Bifocal Review of Central Park Carriage Ride
by
Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(G) The video that follows is our tribute to the horse and buggy ride through Central Park. This is a romantic adventure that has been featured in scores of novels and in movies. The cost at the time of our ride was $50 for 20 minutes and took us past some beautiful scenery. If you get to New York and are interested in taking a tour (you also have the choice of having a human being on a bicycle wheel you around) you will see a "line up" of buggies at a few locations along on the perimeter and through the center of The Park. Even though the line of carriages seems endless (and horse and carriage color preference notwithstanding), etiquette dictates that you take the first carriage in the line. The horse does the rest.
(B) I was born and raised in New Jersey, so I frequented New York and the sight of a horse-driven carriage through Central Park was a childhood dream. The sound of the hooves on the street invites a romantic picture that cannot be duplicated in print or on video. We hope you enjoy the following.
Gordon & Barbara in Paris
Here's Looking at YOU
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
BURN THE FLOOR--Sagerstrom Center for the Arts
BURN THE FLOOR—Ballroom. Reinvented/ filed 6-10-2011--Billed as “The New Broadway Production” on a limited run at Segerstrom Center for the Arts (Costa Mesa, CA)—Dancers (in program order): Anya Garnis, Pasha Kovalev, Kevin Clifton, Santo Costa, Igor Dogoter, Sasha Farber, Natalia Gorshkova, Karen Hauer, Faye Huddleston, Ash Leigh Hunter, Robbie Kmetoni, Janette Manrara, Giselle Peacock, Damien Samuel, Aljaz Skorjanec, Emma Slater, Sarah Soriano, and Gary Wright/vocalist(s) Peter Saul, Vonzell Solomon/percussionist(s) Joseph Malone, Henry Soriano/ Director&Choreographer, Jason Gilkison/ Scenic Designer, Ray Klausen/ Lighting Designer, Rick Belzer/ Costume Designer, Janet Hine/Sound Designer, Peter J. Fitzgerald/Production Stage Manager, Bruce Fossey Bolton/1hr.50min with one 15 minute intermission.
Bifocal Review by Barbara Richiusa and Gordon Richiusa
(B) I love dancing! Music and dancing are like a marriage: some are good and some are not. I found this show had more bad marriages. There were too many songs I did not recognize and some songs did not fit the dance. The ones that did work, worked well.
The dancers were non-stop. It was astounding how much energy was put forth in almost two hours. I’m sure a huge amount of practice went into this program that had at least twenty or thirty different numbers. I give them so much credit just to remember the steps of one dance let alone several dance numbers. I have to agree with Gordon as far as not feeling a connection because there was no dialog or a pause to make an announcement of what was to come or even an MC to tell a few jokes and connect the audience with the dancers. Our seats were good but not close enough to see the facial expressions that add meaning to the dance. I have to add that we did take advantage of “rush pricing” by getting our seats at the last minute for a reduced rate, and let’s face it. Sometimes when you roll the dice you miss the point. I also noticed, upon researching the past and Broadway performances, that this performance was somewhat different than previous ones. I'm not sure if EVERY show is different, but I can’t bring myself to give more than two binoculars for the performance that I saw, but I would give three for the dancers alone.
(G) This truly is a dancer’s dream. If you are interested in Ballroom or International Style competition (and according to the latest Neilson rating, and the popularity of Dancing with the Stars, many people ARE) then this show might hold your interest. For me, however, I have to say that while I was not displeased, I did see that having a Celebrity MC, wacky judges or even a loosely connecting storyline are essentials for making a dance into a show. There was absolutely NO dialogue or clearly identifiable, central characters in the nearly two hours of non-stop dancing. At a few points, the dancers came close to acting (as in the Bullfighting scene or during some of the Jive or Tango sequences) and the audience responded with enthusiasm, but a wiggling finger or a scowling look doth not a stage production make (to paraphrase Shakespeare). Don’t get me wrong. There were definitely moments and the vocalists did an adequate job in most cases. I even enjoyed Solomon’s rendition of Knights in White Satin, but I could have closed my eyes and enjoyed the number just as much. Honestly, the few songs that I recognized all seemed out of place for the type of dancing, but that is an observation that Barbara has made to me about DWTS, so now I notice it. I did come away from this with a realization that the male partner, especially in the Latin dances, is really the featured (and more important) member of the team. All in all, I have to give this one two binoculars out of four. I wanted more but was happy to see my lovely wife enjoying herself. In the end, we all gotta “dance with the one who brung us.”
Bifocal Review by Barbara Richiusa and Gordon Richiusa
(B) I love dancing! Music and dancing are like a marriage: some are good and some are not. I found this show had more bad marriages. There were too many songs I did not recognize and some songs did not fit the dance. The ones that did work, worked well.
The dancers were non-stop. It was astounding how much energy was put forth in almost two hours. I’m sure a huge amount of practice went into this program that had at least twenty or thirty different numbers. I give them so much credit just to remember the steps of one dance let alone several dance numbers. I have to agree with Gordon as far as not feeling a connection because there was no dialog or a pause to make an announcement of what was to come or even an MC to tell a few jokes and connect the audience with the dancers. Our seats were good but not close enough to see the facial expressions that add meaning to the dance. I have to add that we did take advantage of “rush pricing” by getting our seats at the last minute for a reduced rate, and let’s face it. Sometimes when you roll the dice you miss the point. I also noticed, upon researching the past and Broadway performances, that this performance was somewhat different than previous ones. I'm not sure if EVERY show is different, but I can’t bring myself to give more than two binoculars for the performance that I saw, but I would give three for the dancers alone.
(G) This truly is a dancer’s dream. If you are interested in Ballroom or International Style competition (and according to the latest Neilson rating, and the popularity of Dancing with the Stars, many people ARE) then this show might hold your interest. For me, however, I have to say that while I was not displeased, I did see that having a Celebrity MC, wacky judges or even a loosely connecting storyline are essentials for making a dance into a show. There was absolutely NO dialogue or clearly identifiable, central characters in the nearly two hours of non-stop dancing. At a few points, the dancers came close to acting (as in the Bullfighting scene or during some of the Jive or Tango sequences) and the audience responded with enthusiasm, but a wiggling finger or a scowling look doth not a stage production make (to paraphrase Shakespeare). Don’t get me wrong. There were definitely moments and the vocalists did an adequate job in most cases. I even enjoyed Solomon’s rendition of Knights in White Satin, but I could have closed my eyes and enjoyed the number just as much. Honestly, the few songs that I recognized all seemed out of place for the type of dancing, but that is an observation that Barbara has made to me about DWTS, so now I notice it. I did come away from this with a realization that the male partner, especially in the Latin dances, is really the featured (and more important) member of the team. All in all, I have to give this one two binoculars out of four. I wanted more but was happy to see my lovely wife enjoying herself. In the end, we all gotta “dance with the one who brung us.”
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Who Will Reign Supreme?
Gordon and Barbara lend their voices to the Laguna Woods BATTLE OF THE FITNESS CENTERS' quest to have some fun with the seniors at Laguna Woods Village.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS—Directed and Written by Woody Allen/Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller/rated PG-13/100 minutes
A Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(G) I absolutely LOVED it! To me this was quintessential Woody Allen, in the same way that TETRO epitomized Coppola’s career (for me) and many believe The TEMPEST represents a culmination of Shakespeare’s playwriting…That’s William Shakespeare, or, as the self-possess pseudo intellectual character Paul, played by Michael Sheen in Midnight in Paris would call him…The Bard. This might seem like a needless aside to some of you (that’s a literary term that you’ll have to look up if you don’t understand it), but understanding that what is commonplace today was someone’s insightful observation in the past and, as Midnight In Paris points out: the people who are happiest are those who accept the “now” and make today their favorite time in history...that’s something that ALL of us can benefit from. In the same way, we see in this film that the line between genius and conceit lay pretty much in our ability to relate as an audience. In other words, we are all more apt to enjoy something that we can relate to on a personal level. Indeed, Midnight is Woody Allen’s finest film in years in that HE is relating to the characters and the storyline on every level. It just so happens that most of us can also relate, and that is the genius part.
Woody Allen is in every character (as usual) and his quirky way of thinking is in every line of dialogue, theme and idea without effort. Watching this film we know his likes and dislikes about himself and the world around him as each character and situation plays out like another note of another instrument of a symphony. In other words, it was well orchestrated. I loved it. I give it the highest rating I can give: Four Binoculars!
(B) Being a huge fan of nostalgia (you can take a look at an archived Bifocal Review when we visited Nostalgia-ville, USA: http://youtu.be/NHctHseSvqc) this film took me where I love to go…the past. I would have continued on this journey to more eras gone by if I could, but of course time would not permit. I found myself in awe just as much as Owen Wilson’s character as he spent his midnight escapades with heroes of the past, even though I knew it was just a movie. Marion Cotillard was so convincing in her role (as usual) and of course, Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, could do no harm in my eyes. This film was brilliantly cast and everyone did an excellent job. I loved the music, which was lilting and set the mood perfectly. I was glad to see a Woody Allen film that wasn’t silly, but rather wonderful and amusing. The scenery is Paris, Paris by day, Paris at night, Paris dry and Paris in the rain, Paris in the present and Paris in various bygone eras. Woody Allen makes a point of juxtaposing opinions and perspectives about the city and the level of romanticism that it seems to stir in people. Kudos to you Woody. I'm not as literary as Gordon, but I still give this one a THREE.
A Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(G) I absolutely LOVED it! To me this was quintessential Woody Allen, in the same way that TETRO epitomized Coppola’s career (for me) and many believe The TEMPEST represents a culmination of Shakespeare’s playwriting…That’s William Shakespeare, or, as the self-possess pseudo intellectual character Paul, played by Michael Sheen in Midnight in Paris would call him…The Bard. This might seem like a needless aside to some of you (that’s a literary term that you’ll have to look up if you don’t understand it), but understanding that what is commonplace today was someone’s insightful observation in the past and, as Midnight In Paris points out: the people who are happiest are those who accept the “now” and make today their favorite time in history...that’s something that ALL of us can benefit from. In the same way, we see in this film that the line between genius and conceit lay pretty much in our ability to relate as an audience. In other words, we are all more apt to enjoy something that we can relate to on a personal level. Indeed, Midnight is Woody Allen’s finest film in years in that HE is relating to the characters and the storyline on every level. It just so happens that most of us can also relate, and that is the genius part.
Woody Allen is in every character (as usual) and his quirky way of thinking is in every line of dialogue, theme and idea without effort. Watching this film we know his likes and dislikes about himself and the world around him as each character and situation plays out like another note of another instrument of a symphony. In other words, it was well orchestrated. I loved it. I give it the highest rating I can give: Four Binoculars!
(B) Being a huge fan of nostalgia (you can take a look at an archived Bifocal Review when we visited Nostalgia-ville, USA: http://youtu.be/NHctHseSvqc) this film took me where I love to go…the past. I would have continued on this journey to more eras gone by if I could, but of course time would not permit. I found myself in awe just as much as Owen Wilson’s character as he spent his midnight escapades with heroes of the past, even though I knew it was just a movie. Marion Cotillard was so convincing in her role (as usual) and of course, Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein, could do no harm in my eyes. This film was brilliantly cast and everyone did an excellent job. I loved the music, which was lilting and set the mood perfectly. I was glad to see a Woody Allen film that wasn’t silly, but rather wonderful and amusing. The scenery is Paris, Paris by day, Paris at night, Paris dry and Paris in the rain, Paris in the present and Paris in various bygone eras. Woody Allen makes a point of juxtaposing opinions and perspectives about the city and the level of romanticism that it seems to stir in people. Kudos to you Woody. I'm not as literary as Gordon, but I still give this one a THREE.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
HANGOVER 2
The Hangover Part II: Directed by Todd Phillips. Starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis/written by Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong, Todd Phillips, from characters by Jon Lucas, Scott Moore/ rated R/1 hr 42 min.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(B) I’ve heard of pushing the envelope, but this ripped up the envelope and threw it away. Since the first Hangover was such a success (and very funny), I guess they had to see how far they could go before it was TOO far. In my opinion, they found out. I’m not a fan of this kind of film. I’m not too fond of a movie that has to resort to male, full-frontal nudity (and every joke and comedy situation that goes along with that set-up) over and over again as the main source of humor (although, I have to admit, that this obsession with the penis, does make this a realistic film for most men). My favorite scene in the film was the morning after “the Hangover” and the reaction of Ed Helms to finding out what he had done the night before (you’ll have to see the movie to find out what that is—I’m not fond of spoilers, either). I am also not happy with the development of Galifianakis’ character from the first film as an oddball that I could sympathize with to a guy who is cruel to his parents and has some sort of undefined mental disorder. As a mother, I especially didn’t like the way his character treated his own mother. I give this one a two.
(G) The first thing that came to my mind, as I walked out the theater doors, immediately after seeing THE HANGOVER Part II, was the punch line to one of my own, “reoccurring themed” jokes: “I hate it when that happens.” I give it a THREE BINOCS! With Barbara’s two and some kind of math function, I think that averages out to 2.5 on the binocular scale. I have to add that the scenery was fantastic and a couple of cameos (including a cigarette smoking monkey that we’ve all seen on the internet) made this as much fun (on a different level) as the first Hangover, in my opinion. I know that there is a third offering in the works. So, I have to wonder what new direction the franchise will go since it is obvious that they are trying to outdo themselves while staying true to the basic simple-minded formula of adult, male humor that make the Hangover movies enjoyable.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(B) I’ve heard of pushing the envelope, but this ripped up the envelope and threw it away. Since the first Hangover was such a success (and very funny), I guess they had to see how far they could go before it was TOO far. In my opinion, they found out. I’m not a fan of this kind of film. I’m not too fond of a movie that has to resort to male, full-frontal nudity (and every joke and comedy situation that goes along with that set-up) over and over again as the main source of humor (although, I have to admit, that this obsession with the penis, does make this a realistic film for most men). My favorite scene in the film was the morning after “the Hangover” and the reaction of Ed Helms to finding out what he had done the night before (you’ll have to see the movie to find out what that is—I’m not fond of spoilers, either). I am also not happy with the development of Galifianakis’ character from the first film as an oddball that I could sympathize with to a guy who is cruel to his parents and has some sort of undefined mental disorder. As a mother, I especially didn’t like the way his character treated his own mother. I give this one a two.
(G) The first thing that came to my mind, as I walked out the theater doors, immediately after seeing THE HANGOVER Part II, was the punch line to one of my own, “reoccurring themed” jokes: “I hate it when that happens.” I give it a THREE BINOCS! With Barbara’s two and some kind of math function, I think that averages out to 2.5 on the binocular scale. I have to add that the scenery was fantastic and a couple of cameos (including a cigarette smoking monkey that we’ve all seen on the internet) made this as much fun (on a different level) as the first Hangover, in my opinion. I know that there is a third offering in the works. So, I have to wonder what new direction the franchise will go since it is obvious that they are trying to outdo themselves while staying true to the basic simple-minded formula of adult, male humor that make the Hangover movies enjoyable.
Monday, May 16, 2011
BRIDESMAIDS
BRIDESMAIDS--Directed by Paul Feig. Starring Kristen Wiig, Terry Crews, Jessica St. Clair,Maya Rudolf,written by Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo/rated R/2hr5min
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(B) BRIDESMAIDS gives an all new meaning to “chick flick.” I got a lot of belly laughs out of this film. It was real funny, by that I mean real as in true funny. Ask any girl, stuff like this really happens. The only criticism for me was, I thought the relationship between the character played by Wiig and her male cop should have been strictly comedy with no serious overtones. I also would liked to have seen more comedy situations with the other bridesmaids like the ones on board the flight to Vegas. Let’s hear it for the girls. I recommend this movie and give it 2 and half binocs.
(G) I liked this one, but not as much as the hype that it was given. In the end, I found the script to be shallow. There were too many opportunities that were wasted and some of the subplots were forced and out of place. The story starts off great and the fast pace of the funny situations and dialogue made me feel like I was on may way to a four binocular review. There is an establishing scene where Maya Rudolf and Kristen Wiig discuss the male sexual member that will go down in comedy history along with Meg Ryan’s fake orgasm in When Harry Met Sally. That said, however it was slightly disappointing from that point onward for me. I could not but help compare this as the ladies version of The Hangover, but where Wiig and Crews tried to make it different, BRIDESMAIDS comes apart. That’s not to say that Bridesmaids is a waste of time, far from it. I just think that the heavy-handed attempt to write a movie for and about Kristen Wiig’s character prevented some comedic opportunities that were wasted. When I got through, it was as if I was already looking for the sequel so that the “secondary characters” (everyone except Wiig) could be developed and a better story could be told. I have to give this one 2 and ½ binocs.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(B) BRIDESMAIDS gives an all new meaning to “chick flick.” I got a lot of belly laughs out of this film. It was real funny, by that I mean real as in true funny. Ask any girl, stuff like this really happens. The only criticism for me was, I thought the relationship between the character played by Wiig and her male cop should have been strictly comedy with no serious overtones. I also would liked to have seen more comedy situations with the other bridesmaids like the ones on board the flight to Vegas. Let’s hear it for the girls. I recommend this movie and give it 2 and half binocs.
(G) I liked this one, but not as much as the hype that it was given. In the end, I found the script to be shallow. There were too many opportunities that were wasted and some of the subplots were forced and out of place. The story starts off great and the fast pace of the funny situations and dialogue made me feel like I was on may way to a four binocular review. There is an establishing scene where Maya Rudolf and Kristen Wiig discuss the male sexual member that will go down in comedy history along with Meg Ryan’s fake orgasm in When Harry Met Sally. That said, however it was slightly disappointing from that point onward for me. I could not but help compare this as the ladies version of The Hangover, but where Wiig and Crews tried to make it different, BRIDESMAIDS comes apart. That’s not to say that Bridesmaids is a waste of time, far from it. I just think that the heavy-handed attempt to write a movie for and about Kristen Wiig’s character prevented some comedic opportunities that were wasted. When I got through, it was as if I was already looking for the sequel so that the “secondary characters” (everyone except Wiig) could be developed and a better story could be told. I have to give this one 2 and ½ binocs.
BLUE VALENTINE
BLUE VALENTINE--Directed by Derek Cianfrance. Starring Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams, Faith Wladyka/written by Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne & Joey Curtis/rated R/ 1 hr 54 min
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(G) I am sorry we didn’t see this film sooner. There really is no excuse for it, but when it finally came to VOD we jumped on it. The story—the part of a film that ultimately seals my opinion—is very real and thought provoking for anyone who is, has been, or wants to be involved in a monogamous relationship. Barbara and I viewed this film together, and interestingly we came away from it with very different views in many regards. I felt that this was more a movie about the male character and she felt it was more about the female…go figure. Originally BLUE VALENTINE was saddled with the threat of a NC-17 or even an X rating because of some realistic sex scenes. However, for the most part these scenes are between married and/or consenting heterosexuals so, in a year of Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right, it was hard to justify this punitive restriction.
Aside from a slightly off-putting tendency to jump from past to present and back again without warning the script is one of those that (when well-acted and this one is) will stick with you for days or even decades afterwards, because it took me a few days to connect all the dots. The basic themes are that men and women are different and that while we are all products of our upbringing to a large degree, we must still take responsibility for the successes and failures of our relationships and our lives.
Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are perfectly cast and are convincing in their individual (married after love at first sight on the part of the male and slow to develop out of necessity love for the female) character’s development. My hat is off to the small team of writers for great, realistic dialogue and just enough character history to explain the actions of the two main characters. Michelle gets pregnant by someone that treats her poorly and then meets Ryan who falls quickly in love. Gosling is a good person, who grew up without a mother but is willing to support a child that he knows is not his. In fact, the strength of the relationship that he has with his adopted daughter is just one of the many ingredients that are added to a seemingly simple plot to spice up the story into a whole new dish. I give this one 3 and ½ binoculars on the insight into male/female perspectives alone.
(B) I was not all that impressed with this movie. I already knew that men and women are different. The performances were excellent by both lead characters. I felt sad when the movie ended. I wanted more for this couple and some of the stark reality disappointed me. I guess I am a bit of a Pollyanna. It made me think of the many relationships that can’t stay together because of the lack of true communication. I give it 2 binocs. That’s an average of not quite three.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Richiusa
(G) I am sorry we didn’t see this film sooner. There really is no excuse for it, but when it finally came to VOD we jumped on it. The story—the part of a film that ultimately seals my opinion—is very real and thought provoking for anyone who is, has been, or wants to be involved in a monogamous relationship. Barbara and I viewed this film together, and interestingly we came away from it with very different views in many regards. I felt that this was more a movie about the male character and she felt it was more about the female…go figure. Originally BLUE VALENTINE was saddled with the threat of a NC-17 or even an X rating because of some realistic sex scenes. However, for the most part these scenes are between married and/or consenting heterosexuals so, in a year of Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right, it was hard to justify this punitive restriction.
Aside from a slightly off-putting tendency to jump from past to present and back again without warning the script is one of those that (when well-acted and this one is) will stick with you for days or even decades afterwards, because it took me a few days to connect all the dots. The basic themes are that men and women are different and that while we are all products of our upbringing to a large degree, we must still take responsibility for the successes and failures of our relationships and our lives.
Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are perfectly cast and are convincing in their individual (married after love at first sight on the part of the male and slow to develop out of necessity love for the female) character’s development. My hat is off to the small team of writers for great, realistic dialogue and just enough character history to explain the actions of the two main characters. Michelle gets pregnant by someone that treats her poorly and then meets Ryan who falls quickly in love. Gosling is a good person, who grew up without a mother but is willing to support a child that he knows is not his. In fact, the strength of the relationship that he has with his adopted daughter is just one of the many ingredients that are added to a seemingly simple plot to spice up the story into a whole new dish. I give this one 3 and ½ binoculars on the insight into male/female perspectives alone.
(B) I was not all that impressed with this movie. I already knew that men and women are different. The performances were excellent by both lead characters. I felt sad when the movie ended. I wanted more for this couple and some of the stark reality disappointed me. I guess I am a bit of a Pollyanna. It made me think of the many relationships that can’t stay together because of the lack of true communication. I give it 2 binocs. That’s an average of not quite three.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)