JelenaG890 Reviews

The Lost City (2022)

Some parts work, others don't

[7/10 · 26 September 2022]

The dialouge in this film isn't great, but the actors enhance the material. Especially Brad Pitt and Daniel Radcliffe, who are much better than what the film calls for.

Pitt and Bullock have great chemistry, in the few short times he is in the film, and I found myself astounded that they have somehow never worked together before. Considering they are film stars from the same era I found that quite surprising, and found myself wishing they'd work together again.

The Pitt and Bullock chemistry actually kind of takes away the chemistry from Tatum and Bullock, thought I have to say they do have chemistry also, just not as much as she does with Pitt. Some parts of the film also just were not really that funny, and I could have done without them.

Father of the Bride (1950)

One of those movies that hasn't aged well.

[3/10 · 3 August 2020]

I'm a bit biased, honestly, since I grew up with the Steve Martin version of this film. Yes, that film is a bit over the top at times (namely Martin Short's character) but at least with that film you get some emotion and Steve Martin's version of the father seems like he is just desperately sad about losing his only daughter to marriage and wants to be sure she isn't making a huge mistake there.

This version of the film lacks any spark or emotion for me. The characters feel more like cardboard cutouts than actual human beings. Cinema is very different these days, but there is no warmth or caring between the characters.

Neither parent is at all excited or happy when their daughter makes her announcement that she is getting married, and Spencer Tracy's character seems like the stereotypical dad of the 1950s TV and films. One that spent all his time at the office and was disconnected from his wife and family. He didn't even have a clue that his daughter was dating anyone.

By the way, the way that scene where Elizabeth Taylor announces she is getting married is beyond strange to me. Elizabeth taylor says she "Oh, I think I will marry Buckley." HUH?

The fiance in the film (don't know the actor's name and don't care to look it up), by the way, is a total dud with all the charisma and presence of stale bread, so I have to wonder why Elizabeth Taylor's character wanted to marry him anyway.

I know this film is from a different time and era, where men were still coming home from war service and it was expected that women would become housewives, but why didn't anyone think to at least give Elizabeth's character some semblance of independence- or at least a personality? The Kay character was 20 years old, didn't seem to go to school, work, or do much of anything. She spent the entire film expecting her parents to pay for her lavish wedding when her fiance was clearly far more wealthy than her family, and when her fiance mentioned going to a fishing cabin, she became whiny and made it sound like it was the worst thing in the entire world. Even in the 1950's, someone should have realized that if someone throws a tantrum when they don't get their way, they probably are not ready for marriage.

Elizabeth is beautiful in this movie, but it's not a great performance of hers by any means. At least in the Steve Martin version of the film, the daughter had a degree in architecture and was going to have a career outside of marriage.

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

Visually stunning, poor casting.

[5/10 · 26 May 2020]

It's a re-imagined classic story, so I'm sure purists will not like it but the sets, costumes and narrative are visually stunning. Keira Knightley is very good in the lead part, but her leading man, Aaron Taylor Johnson, is completely miscast. He doesn't have the charisma, charm, or acting ability to handle the role and I never believed for a second that Knightley would want him over Jude Law.

A Star Is Born (2018)

Good, but not great

[7/10 · 4 October 2019]

Okay, the elephant in the room first. It's a remake, of a remake, of a remake. There have been four versions of "A Star is Born" and I've seen all four. My favorite is Judy Garland's, since it is truly a great showcase for her as an actress and the amazing singer that she was.

It's not an original story, of course, but I give high marks for the music first and foremost. Secondly, Lady Gaga is a very good actress. I didn't really expect to be impressed by her, but I thought she was the right fit for this part. Just like Judy Garland, it showcased her as both a singer and a good dramatic actress. Also, she is quite pretty, naturally, without all the crazy makeup and costumes that she always wears.

I was less impressed with Bradley Cooper, to be truthful. He's a good actor, but I thought this film was slightly overrated as a whole. If the music hadn't been fantastic, I'm not sure you would have heard as much about it as you did.

The Lion King (2019)

Watch the original

[5/10 · 4 October 2019]

Yes, the CGI is beautiful and impressive. Everything else just falls flat. At times, you would hear the voice over but there was no movement from the CGI animal's mouth. Yes, it's not the same as the animated film, but come on, the comparisons are inevitable when you make an attempt like this.

The song Beyonce did (Spirit, I think it's called) added nothing to the story line or to the film itself... and hey, while we're at it, why was Beyonce's involvement so hyped up??? Nala isn't the main character, and adult Nala has even fewer lines than the young Nala. I've always found Beyonce to be overrated as an actress, and here she sounds like she was reciting the words for the first time. Rafiki had a somewhat reduced role in the film, which was disappointing given how he's the one who truly convinces Simba to return by knocking him on the head with a stick. It seemed like that was done to better showcase Beyonce's role as Nala.

My favorite song "Be Prepared" was completely butchered. It's such a great, powerful song by a truly contemptible Disney villain willing to do anything to get ahead. However, it was spoken instead of sung, and was terrible. Scar didn't seem vindictive here, or even evil- just permanently cranky. I like the actor doing Scar's voice (I never spell his name correctly though so I won't attempt it now), but this was completely wrong for him. The role needs an actor like Jeremy Irons, whose powerful voice conveyed so much emotion and delivery of his lines made Scar come to life. Irons was a match for the power of James Earl Jones' commanding voice- this actor, sadly, is not.

The only saving graces, for me, were James Earl Jones as Mufasa again, and surprisingly Seth Rogen as Pumba who added the necessary comedy to the role.

In a film where the animals are supposed to be so life like, this film seemed incredibly lifeless. Save your money, and watch the original.

Hustlers (2019)

Nope, sorry I don't agree with critics.

[4/10 · 4 October 2019]

The critics calling this Jennifer Lopez's best role ever must not have seen "Out of Sight" 20 plus years ago. She's okay in this film, but certainly not Oscar-worthy by any means. If she gets a nomination for this, it's will clearly be because she has never gotten one before and the Academy likes to reward people even if they don't deserve it. The film itself is only okay- it's certainly an interesting story that could have been better, but it just seems disjointed.

Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

Imperfect. In every way.

[2/10 · 27 January 2019]

This could have been good, but what a disappointment. Emily Blunt is talented, but I just don't care for her in this role.

While Julie Andrews played the character with warmth, along with a little bit of sternness, Emily Blunt's Mary Poppins just seemed snooty. She was constantly looking at herself in the mirror, and looking down on others when she wasn't gazing at herself. She just stood by, watching at the lamplighters risked their lives trying to turn back time, and then just floated up to save the day at the end. Why didn't she do that to start with?

The music was a disappointment and forgettable. I just saw this film last night, and can't even tell you what any of the songs were. While the original film offered us songs like "Step in Time" and "Supercalifragilocuous" (sp?) this one offered us silly numbers with Meryl Streep standing on her head, trying too hard to recapture the magic of Ed Wynn laughing on the ceiling. (By the way, her cameo was totally pointless. The bowl that the Banks children bring her to repair so they can save their house is never seen or mentioned again during the rest of the film.)

In fact, rather than offer us an original story with great songs, this one tries far too hard to recapture the magic of the original film- failing miserably. Lin Manuel Miranda even goes so far as to copy Dick van Dyke's memorably bad cockney accent, but he isn't nearly as charming nor is he as good a dancer.

Emily Blunt sings and dances well, but for those saying she was robbed of an Oscar nomination for this film are crazy. Julie Andrews delivered the whole package in her award-winning performance as Mary Poppins- wonderful singing, dancing, and an empathetic performance as the magical nanny. Blunt is no Julie Andrews.

The only performances worth seeing in this film come at the end. Legends Dick Van Dyke, and Angela Lansbury show up to deliver memorable cameos. Otherwise, this film is far too long and overstuffed with unnecessary musical numbers that grow dull after awhile. All in all, this film was totally unnecessary and suffers from trying too hard.

Liz & Dick (2012 TV Movie)

Three stars for Burton

[3/10 · 15 January 2019]

Well, the actor who played Burton was great. He captured his presence, as well as his voice. He did a fantastic job and that's really the main reason to see this TV film, not Lohan.

Once upon a time, Lindsay Lohan could have been a great comedic actress. In fact, she could have even had the career of Emma Stone, who even has a similar look and voice. She definitely showed her potential in films like "Mean Girls" but sadly her career has spun out of control, arguably because of her own doing and behavior. Is she Elizabeth Taylor? Of course not! Totally miscasting here, since Lohan's husky smokers voice sounds nothing like Taylor's English accent.

Sadly, at times Lohan (who was in her late 20s at this time) looked older than Taylor did in her 40s. The later scenes where she's mourning Burton's loss were especially sad, since Lohan looked older than the actress who was playing her mother. Lindsay Lohan was gorgeous back in the day, but time and her addictions have not been kind to her. Earlier in the film, with the correct hairstyle and clothes, she looked a little like Elizabeth Taylor, but really she looked more like someone on her way to a costume party dressed as Elizabeth Taylor. The costume and makeup departments really did a good job, I must say.

Is this the worst television movie ever? Maybe not, but it is quite entertaining to watch it, since it is unintentionally hilarious.

Vice (I) (2018)

Regardless of how you vote, as a filmgoer you deserve better.

[2/10 · 15 January 2019]

How could a movie about Dick Cheney, arguably one of the most controversial and powerful men in Washington ever, come across as so dull??? I never usually fall asleep at movies, yet I found myself struggling to stay awake with this one. Re-watching a "Saturday Night Live" sketch with Will Ferell and Darrel Hammond as Cheney and Bush would be more compelling than this film.

The filmmaker obviously hates Cheney, and does not even try to humanize the man, unlike Oliver Stone did with "W" a few years back. I knew very little about Cheney's life before the vice presidency, and after seeing this film I don't know much more than before, nor do I have a greater understanding of what made this man take the actions he did. We only saw Cheney from the time he was in his late 20s, and never got a sense of his childhood or what may have set the foundation for his later life. It's not so much a biographical film as it is a chaotic film juxtaposed with some other random elements, including the film's irritating narration.

Christian Bale is a talented actor, and unrecognizable through most of the film, so props to the makeup department there. However, he offers little depth to the man and you're left wondering why you should really even care about Cheney, or his legacy, especially if he really is just a total jerk as this film portrays him to be. Sam Rockwell does a good job with his portrayal of George W., but Amy Adams (who I've loved in other movies) is given very little to do as Lynne Cheney, who in reality is a very educated and interesting person in her own right.

Regardless of how you vote, as a film goer, you deserve better than a film with such an obvious agenda against its subject.

Ocean's Eight (2018)

Good cast in a dud of a film.

[3/10 · 16 September 2018]

Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Sandra Bullock, Sarah Paulson, Rhianna, Helena Bonham Carter. All arguably talented people, who have charmed in other roles and mediums. What went wrong???

For one thing, this script was terrible. You can't blame this film being a dud on sexism (like many people probably have). A bad script would be a bad script no matter the gender of the actors starring in it. The characters are also neither compelling charismatic, or charming, which the characters in George Clooney's Ocean's 11 were.

They did far too much with this film, from the 10,000 celebrity cameos (hey look, there's Marlo Thomas! Hey look, there's Elliot Gould! Oh, look, Kim Kardashian and Heidi Klum!) to the overblown heist plot. They threw everything but the kitchen sink into the mix, and yet the plot was still underdeveloped.

There was also a MAJOR plot hole that somehow no one picked up on. Early on, it was established that Anne Hathaway's priceless diamond necklace could only be taken off by a special magnet. Yet, when the heist happens and the necklace apparently just "fell off" into the water, somehow no one thinks to question how that would have been possible.

Lazy script writing at its finest.

The cast members are all so talented, and deserved a better script. In my opinion, Anne Hathaway fares way better than Blanchett or Bullock, who in my opinion, just fades to the background despite being the film's lead. Hathaway shows far better comedic timing, and overshadows her co-stars. It was good to see her back on the screen.

I just really hope they won't do a sequel to this turkey. You're better off not paying to see this in theaters. I'm so thankful I rented it on demand and didn't spend $20 to see it.

American Woman (2018)

Was the 1970s LA this boring???

[2/10 · 7 August 2018]

I'm not old enough to remember the 1970s, but I seriously doubt it was this boring. I watched two episodes, in anticipation of seeing Alicia Silverstone back on TV, but I've rarely been this bored by a TV show.

The costumes, sets, and 1970s themes are cool, but that's not enough to make up for an overall weak story line. The show wants to be like "Mad Men," but it just does not cut it. There are far better shows than this that take place in the 1970s (The Deuce or the 2nd season of Fargo, to name two)- I suggest you check those out instead!

Romeo & Juliet (II) (2013)

Not terrible.

[4/10 · 8 March 2018]

I'm not a purist when it comes to films based on classic literature, but this "Romeo and Juliet" is overall lacking in its execution. I think the problem is it doesn't really feel like Romeo and Juliet, because it only uses some of the lines from the play. They could have been any two teenagers from rival families in period costumes who fell in love and spoke to one another. They could have changed the names to Robert and Julia, and it would have made sense. Slapping Shakespeare's name on this film was completely misleading.

The acting isn't terrible, and I don't think Hailee Steinfeld was as bad as people say she was, but this isn't a film I'd watch again either.

Red Sparrow (2018)

Lawrence needs a new agent.

[1/10 · 5 March 2018]

I'm not sure what Lawrence is thinking with the films she's choosing to do now, but maybe she just doesn't care. "Passengers" was a poorly conceived film, but this one is far worse.

This is nothing more than a skin flick, with tons of gratuitous violence. If you're not into that, and don't feel like you need to see Lawrence prance around naked, you've been warned this is NOT the film for you. Watching this, one has to question why Lawrence (a self-professed feminist) would choose to be a part of a film that glorifies such acts as brutality towards woman. This isn't art, parts of it come off as soft core porn and the violence certainly could have been toned down.

I do think Lawrence is a talented actress, but it's clear she either needs a new agent, or someone has been giving her some really bad career advice.

The Musketeer (2001)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[1/10 · 3 March 2018]

I don't remember much about the actual story line of this film, just that it was terrible. Bad acting, awful editing, and kung fu musketeers? Nope, not working. I think they were trying to cash in on the success of "The Matrix" and other films of that genre that were hot at that time. You're better off blocking this film from your memory. I pretty much have.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

One of those Best Picture winners that just doesn't hold up.

[3/10 · 26 February 2018]

Well, it's been almost 20 years since this film won Best Picture, and I happened to catch it on TV. I was about 11 when this film came out, so I'd never seen it.

Now, having seen it, I have to say it's cute but that's about it. I don't see the huge appeal of it, aside from the costumes and Judi Dench being in the film for about 10 minutes. It's not a film that I'll remember, and certainly (IMO) not worthy of a Best Picture Oscar, especially over films made at the same time like "Saving Private Ryan," which is a film that I will always remember seeing because it made such an impression. This, sadly, did not make much of an impression and I can see why people say it didn't deserve the big prize.

I also don't get the Best Actress Oscar for Gwyneth Paltrow. Personally, I've always found her too pretentious to be appealing on screen, but I'll admit she is talented. As for Best Actress... nah. There are about 100 other actresses who could have played the role just as well, so I can't watch this and say, "Oh wow, this is such a great part for her. What a performance!" Neither her nor the film are memorable, and I'd imagine she was given the award more so for being popular at the time, and not based on the strength of her actual performance.

I've seen "Elizabeth" which was released the same year, and I think the very talented Cate Blanchett deserved the Oscar so much more than Paltrow. Then again, Blanchett has won two Oscars since this film and Paltrow's career declined not long after her win, so obviously we don't need to really debate who the better actor is.

I'd say watch this film, and then decide for yourself what should have won the Oscar. Then watch "Saving Private Ryan" and see which you remember.

Suits (2011–2019)

I think they delibrately killed this show.

[2/10 · 16 January 2018]

A friend of mine is a fan of this show, and encouraged me to binge watch it. The first season the show was intelligent, and interesting. The second season wasn't as good as the first, but was enough to keep going. It all went downhill from there. The writing became more and more sloppy, and the characters became less and less likeable with time, instead of showing any actual growth. The most recent season of the show? Don't even bother.

I honestly think they were deliberately trying to kill this show season by season. It's stylized to be like a "Mad Men" type of show, but on "Mad Men" the characters (mostly) evolved with time. Here, the majority regress until they seem like cardboard cutouts, instead of actual characters. Louis and Donna are the only decent characters, the rest are throwaways- and I like Gina Torres! I blame the writers. I think they got lazy after the first two seasons.

Sex and the City (1998–2004)

Like with everything, it had its time and place.

[3/10 · 16 January 2018]

When I was in college, my roommates and I would get together and watch this on DVD over a glass of wine. Keep in mind, it had been off the air for about four or five years by the time we were doing this.

When I was 20, I loved the glamour of the show and how Carrie and Co. spoke about sex, which was frank and groundbreaking for its time.

Now, a decade later, watching this show I see it a little differently. Carrie annoys me a little bit more than she did back in 2008, and I find her sense of priorities irritating. She couldn't afford her apartment, but hey, she has great shoes! Throughout my 20's, the economy was still recovering and buying luxury items like Manolos was something that was never on my radar so that irks me about her. Now, I also find the way she treated Aidan kind of appalling. The guy was head over heels in love with her, but nope she didn't want him. Then again, I'm not a fan of Chris Noth, so I never liked his character anyway.

Of all the women, I probably relate most to Miranda now. Charlotte is annoying and lives in some kind of fantasy land I don't relate to, and Samantha.... yeah, I won't even go there with how much I don't relate to her.

Like with any show, Sex and the City had its time and place. I don't think it would do very well now if it aired, but at least we have a ton of great quotes to take away from this series.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

I feel dizzy after watching this

[2/10 · 11 January 2018]

Okay, so I can appreciate creativity and changes to a classic story as much as the next person.

But half the time with this film, I wasn't even sure what I was watching. The editing made me completely dizzy, jumping around at such a frantic pace I was wondering if the characters were all on drugs and having hallucinations. They cut from one montage to another, which was confusing and headache inducing.

Not sure why they would have gone with that choice. It was almost as if Guy Ritchie thought that if he kept the film moving at a breakneck speed no one would notice the film was so poorly written.

I won't spoil the actual storyline of the film, because the editing of this was so distracting I don't actually remember much about the actual storyline. This film had a lot of things going for it, including talented actors, but in my opinion everyone involved with this film deserved better.

Grease 2 (1982)

This deserves its reputation

[1/10 · 28 September 2017]

Okay, so was the original Grease the greatest movie of all time? Of course not. But at least it was fun, had catchy songs, and a good cast.

Grease 2 has none of the above. The problems with this movie, as well as why it bombed so badly are as follows, in my opinion.

1. This movie had no star power. the original "Grease" had John Travolta, who had just come off doing "Saturday Night Fever" and had been on "Welcome Back Kotter." It also had Olivia Newton-John, at the time one of the biggest recording artists in the world. Jeff Conaway was on "Taxi" and had been on Broadway. Stockard Channing was also known for film and TV. Who did "Grease 2" have? Maxwell Caufield, who was unknown, and Michelle Pfeiffer, also unknown at the time.

2. The story line and characters. The "Grease" sequel had a bad girl and good boy meeting and going against the high school social hierarchy, opposite of the first film. That would have been fine, if both of the characters had been willing to change for each other, as Danny and Sandy both were. But they weren't, and none of this movie made much sense. Why did they start prepping for an end of the year talent show on the first day of school? On top of a poor story line, not one of the characters were even likable. If you have unknown actors in a film, you need a story line, or something, to attract them.

3.The songs. The original "Grease" film had songs that are still played on the radio today. This film has classics (haha) like "Reproduction" and "Cool Rider." Yeah, I never hear those songs on the radio these days.

4. The direction. They hired a former choreographer to direct this film instead of someone with actual experience directing a film.

There are some movies that are so good they're bad. "Grease 2" is not one of those films. It's just plain bad.

Since You Went Away (1944)

This one has not aged well.

[3/10 · 1 May 2017]

Some films hold up very well, even with time. Examples are Citizen Kane, All about Eve, The Maltese Falcon, Metropolis, Sunset Boulevard, It happened one night, among others. Others, while well-regarded during their release, just don't. "Since You Went Away" is one film that has not aged well at all.

For one thing, the doomed "teenage" lovers are way too old for their roles- they were 25 and 31 and both kind of look it. I might be biased, since I have never thought very much of Jennifer Jones as an actress to start with, but I cannot believe she was nominated for this film. During the entire film, all she did was laugh girlishly and bat her eyes- first at Joseph Cotten, and then at Robert Walker, ironically her estranged husband at that time. Jones was decent in "Song of Bernadette" and making this film right after was a huge step backwards for her in my opinion.

Robert Walker is a better actor, in my opinion, than Jones, but this role is pretty much thankless and does not showcase any of his talents. In fact, he pretty much looks miserable throughout this film, but I can't say I blame him. If I had to do a movie and kiss my ex-husband, I'd be miserable too.

I'm not exactly sure what the point of Joseph Cotten's character was. He just creepily hangs out at their house, clearly lusting after his best friend's wife, while also well-aware of the older daughter's crush on him. I wish they had just left him out of this film- he really added nothing to the story and just came off as a giant leech.

Shirley Temple, all grown up here, also does not add much in her role. She also still has the same, whiny baby voice she did at the age of 6. What worked for her as a child definitely did not work for her as she got older.

Colbert is kind of the same as she was in any role- dignified, and elegant. But the role of mother does not seem to be one that really suited her.

Some of the other performances hold up better. Woolley fares probably the best, and Agnes Moorehead is also great in her supporting role. Unfortunately, Alla Nazimova, one of the greatest silent film actresses and accomplished stage actress, is wasted in a nothing role where she delivers a "rah-rah, yay for the red, white, and blue!" speech.

David Selznick certainly knew how to cater to an audience, judging by the massive success that this film was at the time of its release. However, it is just not a film that has held up with time. Instead of feeling patriotic or uplifted when I saw this film, I felt like I had to visit a dentist because of all this film's saccharine message. It is also far too long, but it fits with the "epic" nature of many Selznick films.

All About Eve (1950)

You cannot watch this only once

[1 May 2017]

There are not many films that I can just watch over and over again, and still appreciate. I'm also someone who is usually critical of even the most iconic of films- don't believe me? Well, everyone in my family seemed to love "The Quiet Man" yet I absolutely hate it! "All About Eve" though is a film that I can still watch over and over. Nearly everything about this film is perfect- Bette Davis is iconic as the fading actress, Ann Baxter is appropriately despicable as the young actress yearning (and eventually succeeding) to replace her, and Celeste Holm, Thelma Ritter are wonderful as, respectively, Davis' supportive best friend and the maid who does not quite trust her employer's new protégé. Marilyn Monroe has a small role as a graduate of the Copacabana School for Dramatic Arts, and Barbara Bates plays a crucial role at the film's conclusion.

However, George Sanders steals the show for me each time as the diabolical critic. His voice always gets me, and I want to watch what he will do each time.

As much as I like Judy Holliday, I do think Bette Davis (or Gloria Swanson) should have won the Oscar for this film. Both of those were powerhouse performances while Holliday's was comedic and did not require much depth in my opinion. But I digress.

'All About Eve" is a film that you should not miss.

So Proudly We Hail! (1943)

Outstanding Veronica Lake

[8/10 · 1 May 2017]

Let me start by saying that this is quite a unique film. Unlike many other war movies of the time (the overly syrupy and sentimental "Since You Went Away" immediately comes to mind), this film is by no means a propaganda film.

There is no "go, America, go" attitude anywhere in this film, nor are any of the true horrors of the war sugar-coated. This film puts a spotlight on what BOTH men and women who fought for our country were going through. Sadly, many people today fail to take into account the contributions of women to the second world war. Many women did face the horrors of war like men did, and did not only sit at home keeping the fires burning. Hollywood rarely made films like this- in most of the popular war films of the 1940s, the men are off at war while women are home raising children.

Paulette Goddard was nominated for an Oscar, but to me the real standout performance of this film came from Veronica Lake. Today, Veronica is more often remembered for doing lots of film noir, her troubled personal life and iconic hairstyle, but her performance here showcases her true talent as a dramatic actress. It's a shame she's not remembered for performances like this- she really did have a fascinating screen presence. Whenever she's on screen here, I keep wanting to watch her.

This is definitely not your typical war movie of the 1940s. To me, it seems more authentic, and far more real than most others. All in all, it is worth viewing.

Fifty Shades Darker (2017)

Laughably Bad!

[1/10 · 28 April 2017]

Okay, so my expectations were not high since the first one was not exactly "Citizen Kaine" nor were the books literary masterpieces, but this film is laughably bad, and surprisingly, rather dull!!

So, what exactly is wrong with this film?

Where to even start... the screenwriter, for one, who seems like they just took up writing for fun a few weeks before shooting the film. Some of the lines are absurd - and not even original!!! Look out for a line in the film stolen, verbatim, from Dakota's mom Oscar-winning hit film, "Working Girl." The biggest difference between those two films? Melanie Griffith was Oscar- nominated for her role in "Working Girl." Dakota Johnson will be lucky to get a Razzie award.

A high school student who picked up any knowledge of sex or anatomy from science class, or who had any grasp of the English language, could have done a better job writing this script. The new director also seemed in a real hurry to crank this film out-everything is so rushed and confused.

Probably the most obvious issue is the acting. Jaime Dornan was good in "The Fall" but in this role, he has all the charisma of a cardboard box. He's supposed to be the man of every woman's dreams??? I'd be surprised if after this film franchise wraps he ever manages to land a good role again- in my opinion, this film and this role has pretty much wrecked any chances he'd have of a strong career. Charlie Hunnam is probably thanking his lucky stars he managed to get out of appearing in this wreck! To go from "Sons of Anarchy" to this mess of a franchise would have been a huge mistake.

Dakota Johnson fares a little bit better than Dornan, but honestly that is not saying much since he is so unappealing in this role. The two also have ZERO chemistry on screen! For a film that's supposed to be some kind of great sexy film, these two actors have absolutely ZERO chemistry. Rather than feel any kind of spark when they were on screen together, I found myself sometimes cringing.

Kim Basinger is a good addition to this film, and she is still radiantly beautiful and appealing on screen, but she is given very little to do here. It's too bad that she wasn't the lead- I was more interested in her character than I was in either of the lead characters.

Unless you are a huge fan of the books, I'd recommend waiting to watch this on basic cable.

An Affair to Remember (1957)

Watch the Irene Dunne Version.

[5/10 · 21 April 2017]

Okay, so I don't hate this movie. However, it does pale in comparison to the 1930s version with Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer. Heck, in even the 1990s remake with Annette Benning and Warren Beatty the two leads have better chemistry. In "Sleepless in Seattle", which features the film, Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks have more chemistry in their limited screen time together.

For me, Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant just don't have that much on screen chemistry, which is odd considering this film's reputation as one of the greatest on screen romances. Grant even had more chemistry with Katherine Hepburn and Grace Kelly (who by the way, I cannot stand as an actress!) Grant plays pretty much the same character he played in most of his movies- a wealthy, charming, suave and sophisticated playboy. Although he was clearly getting on in years by the time this film was made, he still had the same charisma he always did.

To me, Kerr was a lovely lady but she pretty much always played one-dimensional English Rose type characters. Sort of like Grant, she seemed to play the same kind of role in every film like Grant did. Here, Kerr plays a singer. Hmm... yet, she had to be dubbed here just like in "The King & I." Odd that back in the day, producers would cast an actor who couldn't sing to play a singer. Seems like it would have been more cost-effective to just cast an actor who could actually sing in a film that required singing. But I digress...

Anyway, several things about this film bother me. One is how ungrateful Kerr's character is to her long-suffering boyfriend, Ken, who does so much for her throughout the film, including support her both emotionally and financially. I'm sure I will have people disagree with me, but in my opinion, she should have picked him at the end of the film, but of course (MAJOR SPOILER HERE) she's going to pick Cary Grant because, well, he's Cary Grant. The scenes with the kids singing were also rather annoying, and kind of pointless.

Anyway, I wouldn't tell anyone not to see this film since again it is not terrible or anything. However, I would advise you to see the Charles Boyer/Irene Dunne version first.

Gigli (2003)

Ode to Awful

[1/10 · 15 April 2017]

Okay, so if you are looking to kill a rainy Saturday inside by watching a movie and this one is on- take my advice and SKIP IT!!!!!!!!!

There are some movies which fall into the "so bad they are good" category, like "Showgirls," "Duel in the Sun," etc. "Gigli" is not one such film. It has the reputation of being one of the worst films of all time, and that reputation is well-deserved. Usually, I can sit through a movie at least once even if I hate it. This is one movie that I could not sit through.

An afternoon in the dentist's chair is more appealing to me than watching this film, and I am not kidding.

The issues with this film are numerous, and have been well-documented. One, is the complete lack of chemistry between the two leads. Considering that they were a mega-couple at the time and inspired one of the most famous couple names of all time, you'd think J-LO and Affleck would actually have chemistry on-screen. Well, you would think so, but you would be very, very wrong. It's been years since Bennifer was a thing, but the two have zero chemistry as a couple on-screen and you have to wonder where their supposed passionate love affair was reflected, because there's no sign of it here.

The title is another issue. For years, I thought the name of this was "Giggly." Well, color me surprised when I found out it was not! Live and learn.

I'm not sure why exactly two Oscar winning actors like Pacino and Walken are in this film. Did they lose a bet? Did they need money at the time? Did they not read the script before agreeing to be in this? I found myself pondering these questions so much that I could not even focus on the film itself- although judging by what other people have said, I didn't really miss too much.

I cannot help but feel sorry for director Martin Brest here. The guy went from directing quality films to directing this mess, and has not directed anything since. He also wrote the film, but creative control was taken away from him here so it was not the film he'd originally envisioned. So I give him a pass there.

So, my final advice when it comes to "Gigli": eat glass instead of watching this. It will be less painful.