enochpsnow Reviews

Paris, I Love You (2006)

You Will Love Paris?

[6/10 · 6 February 2013]

Paris, je t'aime, is an interesting melange of 18 vignettes directed by a host of different directors. Naturally, certain sequences are considerably more affecting than others. "Loin du 16ieme" is a rather profound look at the divide between rich and poor, as well as between native-born French women and the emigres imported to be their servants. "Quartier de la Madeleine" is a very powerful portrait of a drugged-out actress and her boyfriend/pusher. "Faubourg Saint-Denis" is a moving portrait of a young, frivolous actress (Natalie Portman), who plays with and then abandons a blind admirer. Many other sequences seem either incomplete ("Les Marais") or incomprehensible ("Porte de Choisy") but, on the whole, there are more good moments than bad in this film.

My disagreement with all those who have commented on this movie favorably is that somehow this movie is supposed to make its viewers love and and admire Paris and perhaps long to visit the "city of lights". But the Paris shown in this film is in large measure an alcoholic, drugged-out, impoverished, and decadent society essentially living off the glories of its past. The only even remotely enthusiastic characters in the film are the Americans and Englishmen who are visiting: the French characters seem depressed, washed up, and largely incapable of action. I am sure that Paris remains an inspiring and beautiful city -- as it has been through the centuries. But one would never know it from watching this sorrowful portrait of a once glorious city on the way out. Love this Paris? Really?

Without a Trace (2002–2009)

A Somber But Often Poignant Detective Series

[10/10 · 28 May 2012]

I am sorry that "Without A Trace" went off the air after five years, though I agree with other reviewers that it had probably exhausted its possibilities. The show had many things going for it: a first-rate cast, a set of often surprising plot twists, and an ability to look at some of the darkest parts of New York city life. Anthony LaPaglia, as the head of the FBI missing- persons unit, gave a set of performances that were truly gripping: his character was always tough, devoted, and often very reserved, but there was always an enormous amount of passion locked within him which would come out at the most desperate moments. The rest of the cast were uniformly good, and I agree with many other observers that Marianne Jean-Baptiste was a superb actress and a perfect colleague for LaPaglia's plain-spoken FBI man.

It is true, though, that as the years went by, the script writers appear to have run out of ideas about missing/abducted/brutalized persons and turned more and more to examining the personal lives of the FBI agents. We had love affairs between LaPaglia and Montgomery, Close and Montgomery, and Murciano and Sanchez, not to mention the collapse of LaPaglia's character's marriage, and the show did become more and more of a soap opera. It was probably at that point that the show started to lose the interest of its viewers.

But the single most important relationship in the show -- not a romantic relationship so much as a deeply personal relationship between two characters who really respected each other, even when they fought with each other -- was the relationship between LaPaglia's character and Jean-Baptiste's character. They were the stars of the show, and the way they agreed but often disagreed about their jobs and their lives made the show the wonderful, poignant success that it was for so many years.

Love in the Afternoon (1957)

Gary Cooper, Miscast For Many Reasons

[8/10 · 6 May 2012]

I agree with most of the IMDb reviewers in their appreciation for "Love in the Afternoon." It is a charming love story, made especially touching by the beautiful performance of Audrey Hepburn. A fine actress throughout her career, Hepburn's golden age was clearly the 1950s when her youthful innocence and eager, expectant face made the vulnerability of her characters seem entirely believable and very sympathetic. Having the aging Maurice Chevalier as her father in "Love in the Afternoon" was an inspired bit of casting, and the two of them seemed to fit perfectly as father and daughter.

But, of the major actors of the late fifties, Gary Cooper was probably the worst possible choice to play the young Hepburn's first great love, Mr. Flannagan. It is not so much that Cooper was too old a man to be the love interest of Hepburn's character, Ariane, although Cooper certainly looked very old and tired in the movie. Because Ariane is shown to be both innocent and impressionable, one could imagine her falling in love with an older and more sophisticated gentleman. In the movie "Funny Face," Hepburn plays a character like Ariane who falls in love with the equally aged Fred Astaire, and that relationship seems quite believable.

The problem with casting Cooper in "Love in the Afternoon" is that Mr. Flannagan is supposed to be a rather heartless, love-'em-and-leave-'em kind of guy, while Cooper's entire career in later life was devoted to playing honest, honorable, loyal men of strong and unshakable convictions. Perhaps the definitive Cooper role in the 1950s was the sheriff in "High Noon." To have him play an aging, indifferent roué was an almost absurd bit of miscasting which, for me, did not seem believable for a minute.

"Love in the Afternoon" is a beautiful love story – often touching and, thanks to the gypsies, sometimes very funny. What a shame that Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, and Fred Astaire himself were not available to play the movie's leading man.

Burn Notice (2007–2013)

A Latter-Day A Team

[10/10 · 25 February 2012]

"Burn Notice" is a great action show which seems like a somewhat more up-to-date version of "The A Team" from the 1980s. The central character of "Burn Notice", Michael Weston, is abandoned and then hunted down by the US government, but like Hannibal Smith of "The A Team", Michael and his own team decide to use their considerable knowledge of weapons, electronics, and military tactics to help out people who are in deep trouble but have no one else to turn to. Michael's team, consisting of himself plus a slightly alcoholic ex-spy and a rather kill-crazy girlfriend, engage in the most elaborate plans to help the innocent and punish the guilty. The sheer outrageousness of their plans makes this show a delight to watch and it is often very funny.

Unlike "The A Team", in which no one ever dies, many of the bad guys do wind up dead, but Michael and his team never kill anyone and leave the killing to one bad guy eventually rubbing out an even badder guy. And like "The A Team", there is always the requisite number of explosions, fires, blown-up autos, and general mayhem. But mainly, there is the ever fascinating relationship between the members of the team, each with reservations about the others but each ready to help the others at a moment's notice. It is a wonderful bit of ensemble acting by Jeff Donovan, Gabrielle Anwar, and Bruce Campbell: if you like action shows -- particularly tongue-in-cheek action shows -- don't miss it!

Calendar Girl (2008)

Ugly & Illogical

[2/10 · 25 January 2012]

About "Calendar Girl": I do think that the movie was rather professionally done, and it was striking to see some actual if fading stars such as Gilbert Gottfried in the cast. Given the length of the movie, the complexity of the plot, and the number of performers (including extras) in the cast, it doesn't surprise me that it took ten years to complete.

But I do have many reservations about the final product.

First of all, it always seems to me a sign of literary incompetence when just about every third word in a script is "shit" or "fuck". To say that the screenplay was not written with any measure of wit or sophistication is almost an understatement. I wonder if allegedly well-educated young people really talk this way, or whether the creators of "Calendar Girl" were just trying to show us how close they were to understanding "the people". One way or the other, it was exceedingly gross.

Second, even though the film's heroine is supposed to be a tough, insensitive babe who can face anything and handle any situation, it simply defies belief that she could continue in a relationship with her photographer boyfriend after he reveals himself to be the calendar killer. The movie suggests that she actually wants him to murder her and that she feels betrayed when he doesn't do it, but the indifferent and almost loving way she asks him to stay after he has nearly slit her throat seems completely unrealistic. How on Earth could she face him after what she has learned? The lack of anything like psychological realism is truly appalling.

Finally, the ending of the movie is one big gory mess, and it is filmed in so slipshod a manner that I cannot honestly tell you who did what to whom and using what weapon or weapons. To me, it almost seemed as if the producers just wanted to get the whole thing over with and, as a result, the rather careful filming of the earlier sections gave way to one big incomprehensible bloodbath. Ugh! There are a number of other things that bothered me, such as the ugly portrayal of the lawyer's fiancée, who went from being a reasonably attractive figure to a caricatural bitch because she dared to want her fiancé to be loyal to her but, in truth, the movie was so over-the-top that by the time the two of them broke up, I had long given up on finding any subtleties or insights to hold on to. The movie took ten years to finish -- it was, we were told, a "labor of love" -- but maybe those ten years could have been spent more profitably producing something else.

On the other hand, as a 90-minute commercial for the Aramingo Diner, it was top-drawer!