scorchingsirius Reviews

Vertical Limit (2000)

Pointless

[1/10 · 10 November 2014]

This movie confused me. In the first scene Dad urges his kids, played by Chris O'Donnell and Robin Tunney, to cut the rope holding them together and send him plummeting to his death off the side of a mountain--because why should three die if two could live. Fair point, which is echoed in the film's climactic scene. However, when Robin Tunney's character and two others become trapped on a mountain with little chance of survival, Chris O'Donnell and five others set out to save her on what ultimately becomes a suicide mission for four of the six. As only Robin Tunney's character is saved from the three trapped on the mountain, that means four people died so that one could live.

So is the point of the movie that some lives are more important than others--in that sometimes four people have to die to save one life? Or did the movie completely miss the point that it was trying to make--that sometimes you have to let people die to minimize the ultimate amount of casualties? Four people would've been alive if Chris O'Donnell's character had just let his sister die. I think the message got lost.

I doubt anyone who reads this will find this review helpful. But seeing as it contains spoilers, I'd imagine the people reading it probably have seen the film anyway to complain with me.

RFK (2002 TV Movie)

Doesn't do enough

[5/10 · 27 June 2010]

An interesting character study that could've done so much more, but ends up kind of having tunnel vision. Linus Roache's portrayal of RFK as the mourning brother becoming his own man is well done, but the script doesn't do enough justice to the levels of complexities surrounding his grief and ultimately his becoming a champion of the minorities and the downtrodden. Every issue seems the same repetitive cycle. First there is a call to action by RFK's advisers -- who are generally indistinguishable and more or less interchangeable, in that there is little character development on anyone's part outside of RFK himself. Then Bobby dithers on whether he should take a stand in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" way. At some point Jack's ghostly presence chastises him. And after another scene of Bobby interacting with the people, he suddenly decides to make the decision that had always been suggested TO him. Wash, rinse, repeat. You get the feeling that Bobby doesn't so much come off as a man of strength of forming his own convictions, but one of a wild pet that has to be trained to think like a politician. Perhaps that was the point; I'm not sure.

That being said, if that were the film's only flaw, I'd have probably been okay with it. The problem is, it seems to gloss over everything in his life that isn't his political career. As mentioned before, there is little to no character development outside of RFK himself. His wife, Ethel, comes off as glib and shallow -- and no mention is made of the fact that she was probably pregnant through half the time period the film takes place; Bobby and Ethel Kennedy had 11 children (one was born after his death), and other than a shot of two or three of them from afar once or twice, little mention is made that they are even parents. (Not to mention that he became sort of a surrogate father to JFK's kids, as well.) Shouldn't they at least be seen around the house more, or on the campaign trail with him? The film would have also done well to focus more around events and actions, and less around time spent in RFK's own headspace. One of the other reviewers mentioned the 1964 Democratic Convention, where people stood and cheered for him for over 20 minutes before he could speak -- the cheering overwhelmingly, of course, being for his brother's memory and not for RFK himself. I agree. Instead of Bobby simply saying those things after nondescript events, show it. Or the fact that RFK so soon declared his candidacy for the Presidency after Eugene McCarthy won the New Hampshire primary (they only mention beforehand that he's running); the movie makes it seem like he arbitrarily came to the decision. Showing just how much he had to catch up, the time frame we're talking about, would've added a whole new level of complexity to his character -- how sometimes historical events WERE what forced him to make a decision, but he rose to the occasion above them.

Lastly, this film also suffers because people really have to know their history to understand what's going on. This is the first film I've ever seen where the uneducated viewer has to pay attention to the opening credits to get a sense of context, since the film opens with JFK's assassination. Names and events were thrown around as though everyone knew exactly what or who they were and why they were important; if one didn't know that RFK worked for Joseph McCarthy or prosecuted the Teamsters' Union, it might be hard to pick up through their rapid-fire conversation; the film sort of throws the viewers into this universe and forces them to work backward. A flashback or two, or an extra scene or two before JFK planned to go to Dallas illustrating better the kind of man Bobby was before November 22, 1963, and the kind of bond the brothers shared would've made the rest of the film more powerful. Instead, it's all idle chatter.

It wasn't a bad film, and the concept worked; it just could've executed it better in so many ways by slightly expanding its scope and glossing over what seems important.

Jack & Bobby (2004–2005)

The seeds have been sown for greatness...

[20 September 2004]

I was really drawn by the premise of this show, as well as by its loose allusions to the Kennedys, and funny, even though the acting leaves a bit to be desired and the dialogue sometimes approaches the Dawson's Creek zone. We've seen these situations before on the WB -- check out, for instance, one of Courtney's first lines when Jack tries to pick her up in the opener -- "you don't know anything about me" -- obviously implying she has some deeply-buried skeletons in the closet that will be uncovered in a later episode; very much like Andie McPhee's introduction to Pacey in Dawson's ... recycled material. However, unlike Dawson's Creek, which I watched religiously for three-plus years out pure amusement (you knew you couldn't take a show seriously in which every other line was some long-winded diatribe), there's something deeper, something more fascinating about "Jack and Bobby" that makes me keep coming back.

I believe that lies in the actual characters -- in some weird way, you really care about them. Maybe part of that has to do with the relationships -- they just seem so real. Jack has a strange love-hate relationship with his brother that actually reminds me very much of the relationship between my own brothers. Jack wants to push Bobby away because he's sick of being trailed by his annoying little brother, but at the same time subconsciously longs for his company, though denyingly embarrassed to say so. Grace is fighting to find the balance between smothering her sons and letting them do what they want. Some of the previous reviewers have criticised the show for not being explicit enough -- that Jack continuously refers to Bobby being "weird" but Bobby's actions don't support the accusation -- but they should look twice. How many of the outcasts in high school were truly those one-dimensional freaks you see portrayed too frequently in bad sitcoms? More often, the line between fitting in and being "different" is all too subtle -- I find it most interesting that Bobby is such a naive do-gooder at this point, he can't even internally comprehend what makes him so "different"... and because he can't see it, you can bet that it'll take time for the casual viewer to see it, too.

Another reason may be the flash-forwards -- you know this is not just some cheesy drama focusing on teens because they won't stay eternally young; everything they do in the here and now influences the people they will someday become, and the pieces are slowly and subtly being exposed, one by one. My greatest fear for the show is that, because we're learning about the future as we're learning about the present, the writers don't eventually get too boxed in, reveal too much about the future, and have to go back and "change" characters or take certain liberties in plot and time frame. If the writers can avoid such a pitfall week after week, there's little doubt in my mind that "Jack and Bobby" the show will be destined for greatness.

Seriously worth a watch. I can't wait for episode three.

Never Been Kissed (1999)

Never Bother With the Second Half

[20 June 2004]

When I first saw this movie, I was drawn in by the concept. Seems original enough -- one to which many can relate and wish they had the opportunity to do. Having gone through hell in high school, many people wish they could go back and live it over, knowing what they know now -- that it might be better, that it just might work. As Drew Barrymore's character Josie quickly finds out as an undercover reporter posing as a high school student , that's just not the case. Not much has changed since high school, and Josie is just as much a fish out of water even after spending time as an older, wiser adult in the working world, she was when she left. She dresses funny, she acts funny, she becomes friends with the dorky "math club" kids (the ultimate stereotype), and is quickly ostracized by the "popular" girls. Good so far.

Enter her brother, Rob (David Arquette) -- who, despite having spoiled her life when she was in high school by pinning the name "Josie Grossy" on her, is now willing to help her out and get her into that popular crowd. Here's where the plot takes a turn for the worse. Because HE was popular when he was in high school, he suddenly appears one day as a student, and all of a sudden he's popular again -- just like that? Don't get me wrong, but I remember what it was like when I was in high school, and it takes time to build a reputation; you don't all of a sudden become popular overnight. That plot hole aside, it doesn't make up for what happens when Rob does manage to get Josie "in" -- all of a sudden, Josie realizes how to act normal! Again, almost overnight, without anyone giving her any sort of instruction, she knows exactly what to say, exactly how to act, exactly how to dress. Amazing! If only I could've woken up one morning in high school and been able to do the same! In a matter of weeks she's gone from class dork to -- predictably -- homecoming queen. Yes, high school students are fickle, but considering just how much of an outcast Josie was at the beginning, this is still somewhat of a stretch. The scene where she finally reveals to the entire school at the prom that she wasn't really a student, but a reporter feels so forced it isn't even funny. People just aren't that preachy, just don't stop everything that's going on and bare their soul like that. She's a reporter; she knows her job; she'd know better than to reveal everything like that and ruin her entire story. Now she's just wasted all this time and money to no avail, with no story -- in real life, you could get fired for something like that.

The whole subplot with the teacher (Michael Vartan), yeah, it's kind of cheesy, but, for the purposes of the story, it probably made more sense than some of the things I listed above. Though I must say, the way the story wrapped up, well, that just didn't work, either. Josie doesn't get fired, of course, but gets the chance to write a column in which she requests a "certain teacher" meet her on the high school baseball field and give her her first real kiss (in her life she's "never been kissed" -- get it?). Again, very unrealistic -- Josie must already be in hot water for blowing the original intent of the story; such an individualized request would *never* make it past the editors in a *real* paper, especially coming from a reporter in such a situation as Josie's. This is a NEWSpaper, after all, not an editorialized gossip column or a tabloid -- it just doesn't make any sense.

Overall, the film had potential, but ultimately failed because of an embarrassingly poor plot. A note to teens who have professed to love this film: I'm sorry, but real life just doesn't work like this. Watch Ever After if you want a Cinderella story with Drew Barrymore -- a much better film -- and at least there, in a fantasy world, you can suspend disbelief.

My Girl 2 (1994)

Perhaps this film might've gotten better reviews if it weren't titled "My Girl 2".

[12 January 2004]

I've seen this movie several times, and read the other comments to see if another viewer would enlighten me as to why this movie was so "bad", but the negative reviewers were hard-pressed to find specific examples -- all people said was "it's a sequel, so it's pointless, they shouldn't have made it, THEREFORE it must be bad." If you ask me, that's definitely jumping to conclusions; it's very easy to write a review like that without ever having seen the movie at all.

What's interesting about this movie is, while it is a sequel, unlike most sequels, it just as easily could stand on its own -- viewers need not have seen My Girl before seeing My Girl 2. The setting is, for the most part, completely different (from funeral home in Pennsylvania to sunny California). Vada's character, which, in the first movie, had been a neurotic hypochondriac, has "recovered" and now is more or less a normal teenager. Shelley (Jamie Lee Curtis) has been accepted into the family and is now just a loving stepmother -- and she plays a minor role in the film, anyway, as most of the film concerns Vada away from home -- and thus an entirely different cast of new characters were introduced. Instead of looking at this film as a sequel, one could easily see it as a 13-year-old girl attempting to find out more about the mother she never knew. I wouldn't exactly call that contrived, and the movie didn't incessantly "repeat" themes or jokes (or make more than a reference or two) to the first movie.

*SOME SPOILERS*

What I came away with, though, was that the story line didn't feel strong enough to sustain the movie. Yes, it was enjoyable, but there weren't a lot of twists and turns to move the main story forward -- a lot of the major points of conflict were found in the subplots, actually -- the relationship between Vada's uncle (who makes a cameo in the first movie, and whose character is expanded here) and his fiancée; the relationship between Vada and Nick (which is slightly disturbing considering he's going to be her cousin); the news of Shelley's pregnancy, etc. The bulk of the main story, after Vada arrives in California, consists of her talking to people somewhat matter-of-factly; she never really hits any "dead ends" or runs into any problems until near the end when Vada finds out about her mother's first husband. For some reason, though, that doesn't feel much like a satisfying climax, because nothing really built up to it or "prepared" the audience for it. On the other hand, the following scene, where Vada gets to "see" her mother for the first time (on film), really arouses the sentimental pathos so characteristic of the first movie. However, I wonder what is implied by the final scene -- where Vada flies home to be with her father and Shelley and the new baby and sings the song her mother sang in the film -- is it saying that although Vada grew up without a mother, she can play "mother" to this child? But the child already has a mother (and not Vada's mother). There is no real coming-of-age in this movie, either, as might be expected in a film with a thin plot -- possibly because Vada is pretty sane in this film, and there aren't many more of her values one can alter.

Somehow, overall, the film manages to come off as enjoyable, though, if maybe just for the audience's curiosity about the mysterious half of Vada's family she knew little about. I can't quite classify it as a "good film", but even with all the little things I listed above I can't exactly classify it as a "bad" film, either. It follows a different sort of formula than the first movie, so I don't even feel like seeing if it measures up to the original is a fair point of comparison. It's different -- let's just leave it at that.

A Farewell to Arms (1932)

The Movie That Lost Its Way

[9 October 2002]

I don't get it. Other than the characters' names, relations, and WWI, I felt like this movie changed a whole lot of the actual plot of the book. It was good, would've been good had I not read the book -- as a classic Hollywood romance, and Cooper and Hayes are excellent actors. But the problem is I have read the book, and this is hardly an adaptation of the novel. Nowhere in the novel does Rinaldi get jealous and try to sabotage Frederic's letters to Catharine. And Frederic and Catharine are together when she goes to the hospital; there's not this whole scrambling scene of Frederic trying to get to the hospital on time when he hears Catharine's in danger. It was almost like the writers/directors of this film were willing to follow the book closely to a point... then all of a sudden they lost about 100 or so pages in the middle and felt like they could fill in the gap by writing in an entirely different sequence of events, so long as they all led back to that final hospital deathbed scene. And yes, the deathbed scene was very melodramatic and somewhat missed the point of the ending of the Hemingway book, but had that been the film's only flaw I would've been able to put up with it; this was, after all, the overly-theatrical 1930s when a cold, understated ending like in the book wouldn't have sold tickets. Unfortunately, the added plot and character dimensions could've graciously been done without. I guess I'd probably give it 5 out of 10, only because of what it potentially could've been, or could be, had it not been attached to Hemingway's novel.

Annie (1982)

Kids will love it; adults will vomit -- WHY BOTHER???

[23 February 2001]

This was one of my favorite movies when I was four years old. How could any kid not be drawn in by the catchy music, the simple plot, and the curly red-head girl?

However, just recently I saw it again, and, having seen the play, was absolutely HORRIFIED. Why did they change the songs? What was up with all that "we got Annie" dancing, and those obnoxious servants. Punjab was NOT in the musical. And why did they play "Tomorrow" in the opening credits? And what was up with the ending -- hanging from that bridge or whatever that piece of construction is?? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT AND WHERE IS IT EVEN SUGGESTED IN THE PLAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN?? The only good parts of that movie were Tim Curry, Albert Finney, and Carol Burnett, whose acting was the only saving grace of the film. The 1999 version was by far better, but still was lacking in that the ending was "nineties-ized" and the kids ruled the world. But still pathetic all around.

I don't get it. The play was so amazing -- why fiddle with the script DRASTICALLY, let alone AT ALL, when adapting it to film? Can't you just stick to the original script and add in a few pieces of fancy scenery?