ups the protagonists' likeability factor, does it? The basic unappetizing feature of movie makers wanting us to root for the success of a relationship that was tainted by the inescapable fact that one character brought about what would be in real life the economic downfall of another character has been discussed far more eloquently by other reviewers, so I won't dwell on it here except to say that I really cannot understand Hollywood screenwriters. Their ideas about what constitutes likeability and success and honor are completely foreign to me. When Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are allowed to act as mature, vulnerable, intelligent people**POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD**--i.e. the scene in the restaurant when Kathleen is waiting for NY152 to show up, the movie showed us how charming and real it could have been. Most of the time though, Meg Ryan was forced to give her loveable, "I'm this generation's Goldie Hawn" ditz impression and Tom Hanks was trying to make a venal businessman seem likeable. They succeeded as well or better than most actors could, but I long for the wit and tenderness and subtlety of the incomparable and irreplaceable original. If you've ever seen the beautiful original, then you know what I mean.