WARRIOR--Directed by Gavin O'Connor/Starring Tom Hardy, Nick Nolte, Joel Edgerton/screenplay by Gavin O’Connor, Anthony Tambakis & Cliff Dorfman from a story by O’Connor and Dorfman/139min/PG-13
Bifocal Reviews by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(G) I watched this whole film—some scenes more than once—and there is no question that Nick Nolte is a great actor. In fact, I would not be unhappy with any of the Best Supporting Actor category nominations winning the Oscar at this year’s event which includes Kenneth Branagh, Jonah Hill, Nick Nolte, Christopher Plummer and
Max von Sydow. The movie as a whole was kind of a Rocky-Meets-Rocky’s Brother—story for me, which is O.K. I did like the fact that, as with the Stallone films of the Rocky series, part of the drama turned on a true knowledge of the Full Contact Fight game. One brother was a brawler, the other a strangler (I’m simplifying here). In the artificial environment of a UFC, single-elimination tournament that was center stage for the big showdown, literally anyone could win. I also liked Jennifer Morrison (of television’s HOUSE fame) in her role as the conflicted wife of one of the brothers. I give it a 2 ½. I was never bored, but I don’t think the audience is broad enough to carry Nolte to an Oscar.
(B) I knew that Nick Nolte was nominated for an award based on his appearance in this film, so I reluctantly decided to at least view his scenes. It was just Nick doing a good job at roles he does best. He is more like a character actor. He does the drunk, who messes up, then tries to mend his ways. Very reminiscent of his early Rich man Poor man TV series. Having viewed just a few scenes, that is all I can comment on.
I give Nolte’s performance two binoculars.
Gordon & Barbara in Paris
Here's Looking at YOU
Showing posts with label Barbara Rich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbara Rich. Show all posts
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Albert Nobbs
ALBERT NOBBS-- Directed by Rodrigo García/Starring Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska and Janet McTeer/screenplay written by Glenn Close & John Banville from a short story by George Moore/rated R/113 min
Bifocal Reviews written by Barbara & Gordon Rich
(B) I have a propensity toward this period in Europe. This film takes place in old Ireland within the Masterpiece Classic/Upstairs Downstairs genre. Therefore I was very comfortable with the whole ambience of this film. Glenn Close was convincing in her role, but even more perfectly cast was Janet McTeer, whose role was also that of a woman posing as a male. I left the theater wondering if this sort of thing actually occurred during that time, or if this film was based in any way on a true story. I think it will be a tooth-n-nail battle between Close and Streep for best actress, but this might leave the field open for Viola Davis to walk away with the statuette. I give this one two binoculars.
(G) The Academy—second only to their favoritism of Hollywood themed films—loves the British-connection, as well as those roles that require heavy make-up or gender-reversal. They also don’t appear to be able to make clear choices between big box office stars (which is why Clooney and Pitt might cancel each other out in the Best Actor category....but that’s another issue). In this case, I believe that Close and Streep will cancel each other out for best actress, opening the door for Viola Davis to win big for The Help. In this case, I will be happy to see the Oscar go to Ms. Davis, even though both Close and Streep were very classy in their portrayals. As for Albert Nobbs, the director’s handling of the subject matter, scriptwriting and actor’s portrayals were handled with class. Close also earned scriptwriting credits on this one, which I always like to see. There was one particular scene that stuck with me. That was when the two characters played by Glenn Close and Janet McTeer (women who had been posing as men for many years) decided to take a walkabout in dresses. Close’s exuberant run on the beach added a brilliantly decorated layer to the complex title character. You never knew if she was a completely unhappy woman pretending to be a man, or a man at the core, who had been trapped in a woman’s body for an unfortunate period of time…or a little of both. In any event, even though the film was less than two hours, it seemed longer. I hate to do it again, but I agree with Barbara…this one is worth seeing. I give it two binoculars.
Bifocal Reviews written by Barbara & Gordon Rich
(B) I have a propensity toward this period in Europe. This film takes place in old Ireland within the Masterpiece Classic/Upstairs Downstairs genre. Therefore I was very comfortable with the whole ambience of this film. Glenn Close was convincing in her role, but even more perfectly cast was Janet McTeer, whose role was also that of a woman posing as a male. I left the theater wondering if this sort of thing actually occurred during that time, or if this film was based in any way on a true story. I think it will be a tooth-n-nail battle between Close and Streep for best actress, but this might leave the field open for Viola Davis to walk away with the statuette. I give this one two binoculars.
(G) The Academy—second only to their favoritism of Hollywood themed films—loves the British-connection, as well as those roles that require heavy make-up or gender-reversal. They also don’t appear to be able to make clear choices between big box office stars (which is why Clooney and Pitt might cancel each other out in the Best Actor category....but that’s another issue). In this case, I believe that Close and Streep will cancel each other out for best actress, opening the door for Viola Davis to win big for The Help. In this case, I will be happy to see the Oscar go to Ms. Davis, even though both Close and Streep were very classy in their portrayals. As for Albert Nobbs, the director’s handling of the subject matter, scriptwriting and actor’s portrayals were handled with class. Close also earned scriptwriting credits on this one, which I always like to see. There was one particular scene that stuck with me. That was when the two characters played by Glenn Close and Janet McTeer (women who had been posing as men for many years) decided to take a walkabout in dresses. Close’s exuberant run on the beach added a brilliantly decorated layer to the complex title character. You never knew if she was a completely unhappy woman pretending to be a man, or a man at the core, who had been trapped in a woman’s body for an unfortunate period of time…or a little of both. In any event, even though the film was less than two hours, it seemed longer. I hate to do it again, but I agree with Barbara…this one is worth seeing. I give it two binoculars.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Artist
THE ARTIST—Directed by Michel Hazanavicius/Starring Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo. 1hr40min/PG-13
Bifocal Reviews by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I think it is wonderful for us to have developed movie making techniques over the past 100 years, only to now decide that if we eliminate some of the most important aspects of the progress we’ve made (good writing, a compelling story, clever dialogue, color, and sound, for examples) that we can come up with a product that is worthy of an Academy Award. I get the nostalgia, but multiple Oscar nominations? Come on! It’s like going outside to pump water from a well, when you have a perfectly good sink with a faucet on the inside of the house…and then giving a series of awards to the guy who thought that it’d be a nice idea to dig a hole out back and hang a bucket on it. I’ll get this movie one binocular, for the dog and the costumes.
(G) I admit that I was opposed to seeing this film from the moment that I heard about it. I could see, before I ever walked into the theater, that this was going to be a stinker and that I was going to have to stand, once again proclaiming why the Emperor has no clothes. Shades of Hurt Locker, once again! I hate it when I’m right, especially when I have to pay $11 and 2 ½ hour of my life for the privilege. This whole movie was nothing more than a conceit, a series of prat-falls, gags, bits, mugs the likes of which we find on every second rate sitcom that has ever been on television, sound or no sound. The Artist is completely empty of real depth, meaning or purpose. I know that Hollywood is looking at this and salivating because they are going to be able to promote their beloved town in an Academy Award winner, but I have to ask, as always…is that enough? What do the Oscars really mean when the movie industry is the only entity that believes this film is worthwhile? When we went into the theater, there were maybe 12 people. I could not stand it after the first 30 minutes and left the theater to try and find another film on the Best Picture list. That was fruitless, but took about 20 minutes of my time. I reluctantly returned to my seat, where Barbara instantly told me, “You haven’t missed anything.” We stuck with it to the end, because…well, that’s kind of our job.
They keep promoting the dog as some incredibly clever filmmaking genius, but the dog is not even nominated for anything! This movie also asserts that silence is somehow more powerful than words. I’m going to give this film what it is dishing out to the public and say that my evaluation (my binoculars), the trailer and all of my most enlightened review lines are the ones that are NOT appearing below…
Bifocal Reviews by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I think it is wonderful for us to have developed movie making techniques over the past 100 years, only to now decide that if we eliminate some of the most important aspects of the progress we’ve made (good writing, a compelling story, clever dialogue, color, and sound, for examples) that we can come up with a product that is worthy of an Academy Award. I get the nostalgia, but multiple Oscar nominations? Come on! It’s like going outside to pump water from a well, when you have a perfectly good sink with a faucet on the inside of the house…and then giving a series of awards to the guy who thought that it’d be a nice idea to dig a hole out back and hang a bucket on it. I’ll get this movie one binocular, for the dog and the costumes.
(G) I admit that I was opposed to seeing this film from the moment that I heard about it. I could see, before I ever walked into the theater, that this was going to be a stinker and that I was going to have to stand, once again proclaiming why the Emperor has no clothes. Shades of Hurt Locker, once again! I hate it when I’m right, especially when I have to pay $11 and 2 ½ hour of my life for the privilege. This whole movie was nothing more than a conceit, a series of prat-falls, gags, bits, mugs the likes of which we find on every second rate sitcom that has ever been on television, sound or no sound. The Artist is completely empty of real depth, meaning or purpose. I know that Hollywood is looking at this and salivating because they are going to be able to promote their beloved town in an Academy Award winner, but I have to ask, as always…is that enough? What do the Oscars really mean when the movie industry is the only entity that believes this film is worthwhile? When we went into the theater, there were maybe 12 people. I could not stand it after the first 30 minutes and left the theater to try and find another film on the Best Picture list. That was fruitless, but took about 20 minutes of my time. I reluctantly returned to my seat, where Barbara instantly told me, “You haven’t missed anything.” We stuck with it to the end, because…well, that’s kind of our job.
They keep promoting the dog as some incredibly clever filmmaking genius, but the dog is not even nominated for anything! This movie also asserts that silence is somehow more powerful than words. I’m going to give this film what it is dishing out to the public and say that my evaluation (my binoculars), the trailer and all of my most enlightened review lines are the ones that are NOT appearing below…
Iron Lady
IRON LADY--Directed by Phyllida Lloyd/ Starring Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent/screenplay by Abi Morgan/1hr45min/PG-13
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I know a lot of us are sick of hearing the name Meryl Streep announced as the recipient at these award shows, but the truth of the matter is that she is a magnificent actress. She did not disappoint in her latest performance as Margaret Thatcher, in Iron Lady. Jim Broadbent was also great and is very underrated in my opinion. I preferred their portrayals of the Thatcher’s personal life in this film over the political aspects. However, the film lacks something. It was too bland. It needed a shot of something, adrenaline to keep it moving. Great make-up on Streep, but I give this one only two binoculars. One binocular for each of the stars performances.
(G) I guess I’m one of those who Barbara is talking about when she said, “sick of hearing the name Meryl Streep.” She does get a lot of awards, but I don’t think she is as great as everyone says. It’s not that she is a bad actress, by any means. Unfortunately, most of the time I get the sense that she is forcing the character, trying too hard. In other words, I always feel like she is acting, rather than immersing herself in the portrayal. I have given her credit when I feel she’s adopted the character’s persona and hidden the fact the actress Meryl Streep is under the mask. For instance, in Julia & Julia I thought her performance was nearly perfect and said as much. Apparently, however she also liked playing Julia Child, so, much so in fact that the voice of Margaret Thatcher sounds comically similar in many scenes. That aside, I was also completely bored with the first twenty minutes of this movie. The whole thing really dragged for me. As for the script, nothing ever was resolved, when conflicts were presented. As for the make-up, I found it inconsistent. Sometimes you felt like you were looking at the Prime Minister. The next, it was obviously Meryl. I must say that Ms. Streep did a wonderful job enunciating with those fake teeth in her mouth. That was not the case when it came to the actress who played her daughter though. I’ll give this one a two, so that Barbara will speak to me later on. We certainly don’t see things the same on this one, but that’s the nature of a Bifocal Review.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I know a lot of us are sick of hearing the name Meryl Streep announced as the recipient at these award shows, but the truth of the matter is that she is a magnificent actress. She did not disappoint in her latest performance as Margaret Thatcher, in Iron Lady. Jim Broadbent was also great and is very underrated in my opinion. I preferred their portrayals of the Thatcher’s personal life in this film over the political aspects. However, the film lacks something. It was too bland. It needed a shot of something, adrenaline to keep it moving. Great make-up on Streep, but I give this one only two binoculars. One binocular for each of the stars performances.
(G) I guess I’m one of those who Barbara is talking about when she said, “sick of hearing the name Meryl Streep.” She does get a lot of awards, but I don’t think she is as great as everyone says. It’s not that she is a bad actress, by any means. Unfortunately, most of the time I get the sense that she is forcing the character, trying too hard. In other words, I always feel like she is acting, rather than immersing herself in the portrayal. I have given her credit when I feel she’s adopted the character’s persona and hidden the fact the actress Meryl Streep is under the mask. For instance, in Julia & Julia I thought her performance was nearly perfect and said as much. Apparently, however she also liked playing Julia Child, so, much so in fact that the voice of Margaret Thatcher sounds comically similar in many scenes. That aside, I was also completely bored with the first twenty minutes of this movie. The whole thing really dragged for me. As for the script, nothing ever was resolved, when conflicts were presented. As for the make-up, I found it inconsistent. Sometimes you felt like you were looking at the Prime Minister. The next, it was obviously Meryl. I must say that Ms. Streep did a wonderful job enunciating with those fake teeth in her mouth. That was not the case when it came to the actress who played her daughter though. I’ll give this one a two, so that Barbara will speak to me later on. We certainly don’t see things the same on this one, but that’s the nature of a Bifocal Review.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
THE DESCENTANTS
THE DESCENDANTS--Directed by Alexander Payne/Starring George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller/screenplay written by Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash from a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, Rated R/2hr14min
Bifocal Reviews
By
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I saw this movie twice. I have to admit even though I knew what was coming, I still waited anxiously for each new scene. Sometimes it takes tragedies to bring families together. Clooney experiences the transition of being a second string dad to becoming a dad who truly gets the meaning of fatherhood. With all the hiccups along the way, and there are many, he manages magnificently to not only to handle all his “messy stuff,” but to rise above the fray and end up understanding the true meaning of family, and not just immediate family. I give my kudos to the entire cast, but especially to Shailene Woodley who plays Clooney’s older daughter. My favorite scene is when Shailene while in the pool, gets the news about her mother’s illness. It’s very unique and powerful. The rest of the scenery and lilting Hawaiian music is soothing as you travel through the maze of problems, each like a thread in a tapestry of this touching story. Make no mistake, though. George Clooney IS the star of this film. This was easy. I give it four binoculars. See it! My prediction is for an Oscar to Clooney.
.
(G) This is going to be a tough awards year for me. I absolutely loved Midnight in Paris, but now I’ve seen THE DESCENDANTS and I won’t be able to pick a clear favorite. Every decision will be based on the specific category and the total number of categories won for the Best Picture award. In the case of The Descendants we see once again why George Clooney is such box office gold. Whenever there is a great script, location and director combination, he always seems to be in the mix. This film is no exception. I adored it from start to finish, and must confess that I felt a little guilty at how uplifted I felt, considering that the core of the movie was the tragic, slow death of the young wife of Clooney’s character. Last year, when I was teaching a scriptwriting class, I asked my students (as an exercise) to write a script that both meant something to them AND had something to do with Hawaiian Sovereignty. Too bad none of them came up with this script. It would have been an easy A. All the characters are well written and performed. I’m still viewing some of the contenders, but I have to say, this one is going away with some prizes. Four out of four binoculars are what I give THE DESCENDANTS, as well.
Bifocal Reviews
By
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I saw this movie twice. I have to admit even though I knew what was coming, I still waited anxiously for each new scene. Sometimes it takes tragedies to bring families together. Clooney experiences the transition of being a second string dad to becoming a dad who truly gets the meaning of fatherhood. With all the hiccups along the way, and there are many, he manages magnificently to not only to handle all his “messy stuff,” but to rise above the fray and end up understanding the true meaning of family, and not just immediate family. I give my kudos to the entire cast, but especially to Shailene Woodley who plays Clooney’s older daughter. My favorite scene is when Shailene while in the pool, gets the news about her mother’s illness. It’s very unique and powerful. The rest of the scenery and lilting Hawaiian music is soothing as you travel through the maze of problems, each like a thread in a tapestry of this touching story. Make no mistake, though. George Clooney IS the star of this film. This was easy. I give it four binoculars. See it! My prediction is for an Oscar to Clooney.
.
(G) This is going to be a tough awards year for me. I absolutely loved Midnight in Paris, but now I’ve seen THE DESCENDANTS and I won’t be able to pick a clear favorite. Every decision will be based on the specific category and the total number of categories won for the Best Picture award. In the case of The Descendants we see once again why George Clooney is such box office gold. Whenever there is a great script, location and director combination, he always seems to be in the mix. This film is no exception. I adored it from start to finish, and must confess that I felt a little guilty at how uplifted I felt, considering that the core of the movie was the tragic, slow death of the young wife of Clooney’s character. Last year, when I was teaching a scriptwriting class, I asked my students (as an exercise) to write a script that both meant something to them AND had something to do with Hawaiian Sovereignty. Too bad none of them came up with this script. It would have been an easy A. All the characters are well written and performed. I’m still viewing some of the contenders, but I have to say, this one is going away with some prizes. Four out of four binoculars are what I give THE DESCENDANTS, as well.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
SHERLOCK HOLMES--GAME OF SHADOWS
SHERLOCK HOLMES & The Game of Shadows--Directed by Guy Ritchie. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris/written by Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney/from the characters and story created by Arthur Conan Doyle/PG-13/2hr35min
Bifocal Reviews by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I had such a terrible headache when I viewed this film, so my review may be tainted. For me it was a series of one adventure, explosion, chase and disguise after another. In my head, all this ran together like a runaway train. There were great special effects, scenery and costumes. I recommend that you try and see this one, without a headache. I give this one a three because Robert Downey and Jude Law’s performances were at least as good as the first one, but I would have preferred a little more clever dialogue and less action.
(G) I’m just going to say it slowly…I LOVE what Guy Ritchie is doing in these films and I am a huge fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s great hero, in the original version. I don’t mind what was done in the television versions, but I know that there has been definitely something lost in the translation, especially in regards to Doctor Watson, that Conan Doyle may not have liked. In these latest versions, not only does Robert Downey Jr. always add a sparkle to any character he undertakes, but Jude Law’s interpretation of the Dr. Watson character is much more interesting than the bungler we’ve been subjected to on the screen until this point. I think Conan Doyle would stand up and applaud, if he wasn’t dead for more than 80 years.
I believe, also that the detailed, slow motion, prefight, blow-by-blow analysis of every fisticuffs battle is something that Doyle would also appreciate, once he got over the shock of the range of this new medium. I’ve heard this technique criticized as unnecessarily time consuming, but it allows a layman a chance to see exactly how the super sleuth’s mind is always a step or several ahead of every adversary. I applaud Ritchie for sticking with his vision. I give this one four out of five binoculars and can’t wait for the next one.
Bifocal Reviews by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I had such a terrible headache when I viewed this film, so my review may be tainted. For me it was a series of one adventure, explosion, chase and disguise after another. In my head, all this ran together like a runaway train. There were great special effects, scenery and costumes. I recommend that you try and see this one, without a headache. I give this one a three because Robert Downey and Jude Law’s performances were at least as good as the first one, but I would have preferred a little more clever dialogue and less action.
(G) I’m just going to say it slowly…I LOVE what Guy Ritchie is doing in these films and I am a huge fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s great hero, in the original version. I don’t mind what was done in the television versions, but I know that there has been definitely something lost in the translation, especially in regards to Doctor Watson, that Conan Doyle may not have liked. In these latest versions, not only does Robert Downey Jr. always add a sparkle to any character he undertakes, but Jude Law’s interpretation of the Dr. Watson character is much more interesting than the bungler we’ve been subjected to on the screen until this point. I think Conan Doyle would stand up and applaud, if he wasn’t dead for more than 80 years.
I believe, also that the detailed, slow motion, prefight, blow-by-blow analysis of every fisticuffs battle is something that Doyle would also appreciate, once he got over the shock of the range of this new medium. I’ve heard this technique criticized as unnecessarily time consuming, but it allows a layman a chance to see exactly how the super sleuth’s mind is always a step or several ahead of every adversary. I applaud Ritchie for sticking with his vision. I give this one four out of five binoculars and can’t wait for the next one.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
The Rise of the Planet of the Apes
RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES—Directed by Rupert Wyatt/ Starring James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto/written by Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver/ Pierre Boulle--suggested by novel "La planète des singes"/PG-13/ 110 mins
Bifocal Reviews written by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) It’s just a lot of monkey business to me. This film may have many great qualities, but I just don’t appreciate them. When I peel back the banana skin, there is only one binocular underneath for me to see, and that is for make-up. Other than that, I will speak no more evil.
(G) I rather enjoyed this one, though I am glad that it didn’t last any longer than it did. I was attracted to the film, by the unique perspective of the plot and some really fine acting by Andy Serkis. I don’t count myself a James Franco fan usually, but his laid back delivery suited the character he was portraying. Truly this was Serkis’ (the actor who plays the Chimpanzee named Caesar) film. His ability to relate subtle feelings through body language and with his eyes, is what makes this film worth the price of admission. Luckily, we say this one on the small screen (55 inches) for the price of a Video On Demand rental. Notwithstanding the other lens in this Bifocal Review (Barbara’s rather negative and anthropologically misguided statement above. Chimps are apes, not monkeys) I think this is worth a look. I’ll give it a solid 2 and ½ bifocals.
Bifocal Reviews written by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) It’s just a lot of monkey business to me. This film may have many great qualities, but I just don’t appreciate them. When I peel back the banana skin, there is only one binocular underneath for me to see, and that is for make-up. Other than that, I will speak no more evil.
(G) I rather enjoyed this one, though I am glad that it didn’t last any longer than it did. I was attracted to the film, by the unique perspective of the plot and some really fine acting by Andy Serkis. I don’t count myself a James Franco fan usually, but his laid back delivery suited the character he was portraying. Truly this was Serkis’ (the actor who plays the Chimpanzee named Caesar) film. His ability to relate subtle feelings through body language and with his eyes, is what makes this film worth the price of admission. Luckily, we say this one on the small screen (55 inches) for the price of a Video On Demand rental. Notwithstanding the other lens in this Bifocal Review (Barbara’s rather negative and anthropologically misguided statement above. Chimps are apes, not monkeys) I think this is worth a look. I’ll give it a solid 2 and ½ bifocals.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
My Week With Marilyn
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN--Directed by Simon Curtis/ Starring Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh with Julia Ormond and Emma Watson/written by Adrian Hodges from books by Colin Clark/Original Music by Conrad Pope/rated R/ 1hr36min
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) This film is about a week with Marilyn Monroe, as told from the viewpoint of a young assistant (Eddie Redmayne) on the romantic comedy,The Prince and the Showgirl. Michelle Williams, as Marilyn, is very convincing, showing her vulnerable side as well as her notorious role as a sex symbol. Kenneth Branagh deserves a nod for his role as the frustrated Sir Lawrence Olivier. He captures the very essence of his character. Redmayne’s innocence as an awestruck assistant plays well during this film as he leads us through this unusual week, combining the prim and proper English and the more relaxed American style. I loved, also, the musical score. I enjoyed my week with Marilyn. It was nostalgic even if it was only two hours in a theater. I give it three binoculars.
(G) This film was another unexpected pleasure this movie season. I am not sure why I didn’t expect the very best. Kenneth Branagh—who never disappoints--was absolutely perfect as Sir Lawrence Olivier. Michelle Williams’ talent (and a body double) made me forget that she doesn’t really resemble Ms. Monroe, but she does have a special something, like Marilyn, that lights up the screen. The film was so good it made me want to go out and buy one of Colin Clark’s books. Yes, he is the lucky young man whose claim to fame was that Marilyn Monroe paid special attention to him for a few days. He also wrote two books on the subject apparently (I’d never heard of him before) but I love it when a desire for the written word is the result of a film’s full and rich portrayal. Naturally, it doesn’t hurt that the central subject matter was Marilyn Monroe. I give it three and a half binoculars and predict nominations for Branagh, Redmayne and Williams.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) This film is about a week with Marilyn Monroe, as told from the viewpoint of a young assistant (Eddie Redmayne) on the romantic comedy,The Prince and the Showgirl. Michelle Williams, as Marilyn, is very convincing, showing her vulnerable side as well as her notorious role as a sex symbol. Kenneth Branagh deserves a nod for his role as the frustrated Sir Lawrence Olivier. He captures the very essence of his character. Redmayne’s innocence as an awestruck assistant plays well during this film as he leads us through this unusual week, combining the prim and proper English and the more relaxed American style. I loved, also, the musical score. I enjoyed my week with Marilyn. It was nostalgic even if it was only two hours in a theater. I give it three binoculars.
(G) This film was another unexpected pleasure this movie season. I am not sure why I didn’t expect the very best. Kenneth Branagh—who never disappoints--was absolutely perfect as Sir Lawrence Olivier. Michelle Williams’ talent (and a body double) made me forget that she doesn’t really resemble Ms. Monroe, but she does have a special something, like Marilyn, that lights up the screen. The film was so good it made me want to go out and buy one of Colin Clark’s books. Yes, he is the lucky young man whose claim to fame was that Marilyn Monroe paid special attention to him for a few days. He also wrote two books on the subject apparently (I’d never heard of him before) but I love it when a desire for the written word is the result of a film’s full and rich portrayal. Naturally, it doesn’t hurt that the central subject matter was Marilyn Monroe. I give it three and a half binoculars and predict nominations for Branagh, Redmayne and Williams.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
J. Edgar
J.EDGAR--Directed by Clint Eastwood/Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts/written by Dustin Lance Black/rated R/2hr28min
Bifocal Review
By
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I kept waiting for something in this film to be worth my time and money. It never happened. I have seen better make-up on corpses in funeral homes. It may have been the lighting and the close-ups that made it all too obvious, but seeing the pores of actor’s skin was not necessary. In fact, it was extremely distracting. I found myself dozing off, and if it wasn’t for the ONE explosion in the movie, I would have. DiCaprio, in this film is like asking Sinatra to chant in a monotone. My point is this: A great artist was wasted. Sadly, my dissatisfaction with the film in general, soured my opinions about the other great performers that were sprinkled throughout the movie. One and one-half binoculars is my rating and this mostly for set-direction and score.
(G) I really WANTED to like this film for two main reasons. First, I often am accused of being too hard on Clint Eastwood as a director. I thought that this would be a chance for him to prove me wrong about his heavy-handed direction and unnecessarily frequent close-ups without any dialogue. I also think that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the finest actors we have in America today. Too often, however he seems to take on roles that rely almost entirely on his acting ability. As we know, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “a single actor doth not a movie make.” Unfortunately, J Edgar’s full value is summed up in a final line in the film, (again I paraphrase) that we are doomed to repeat history that we don’t know anything about. In this case, J Edgar Hoover the first director of the FBI held sway over the Bureau and many presidents and related world figures for almost forty years. By now, however, there is probably not a single person on the planet who doesn’t understand the concept that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We should not have to pay $10 and sit through an incredibly boring movie for reinforcement of that concept. There are literally thousands of bloggers (and other fine, real journalists) out there who are reinforcing this tidbit of knowledge with us on a daily basis, for free or nearly free, and if I am reading a column or blog and feel as though I am falling asleep I can turn the page, click elsewhere or even nod off without feeling guilty. I didn’t have those options with this film. I give it a reluctant 2 binoculars and only because of my preconception that DiCaprio is a fine actor. I think Barbara will probably regale us on the horrors of bad make-up in combination with unnecessary close-ups in high definition, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Bifocal Review
By
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I kept waiting for something in this film to be worth my time and money. It never happened. I have seen better make-up on corpses in funeral homes. It may have been the lighting and the close-ups that made it all too obvious, but seeing the pores of actor’s skin was not necessary. In fact, it was extremely distracting. I found myself dozing off, and if it wasn’t for the ONE explosion in the movie, I would have. DiCaprio, in this film is like asking Sinatra to chant in a monotone. My point is this: A great artist was wasted. Sadly, my dissatisfaction with the film in general, soured my opinions about the other great performers that were sprinkled throughout the movie. One and one-half binoculars is my rating and this mostly for set-direction and score.
(G) I really WANTED to like this film for two main reasons. First, I often am accused of being too hard on Clint Eastwood as a director. I thought that this would be a chance for him to prove me wrong about his heavy-handed direction and unnecessarily frequent close-ups without any dialogue. I also think that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the finest actors we have in America today. Too often, however he seems to take on roles that rely almost entirely on his acting ability. As we know, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “a single actor doth not a movie make.” Unfortunately, J Edgar’s full value is summed up in a final line in the film, (again I paraphrase) that we are doomed to repeat history that we don’t know anything about. In this case, J Edgar Hoover the first director of the FBI held sway over the Bureau and many presidents and related world figures for almost forty years. By now, however, there is probably not a single person on the planet who doesn’t understand the concept that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We should not have to pay $10 and sit through an incredibly boring movie for reinforcement of that concept. There are literally thousands of bloggers (and other fine, real journalists) out there who are reinforcing this tidbit of knowledge with us on a daily basis, for free or nearly free, and if I am reading a column or blog and feel as though I am falling asleep I can turn the page, click elsewhere or even nod off without feeling guilty. I didn’t have those options with this film. I give it a reluctant 2 binoculars and only because of my preconception that DiCaprio is a fine actor. I think Barbara will probably regale us on the horrors of bad make-up in combination with unnecessary close-ups in high definition, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Puss In Boots
PUSS IN BOOTS—Directed by Chris Miller/Written by Charles Perrault (character), Brian Lynch, and 3 more credits /Staring Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek and Zach Galifianakis/PG/90 min.
B) What can I say about Puss in Boots? I just love Puss. He doesn’t have to do anything. I just think he is the cutest, most infectious little creature and when he opens his mouth to speak I am totally hooked. Therefore, I might be might a little bias. I could sit and watch his expressions all day. The other characters were mediocre by comparison, but there were some memorable puns. When Humpty is address by a scornful Puss, Puss uses his middle name, just as a parent might. He calls him Humpty Alexander Dumpty. It gives a whole new meaning to the character and the relationship. Puss's attempted hypnotic spell is also hilarious. Overall though, the story was not all that important. For me, it was all about Puss, played by Antonio Banderas. I don’t usually do this, but I give an animated feature four binoculars.
G) Come on, think about it. A tiny kitten with huge eyes mews through a few scenes then, when he demonstrates he CAN speak English, this baby cat opens his mouth and speaks with the Spanish accent of Antonio Banderas. Every time I think about that, I smile. Whoever thought to have Antonio Banderas as the voice of Puss in Boots is a genius. In fact, I was much more impressed with the whole film than Barbara, even though she already gave it a four. I thought Zach Galifianakis as Humpty Dumpty and Salma Hayek as Kitty Soft Paws were also perfectly cast. As for the story? Well, I think a lot of time was spent on making standard children’s storybook characters interesting to adults and there was enough hidden in the one liners that it worked for me. I also loved, for instance, when a young Puss brings home a unconscious bird to his adopted mother because he cannot express his gratitude in any other way except to be the cat that he is. Now, Barbara is a hard nut to crack. She’s gone out of her way to avoid most animated films except Shrek, and that led her to her affair with Puss. She even waited over sixty years to see The Wizard of Oz because it was “almost animated.” I still believe that the voice of Antonio Banderas (I sometimes go around the house saying out loud, with a Spanish accent...Antonio Bandares, Antonio Banderas, Antonio Banderas) is the key factor for her review, and I have to admit, it’s mine as well. PLEASE don’t let this film compete with a live action movie for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year, but three binoculars is my summation and that gives us an average of three and a half binocs.
B) What can I say about Puss in Boots? I just love Puss. He doesn’t have to do anything. I just think he is the cutest, most infectious little creature and when he opens his mouth to speak I am totally hooked. Therefore, I might be might a little bias. I could sit and watch his expressions all day. The other characters were mediocre by comparison, but there were some memorable puns. When Humpty is address by a scornful Puss, Puss uses his middle name, just as a parent might. He calls him Humpty Alexander Dumpty. It gives a whole new meaning to the character and the relationship. Puss's attempted hypnotic spell is also hilarious. Overall though, the story was not all that important. For me, it was all about Puss, played by Antonio Banderas. I don’t usually do this, but I give an animated feature four binoculars.
G) Come on, think about it. A tiny kitten with huge eyes mews through a few scenes then, when he demonstrates he CAN speak English, this baby cat opens his mouth and speaks with the Spanish accent of Antonio Banderas. Every time I think about that, I smile. Whoever thought to have Antonio Banderas as the voice of Puss in Boots is a genius. In fact, I was much more impressed with the whole film than Barbara, even though she already gave it a four. I thought Zach Galifianakis as Humpty Dumpty and Salma Hayek as Kitty Soft Paws were also perfectly cast. As for the story? Well, I think a lot of time was spent on making standard children’s storybook characters interesting to adults and there was enough hidden in the one liners that it worked for me. I also loved, for instance, when a young Puss brings home a unconscious bird to his adopted mother because he cannot express his gratitude in any other way except to be the cat that he is. Now, Barbara is a hard nut to crack. She’s gone out of her way to avoid most animated films except Shrek, and that led her to her affair with Puss. She even waited over sixty years to see The Wizard of Oz because it was “almost animated.” I still believe that the voice of Antonio Banderas (I sometimes go around the house saying out loud, with a Spanish accent...Antonio Bandares, Antonio Banderas, Antonio Banderas) is the key factor for her review, and I have to admit, it’s mine as well. PLEASE don’t let this film compete with a live action movie for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year, but three binoculars is my summation and that gives us an average of three and a half binocs.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Ides of March
THE IDES OF MARCH--Directed by George Clooney/Starring Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Evan Rachel Wood/screenplay written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon/101 min/rated R
Bifocal Review by
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I did not take it as seriously as Gordon, however. It just spoke to me as a message from the political arena, that no matter how honest and good your intentions are, you will be corrupted if you enter this arena. Ryan Gosling plays a political wizard in his campaign for George Clooney, but the corrupt reality of politics, forces him to make decisions against his better judgment. Gosling was very convincing as both vulnerable, yet shockingly cold and calculating. Clooney also shows both sides. Kudos to Evan Rachel Wood for her portrayal of the volunteer intern. This character represents those of us who are fascinated by politics, and drawn to it, but who may not fully understand the impact of our interacting with those who strive for power, until after it is too late. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti served very well in their supporting roles, but they always do. In fact, all the performances were great even Marisa Tomei who played the very small role a journalist. It is probably a testament to George Clooney’s ability to make the movies that he wants and cast the great actors of our time in all the roles. I recommend this film with three binoculars.
(G) If I had to pick the one thing that bothered me about most about this film—and I guess I do, since that is the condition that makes a bifocal review—I would have to say that The Ides of March was not so much a story as it was an indictment on politics in general, and that is an easy target to hit these days. On the flip side, what I liked best was watching the talented actors work their magic, without the net of a compelling story. I have to add that usually, a story about the evils of politics would not bother me at all, since I think that the state of politics in this country is every bit as convoluted and self-serving as Clooney makes it out to be, but when you strip away the obvious, there is nothing underneath the hood. “We’ve missed the boat in our political arena in the U.S.”, I think he’s saying. “A good person cannot make it in politics in this country,” I think he’s saying. “There’s a double standard for women, and about a lot of things, especially sex between consenting adults in this country,” I think he’s saying. “Even if you start out with good, altruistic intentions, you are going to get corrupted by the most corrupted aspect of modern life there is,” I think he’s saying. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of these premises. I just don’t agree with his conclusions or like, particularly the path Clooney takes to arrive at them on the screen. I don’t like the idea that we live in a world, for instance, where having sex with an intern is a greater sin than lying, cheating and buying your way to the political top. In the end, all this movie really says to me is that voters are destined to continue to make voting decisions for all the wrong reasons. Syriana did essentially the same thing. In that movie Clooney points out that narrow business interests (even those that most of us have come to depend on, such as oil) or money-grubbing politics (including the justification for war based on disinformation or campaigns of misinformation) have become the norm, rather than the exception. All the actors are excellent as this is one of the strongest overall casts I’ve seen in a long time. Evan Rachel Wood (played the daughter in The Wrestler a few years ago) shows no fear mixing it up with this stellar cast. So, my conclusion is this: If you think this is going to a literary masterpiece because the title borrows a famous warning from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (and if that fact even matters to you) then you are destined for disappointment. I give this one 2 ½ binoculars. With Barbara’s score, and rounding UP we must say this film earns three binoculars.
Bifocal Review by
Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I did not take it as seriously as Gordon, however. It just spoke to me as a message from the political arena, that no matter how honest and good your intentions are, you will be corrupted if you enter this arena. Ryan Gosling plays a political wizard in his campaign for George Clooney, but the corrupt reality of politics, forces him to make decisions against his better judgment. Gosling was very convincing as both vulnerable, yet shockingly cold and calculating. Clooney also shows both sides. Kudos to Evan Rachel Wood for her portrayal of the volunteer intern. This character represents those of us who are fascinated by politics, and drawn to it, but who may not fully understand the impact of our interacting with those who strive for power, until after it is too late. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti served very well in their supporting roles, but they always do. In fact, all the performances were great even Marisa Tomei who played the very small role a journalist. It is probably a testament to George Clooney’s ability to make the movies that he wants and cast the great actors of our time in all the roles. I recommend this film with three binoculars.
(G) If I had to pick the one thing that bothered me about most about this film—and I guess I do, since that is the condition that makes a bifocal review—I would have to say that The Ides of March was not so much a story as it was an indictment on politics in general, and that is an easy target to hit these days. On the flip side, what I liked best was watching the talented actors work their magic, without the net of a compelling story. I have to add that usually, a story about the evils of politics would not bother me at all, since I think that the state of politics in this country is every bit as convoluted and self-serving as Clooney makes it out to be, but when you strip away the obvious, there is nothing underneath the hood. “We’ve missed the boat in our political arena in the U.S.”, I think he’s saying. “A good person cannot make it in politics in this country,” I think he’s saying. “There’s a double standard for women, and about a lot of things, especially sex between consenting adults in this country,” I think he’s saying. “Even if you start out with good, altruistic intentions, you are going to get corrupted by the most corrupted aspect of modern life there is,” I think he’s saying. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of these premises. I just don’t agree with his conclusions or like, particularly the path Clooney takes to arrive at them on the screen. I don’t like the idea that we live in a world, for instance, where having sex with an intern is a greater sin than lying, cheating and buying your way to the political top. In the end, all this movie really says to me is that voters are destined to continue to make voting decisions for all the wrong reasons. Syriana did essentially the same thing. In that movie Clooney points out that narrow business interests (even those that most of us have come to depend on, such as oil) or money-grubbing politics (including the justification for war based on disinformation or campaigns of misinformation) have become the norm, rather than the exception. All the actors are excellent as this is one of the strongest overall casts I’ve seen in a long time. Evan Rachel Wood (played the daughter in The Wrestler a few years ago) shows no fear mixing it up with this stellar cast. So, my conclusion is this: If you think this is going to a literary masterpiece because the title borrows a famous warning from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (and if that fact even matters to you) then you are destined for disappointment. I give this one 2 ½ binoculars. With Barbara’s score, and rounding UP we must say this film earns three binoculars.
Monday, September 12, 2011
CONTAGION
CONTAGION--Directed by Steven Soderbergh. With Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Ehle/written by Scott Z. Burns/rated PG-13/1hr45min
Bifocal Review written by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) This movie was very informative, at times, somewhat more of a documentary about the intense research and detail that goes on when an epidemic threatens. For me, that made the film compelling and the credit probably goes mostly to the cast and the director for my level of interest. On the other hand, I could not help feeling that something was missing. I don’t know exactly what it was. Perhaps it was that there were no strong starring roles, mostly co-starring ones. Matt Damon and Kate Winslet were more significant than the other co-stars, although they were all good. Maybe it needed a little more emotional content for the viewer. Best scene: Matt Damon’s reaction after learning of his wife’s (Paltrow’s) death. It was so real and it came at a perfect time in the story. I give it three binoculars.
(G) Before I get rolling, I have to say that the most impressive part of this film is the graphic example that is given on how small the world has become. There is an old phrase on synchronicity that goes something like, "A butterfly flapping its wings in the Brazilian Jungle can cause a hurricane in Taiwan." This movie shows how ultimately interconnected all life is on our planet. That was the memorable message for me. Now, I am going to have to do something, that I don’t ordinarily like doing and that is, I have to criticize some of my fellow critics. When Contagion hit the screens this opening weekend, one barb that was thrown was that the story “had no heart.” That’s absurd! In a world that is in the throws of a pandemic virus, how could there not be heart? Within the storyline, many of the main characters make personal sacrifices to alleviate the suffering of others (on small and grand scales). For me, there is nothing that shows heart more than self-sacrifice. The script moved pretty well for me (better than it did for Barbara, apparently) and I always like it when the writer takes the time to tie up any loose ends the viewer might have. During the course of the film (this and others) Barbara was constantly pointing out that certain details hadn’t been explained. Be heartened. The final frame of the film will answer all your plotline questions. Fishburne, whose name doesn’t even appear as a star, was in his element. Damon is perfect and it’s a three way tie for best female performance with Paltrow, Winslet and Cottilard all doing what we've come to expect from them...deliver great performances. Jennifer Ehle, like Fishburne deserves an honorable mention. In the new world of digital reviews, I give this one 3.4 binoculars. Check my math, but I think that makes our Bifocal Average a 3.2.
Bifocal Review written by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) This movie was very informative, at times, somewhat more of a documentary about the intense research and detail that goes on when an epidemic threatens. For me, that made the film compelling and the credit probably goes mostly to the cast and the director for my level of interest. On the other hand, I could not help feeling that something was missing. I don’t know exactly what it was. Perhaps it was that there were no strong starring roles, mostly co-starring ones. Matt Damon and Kate Winslet were more significant than the other co-stars, although they were all good. Maybe it needed a little more emotional content for the viewer. Best scene: Matt Damon’s reaction after learning of his wife’s (Paltrow’s) death. It was so real and it came at a perfect time in the story. I give it three binoculars.
(G) Before I get rolling, I have to say that the most impressive part of this film is the graphic example that is given on how small the world has become. There is an old phrase on synchronicity that goes something like, "A butterfly flapping its wings in the Brazilian Jungle can cause a hurricane in Taiwan." This movie shows how ultimately interconnected all life is on our planet. That was the memorable message for me. Now, I am going to have to do something, that I don’t ordinarily like doing and that is, I have to criticize some of my fellow critics. When Contagion hit the screens this opening weekend, one barb that was thrown was that the story “had no heart.” That’s absurd! In a world that is in the throws of a pandemic virus, how could there not be heart? Within the storyline, many of the main characters make personal sacrifices to alleviate the suffering of others (on small and grand scales). For me, there is nothing that shows heart more than self-sacrifice. The script moved pretty well for me (better than it did for Barbara, apparently) and I always like it when the writer takes the time to tie up any loose ends the viewer might have. During the course of the film (this and others) Barbara was constantly pointing out that certain details hadn’t been explained. Be heartened. The final frame of the film will answer all your plotline questions. Fishburne, whose name doesn’t even appear as a star, was in his element. Damon is perfect and it’s a three way tie for best female performance with Paltrow, Winslet and Cottilard all doing what we've come to expect from them...deliver great performances. Jennifer Ehle, like Fishburne deserves an honorable mention. In the new world of digital reviews, I give this one 3.4 binoculars. Check my math, but I think that makes our Bifocal Average a 3.2.
THE DEBT
THE DEBT--Directed by John Madden/Starring Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington, Jessica Chastain,Tom Wilkinson/written by Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman and Peter Straughan/rated R/144 mins
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I liked this film. I think, I liked it a little more than the film Contagion, which we also viewed this weekend. The Debt, for me was more suspenseful and had fewer lulls than its competitor for box-office bragging rights. However, there was one nagging problem for me with the script. Without giving too much away, it didn’t make sense that all the inner suffering and sacrifice that went on for the characters in the film, didn’t seem to equate with the motivations that were laid out for the viewer. One character’s actions didn’t seem to warrant the decades long lie that was the core of the story. In the end, I give this film 3.1 binoculars, as I am forced to grade it slightly higher than Contagion, if only to make sense of my opening statement.
(G) Once again, Jessica Chastain stole the film for me. She is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses, as she has shot to stardom with two of the most versatile portrayals I’ve seen since…well, Helen Mirren came on the scene. Ironically, Chastain’s character in THE DEBT, is Helen of a younger age. Congratulations to Michelle Guish for the casting of this film. I’m never quite sure how much of that credit is warranted for a casting credit, because I’m not sure what a casting director does really, but in this case I say…perfect choice. For those of you who do not know the name yet (and that would be most people at this point I’d guess) Jessica Chastain also portrayed the white trash, Celia in the movie The Help and even though Sean Penn and Brad Pitt are also in the Tree of Life (which we’ve yet to see) I may now get around to the film merely because Chastain is in it. She’s been called the next Meryl Streep, but with her playing the young Helen Mirren in THE DEBT, I call her the next Helen Mirren instead. As for the other characters, well what praise can we give the actual Helen Mirren that we haven’t already? Tom Wilkinson is no slouch either. However, the story seemed a bit contrived for me and at some points it just didn’t add up at all. As a writer, the script is the most important part of the film and the story must be engaging enough to overshadow the fact that we must, at time “suspend disbelief.” In this film’s case, however I was not compelled to do much in the way of suspending. If it weren’t for the actors I mentioned above, I think the final score would have been much lower. Following Barbara’s decimal diversion from tradition, I give this one a 2.9 Binoculars. Mirren and Chastain get fours.
Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) I liked this film. I think, I liked it a little more than the film Contagion, which we also viewed this weekend. The Debt, for me was more suspenseful and had fewer lulls than its competitor for box-office bragging rights. However, there was one nagging problem for me with the script. Without giving too much away, it didn’t make sense that all the inner suffering and sacrifice that went on for the characters in the film, didn’t seem to equate with the motivations that were laid out for the viewer. One character’s actions didn’t seem to warrant the decades long lie that was the core of the story. In the end, I give this film 3.1 binoculars, as I am forced to grade it slightly higher than Contagion, if only to make sense of my opening statement.
(G) Once again, Jessica Chastain stole the film for me. She is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses, as she has shot to stardom with two of the most versatile portrayals I’ve seen since…well, Helen Mirren came on the scene. Ironically, Chastain’s character in THE DEBT, is Helen of a younger age. Congratulations to Michelle Guish for the casting of this film. I’m never quite sure how much of that credit is warranted for a casting credit, because I’m not sure what a casting director does really, but in this case I say…perfect choice. For those of you who do not know the name yet (and that would be most people at this point I’d guess) Jessica Chastain also portrayed the white trash, Celia in the movie The Help and even though Sean Penn and Brad Pitt are also in the Tree of Life (which we’ve yet to see) I may now get around to the film merely because Chastain is in it. She’s been called the next Meryl Streep, but with her playing the young Helen Mirren in THE DEBT, I call her the next Helen Mirren instead. As for the other characters, well what praise can we give the actual Helen Mirren that we haven’t already? Tom Wilkinson is no slouch either. However, the story seemed a bit contrived for me and at some points it just didn’t add up at all. As a writer, the script is the most important part of the film and the story must be engaging enough to overshadow the fact that we must, at time “suspend disbelief.” In this film’s case, however I was not compelled to do much in the way of suspending. If it weren’t for the actors I mentioned above, I think the final score would have been much lower. Following Barbara’s decimal diversion from tradition, I give this one a 2.9 Binoculars. Mirren and Chastain get fours.
Friday, August 12, 2011
THE HELP
THE HELP--Directed by Tate Taylor/With Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard/ screenplay by Tate Taylor from the novel by Kathryn Stockett/Jessica Chastain/PG-13/2hr17min
A Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) Finally, a film I can give credit to a well performed story, without benefit of special sound effects or visual effects, (not that there is no merit in that). Sometimes I am forced to give reviews on films I’m just not that passionate about. Maybe I’m just nostalgic, but this movie reached me on every level, historically, emotionally and tickled my sense of humor. Octavia Spencer stood out for me in this film. I thought she stole every scene she was in. Believe me, that is some task when you are up against such remarkable performances by Viola Davis and Emma Stone. Two other performances deserve a nod. Those of Bryce Dallas Howard, whose role calls for “beyond bitch,” and Jessica Chastain, who plays the part of a white outcast. It’s hard to give credit to a performance by someone who makes you hate them, but Bryce Dallas Howard delivers just that and Jessica Chastain, is just another worthy performance. I fill remiss in not mentioning more popular actresses in this movie, such as Cycly Tyson, Sissy Spacek and Allison Janney. They lived up to their standard, but I picked out what I thought were standouts. Don’t miss this film. I give it four binoculars!
(G) I know I may be bucking the system, but I am going to start off my review of this star-studded film by tipping my hat to Jessica Chastain for playing Celia Foote (a character of mid-importance in the film). Although her character is not integral to the plot of the film her character is artfully played and is an example of how well every part was cast and portrayed by Chastain’s fellow cast members. To say that I saw real acting talent in one of the minor characters only shows, by comparison that the talent of the major players—also the writing, the directing and the editing—were all top notch. As Barbara points out above, there was a certain amount of nostalgia attached to this film that Baby-Boomers (especially) will find encouraging. After all, the underlying theme that is being laid bare here is how racial prejudice (this ignorance was actually written into the State of Mississippi’s Constitution in the period where this film is supposed to be taking place) was no longer tolerated in our country. The setting of the film is Mississippi only 50 years in our nation’s ago. The audience was filled (in the early afternoon on a weekday) by members of “the older generation” with only a sprinkling of younger folk. Most of those who were in attendance remember standing around a television when President Kennedy was shot or even what they were doing with Martin Luther King Jr. marched on Washington. However, it’s important to note that the theater was full and the pain of racism was put into a perspective of importance that does not always get noticed. That is the importance of having white supporters in the struggle for African American equality. I liked the movie for all that it accomplished (even for the memories that it stirred in me) whether those accomplishments were intended or not. I too give this one four binoculars and am gearing up for an Oscar Battle Royal in a number of categories.
A Bifocal Review by Barbara and Gordon Rich
(B) Finally, a film I can give credit to a well performed story, without benefit of special sound effects or visual effects, (not that there is no merit in that). Sometimes I am forced to give reviews on films I’m just not that passionate about. Maybe I’m just nostalgic, but this movie reached me on every level, historically, emotionally and tickled my sense of humor. Octavia Spencer stood out for me in this film. I thought she stole every scene she was in. Believe me, that is some task when you are up against such remarkable performances by Viola Davis and Emma Stone. Two other performances deserve a nod. Those of Bryce Dallas Howard, whose role calls for “beyond bitch,” and Jessica Chastain, who plays the part of a white outcast. It’s hard to give credit to a performance by someone who makes you hate them, but Bryce Dallas Howard delivers just that and Jessica Chastain, is just another worthy performance. I fill remiss in not mentioning more popular actresses in this movie, such as Cycly Tyson, Sissy Spacek and Allison Janney. They lived up to their standard, but I picked out what I thought were standouts. Don’t miss this film. I give it four binoculars!
(G) I know I may be bucking the system, but I am going to start off my review of this star-studded film by tipping my hat to Jessica Chastain for playing Celia Foote (a character of mid-importance in the film). Although her character is not integral to the plot of the film her character is artfully played and is an example of how well every part was cast and portrayed by Chastain’s fellow cast members. To say that I saw real acting talent in one of the minor characters only shows, by comparison that the talent of the major players—also the writing, the directing and the editing—were all top notch. As Barbara points out above, there was a certain amount of nostalgia attached to this film that Baby-Boomers (especially) will find encouraging. After all, the underlying theme that is being laid bare here is how racial prejudice (this ignorance was actually written into the State of Mississippi’s Constitution in the period where this film is supposed to be taking place) was no longer tolerated in our country. The setting of the film is Mississippi only 50 years in our nation’s ago. The audience was filled (in the early afternoon on a weekday) by members of “the older generation” with only a sprinkling of younger folk. Most of those who were in attendance remember standing around a television when President Kennedy was shot or even what they were doing with Martin Luther King Jr. marched on Washington. However, it’s important to note that the theater was full and the pain of racism was put into a perspective of importance that does not always get noticed. That is the importance of having white supporters in the struggle for African American equality. I liked the movie for all that it accomplished (even for the memories that it stirred in me) whether those accomplishments were intended or not. I too give this one four binoculars and am gearing up for an Oscar Battle Royal in a number of categories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)