Change Your Image
kcarr97
Reviews
Queen of the Stardust Ballroom (1975)
Impressive film, IMDb missing soundtrack listing
I wish that IMDb.com would have added the soundtrack listing because the songs and melodies were so beautiful.
I enjoyed the film immensely for the nostalgia, for a moment to see Maureen Stapleton & Charles Durning once more, for the lovely, wistful songs and much more.
Like many audiences, I would have appreciated the ending to be more upbeat. Maureen was only 48 yrs old at the time she performed in this film and I assumed she was playing a 50 to 55 year old lady, therefore, it was not necessary to end the relationship in such a sorrowful way because this is not a normal age for a person to pass away, although it certainly does happen.
I think it would have been more realistic to show that middle and old age is not just for dying. There is still a lot to learn and time to grow. It's been said, "It's never too late to change your life (or fall in love)".
The choice for them to end the movie as they did was not a major flaw, however.
It was still a terrific movie and one I had not seen before. Hope they show it on TV again in the near future.
Hollywoodland (2006)
Outstanding period piece, superb ensemble
Let me start out by saying my heart goes out to the actor of whom this story is about and, like all biographies, it must be taken with a grain of salt, since the story represents a time period in a persons life, and not the whole of a persons life. Having said that, I was also one of those young people who enjoyed watching the "Superman" show, but did not know, until this movie, about anything other than it was a T.V. series I watched and enjoyed . . . nothing more.
As for the movie itself, I thought it was quite well-done, in its ability to take one back to the 50's and early 60's, through visuals such as costumes, restaurants, automobiles, homes, furniture, mannerisms (conservative) and language (never openly vulgar). At the same time, all of the actors presented their characters as human beings who would act in accordance with their associated "class" positions of that time, while demonstrating motives, desires, ambitions, complacency's and vulnerabilities that many people have in common.
Keeping this in mind, the audience is left to see that all of the Hollywood folks, including the media, were just people doing their jobs and living their lives.
Although the central character is, of course, "Superman", played by Ben Affleck, who gives his character an honesty, dignity and respectability as well as disappointment and hurt by the way people viewed his career and personal life, the movie is actually about the detective, Mr. Louis Simo, who is investigating the circumstances of this tragedy. Unlike many others, however, I did not see "Detective" Simo presented as a villainous, uncaring person in this film. Quite the contrary, the actor, Adrien Brody, was able to show that Louis Simo was just doing his job, a job that took him to places he didn't necessarily want to be (for example, when he was forced to view a grisly murder scene from a different assignment he was working on, a horrifying scene that the murderer actually blames on Louis Simo, who he had hired to follow his wife).
In addition, when Louis Simo realizes that "Superman"'s mother does not really seem to care to know about what happened to her son, he actually tells her to forget about his fees, realizing that he does indeed have moral boundaries which will not allow him to accept money under certain circumstances, this being one of them.
In the end, Detective Louis Simo reflects on his own family life and his own son and the audience sees that for this detective, the "Superman" assignment was not just another job; it was a life altering experience for him, making him "wake up" and want to be a better man, more determined than ever to be a better father, so his own son would know that when he said "I love you" and "I'm here for you" that he meant it for now and for always.
I don't know what the real circumstances were behind "Superman" (it's not my business) but the story, the actors and the meticulous attention to the "time-period" detail, as well as respectful & humane sensitivity to the mystery of the subject matter, made this movie an excellent one.
.45 (2006)
New actors & actresses make this movie worthwhile
Because of my age, I did not find "showing the underbelly of New York" as something new. The "underbelly", meaning criminal underworld of New York, is nothing new and nothing shocking to someone like myself. It's shown in films as far back as the 30's and doesn't only occur in NYC. On the other hand, I can understand for a naive young person, especially one who has no understanding of the way human beings treat each other in real life, might have a learning experience through this movie, so I'm not going to knock it. For me, however, I am tired of these "criminal NYC" films and would prefer to watch more upbeat movies that show New York City in a more refreshing & favorable light.. . . . Next issue: Anyone who truly believes the character of Cat is that of a stylish, sophisticated and smart woman is deluding themselves and not facing reality. This is a woman who lived with a vicious, racist, robber and thief. She herself was helping him with his work by selling the stolen items. Furthermore, she called him names using the most foulest words (as he did) and sexually abused him as much as he did her. She also slapped him around him around too. After all of this, she has the audacity to take the advice of her friend and her social worker, which was this: Be manipulative and use your feminine ways of controlling men (no worse than a man using masculine ways to control women) to get revenge on your deviant boyfriend (using your own deviance). Now there's an intelligent way to resolve a domestic abuse problem. Get revenge because revenge will solve the problem. Wrong, wrong, wrong. . . . And finally and the only reason I can rate this movie on a high scale. The actors and actresses themselves. It is so nice to see people who are new on the scene (for me, I had never heard of most of them). New actors and new actresses. It's a good thing and it is highly commendable for any director and production company to make use of and help to develop new actors and actresses in the world of film. As much as we appreciate our old-time actors and actresses, and I do, we also love to see new people on the scene. Lots of these young people have studied acting for years. They're new (to me), enthusiastic and refreshing. You can't help but be happy for them and feel appreciation for what they are doing (even if we have heard it all before - the redundant sex, the redundant violence and the redundant crime). In this movie, however, fresh faces made all the difference in the world for us older folks. And for young people perhaps, these issues are more relevant, than redundant. I guess you can never warn people too many times about the dangers of the world.
Asylum (2005)
Natasha Richardson such a lovely actress
I did not realize Natasha Richardson was the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave and what a lovely, talented actress she is. Sounds just like her mother. Beautiful people. And did anyone notice how the gentlemen in the film, Martin, Ian and Hugh, were marvelous at showing her off? She is, after all, the center of this Anna Karenina-like drama. I don't know why folks are referring to Stella as a "cold" person though. This was not my impression at all, but to each his own. It seemed to me that Stella appeared to be too passionate about her feelings toward the institution and the people around her to the point that she sent everyone around her spinning out of control. She seemed to feel that every person around her had no compassion at all and she was living in an uncaring world. I mean, does anyone like this woman in the movie except her son and Peter? Her own husband treats her with contempt and disgust, so why wouldn't his mother? Even Edgar, right from the start, has no respect, and is unable or refuses to control himself around her, while they are dancing; what was she supposed to do? Slap him in the face and call for the guards to remove him immediately? Probably. But, no, she was a lady and carried on with the dance. And, I guess that's the last time she was a lady because at that point on she basically decided "to heck with this lady business". Which was her downfall. And the whole point of the movie. She broke the patient-doctor's wife trust barrier that is mandatory for every patient's health by allowing herself to become deluded into thinking she could cure a killer (well, to her, he was just a handsome sculptor whose life had been ruined by the hospital) by being with him and, even worse, he should be free. I'm afraid, Peter, Edgar's psychiatrist, was right. She was delusional. So delusional, she was unable to save her beloved son from drowning because she was so lost in her thoughts about Edgar. The shame of it all is that no one in that community of pleasant and cheerful women surrounding her reached out to help (Peter should have asked one of the ladies for help)her. Yes, Peter tried to. And I believe his intentions were good, but he did it the only way he knew how, as an administrator whose entire daily life was surrounded by ill people. He would have no background to deal with a woman, wife and mother, from the "real world", in any other way, except to say "we may have to keep you here" (thinking of her protection). Obviously, Stella took this the wrong way, probably thinking she would be admitted as a patient. I don't think that's what Peter would have done though. As far as Peter being "a queen", it may have been true that Peter was fond of Edgar, but I didn't get the impression that he broke the patient-doctor relationship by having a tryst with him. And Edgar blew him off anyway when he said, "What would she want with an old queen like you?" Peter was amused himself. I mean, these guys knew each other, for 6 years. They were laughing about it. No, I think he was really trying to help Stella by marrying her. He could see she really mucked things up, had nowhere to go, no employment prospects, no son to live for, truly was delusional about Edgar who truly was a danger, yet he, the honorable man that he was, just might be able to come to the rescue and save her. This is why, underneath it all, I think his underlying motive was to help her (he had a need to help) with the possible benefit that maybe they could have a relationship that would warm through his silver years and be good for both of them after all. Yes, even if he was a "queen". And Edgar? He was just an attractive guy who had been and could be a monster, but people were so sparkled by his good looks, they forgot about that "oh so dazzling" monster inside. Anyone heard of a story like that before? I did notice that the movie was dedicated to the patients of an institution, which I thought was very touching and is a clue that the film might have been about caring for the people around you and how hard it is to do that sometimes. Well done.
Sorry, Haters (2005)
Can't believe what I just saw.
I came to these boards just to obtain some type of understanding about this movie. Did I really see what I just saw? (It turns out I did). Either way, I still don't get it. Probably because it is so shocking. I'm going to have to watch it again but I can't right now. Very upsetting. I don't want to give anything away so that's all I'm going to say for now. I gave the movie a 10 because . . . I don't know why . . . The music was good? . . . It was so different and offbeat? . . . It was too unbelievable? . . . I've never seen anything like that in a motion picture? . . . . Or maybe because I like the actors/actresses and I think or trust that there was a valid point to be made in this film so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess, I'll go with the music and the valid point. On the other hand, I may never watch this movie again.
Venus (2006)
So good to see Peter O'Toole again
Speaking from my own life experience, I have no trouble understanding the movie and the character of Maurice. Best of all, was to see the elegant Mr. Peter O'Toole once again make another magnificent movie. The movie is not only realistic in exposing the trials of old age, it is also realistic in showing that love does not end with age or infirmity and in every situation among every sort of person there is a need for it and where it is needed, it thankfully will blossom, if one allows it to. In this movie, Mr. O'Toole shows himself to be a character, Maurice, who is open to love and to matters of the heart. He also shows himself to be a man who by his very nature must carry on with his life and be with the things and people he loves, rather than shut himself inside his house, oblivious to the world around him. I suspect, Peter O'Toole, is in fact, just the very sort of man, he portrays in the movie. A thoroughly attractive fellow and a kindly man with a lust and love for life and people that does not end with age, as so many people think. God bless him and his entire actors' troupe for sharing that simple truth with us through the lens of this movie. It's a very important message.