Tahhh Reviews

The Green (2011)

Absorbing, but not "The Children's Hour."

[7/10 · 20 September 2015]

I found the film very absorbing, but if you're looking for Lillian Hellman's "The Children's Hour," this isn't it.

The fault doesn't lie with the actors or production qualities or the director: I think it's mostly that the script is a bit predictable, and not terribly daring: there are clear-cut good guys and bad guys motivated, on the one hand, by goodness and benevolence, and, on the other, by unspeakable evil and malice.

That is not suggest it's a waste of time: just that the screenplay struck me as too tame and too safe, instead of straying into more dangerous territory, raising tougher questions, and not resolving everything in the manner of (as I've seen others on IMDb saying, justifiably) of a T.V. "Movie of the Week." There are good, emotional scenes and quarrels, which will draw you in, however, performed with honesty and skill by a very fine cast.

The Women (I) (2008)

I Anticipated the Worst; but Was Pleasantly Surprised!

[7/10 · 29 July 2012]

When I saw that a TV station was airing a REMAKE of The Women, last night, I anticipated the worst--after all, the stylish original from the 1930's was such fun, that I couldn't imagine how any modern remake could possibly live up to it. I expected it would be so dreadful and politically correct that I'd turn it off within 20 minutes and go to sleep.

Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by a film which was engaging and enjoyable, and which, while BORROWING many of the plot elements from the older film, retold a rather different story, and adhered, almost in a playful manner, to some of the "disciplines" of the original movie, such as never allowing a male to appear on screen.

What really saves this movie is the first-rate performance of Annette Bening, who plays a character named Sylvia Fowler, but who otherwise is a completely different woman from the broad clown character Rosalind Russell created in the older film, with an utterly different story. A similarly successful "transplant" is of Mary Haines' mother, here portrayed wonderfully by Candice Bergen--and another is the role of Edie, here played by Debra Messing (who does give us the sort of broad clowning that we had for that role in the old movie).

One real DISAPPOINTMENT in these updated roles was Bette Midler, who played the character corresponding to the Countess de Lave, expansively and noisily played by Mary Boland in the old movie. The script didn't go into the fun sub-plot of the Countess's boyfriend and his infidelities, and so this character, and its very fortunate casting, remain very tangential; similarly, Cloris Leachman manages to rescue a microscopic role of one of Mary's household staff--but should have been given much more to play with.

Meg Ryan, although turning in a fine performance, is somewhat eclipsed by the talents around her.

However, even though it lacks the style and impact of the classic film, I enjoyed this remake quite a bit, and can recommend it. It won't spoil the old film for you--it's too different from it--and yet, will give you several of your favorite moments from the old film refreshed and renewed, as well as a very different approach to others.

101 Reykjavík (2000)

An Engaging, Gentle Comedy with an Outrageous Plot

[8/10 · 29 August 2009]

I've heard Iceland called "The Tahiti of the North Atlantic" with reference to a history of sexually loose behavior that goes well back to an era predating the "sexual revolution" in the United States, and I believe Halldor Laxness, Iceland's Nobel Prize-winning author, has a book or two along similar lines, featuring some sexually outrageous situation which is treated rather matter-of-factly, even light-heartedly, by the participants and all around them.

The gentle fun in this film is of a piece with its very charming and amusing opening titles: We see, looking up at him, the hero, intent on performing rhythmic intercourse, with his glasses on; the girl whose charms he is enjoying reaches up to remove his glasses, and view her Romeo's eyes unobstructed; and we then see both the lady--and the titles--fading in and out of a serious blur as the hero continues his push-ups without his necessary spectacles.

The comedy is about this young man of 30, who is a bit of a ne'er-do-well and good-for-nothing, who lazily collects welfare, lives with his working mother (his drunken bum of a father stumbles into him on the street from time to time), and how very strange developments in his mother's sex life lead to him finally becoming a man, earning a living, and being a "fine upstanding citizen" even as he takes on a semi-incestuous role in his mother's life, a role which would shock and horrify most Western viewers if the story were told a bit differently.

It's a pretty, colorful film, very nicely acted, and captures very well the peculiar, quiet atmosphere of Iceland's capital. The film draws me into intimacy with its characters at once, and won me over immediately with its very low-key, simple, and very subtle humor.

Icelanders number less than 300,000, and so are required to demonstrate competence in at least four major world languages in order to graduate from high school. Consequently, nearly all Icelanders under a certain age speak English very fluently. Since one of the major characters is a Spanish immigrant, characters all switch to English when they need to speak to her, and so many scenes are entirely in English that I would call the film bilingual.

It's a very simple comedy, but although the sexual behavior of its main characters is most certainly racy, and the language very frank, I didn't find the film the least bit vulgar or crude, and, instead, found its humor pleasant, subtle, and engaging.

My impression of Icelanders, when I visited there many years ago, was that they could be almost painfully shy people--and in a way, this is a SHY comedy about a very BRAZEN situation.

I think it's WELL worth seeing and enjoying, and I would happily sit through it to enjoy it again.

Em Nome do Pai (2002)

Either a Black Comedy or a Deadly Film

[7/10 · 1 August 2009]

It's very hard to characterize this short film. I was very attracted by its music, which is a somewhat mournful bassoon solo, and I suppose how you respond to it will depend a great deal on your own attitudes toward its taboo subject-matter.

Only 17 minutes long, I would characterize it as very compact and extremely well made, in terms of both the crafting of the very short screen-play, and in the economy of its direction and acting, which was riveting.

However, it's hard to say if it's a black comedy with humor similar to some of the darker scenes of the Japanese film, Tampopo, or a short story intended to be taken seriously.

For a black comedy, it has a very brooding atmosphere; for a brooding, melancholy, disturbing film, it has a somewhat abrupt, almost humorous ending--and so it's hard to say what one should make of it.

However, it's SO short, that it isn't as if you are investing a great deal to find out how you feel about it, and I doubt that anyone would be COMPLETELY disappointed by it, because it is crafted very well: the subtle symbolism reminded me a great deal of playwright Lanford Wilson: a ceiling lamp which needs a bulb replacement, for example, representing a family secret which has been carefully hidden by and from all.

I found it rather engaging, but I think I would have preferred a longer treatment--a feature length--so that the plot resolution could have had far more justification and build-up than it had.

Bangkok Love Story (2007)

"Unearned Emotion"

[3/10 · 15 March 2009]

The movie posters, showing the two handsome actors, and some of the other reviews led me to want to watch this film, but I was very disappointed by it.

I should preface my comments by remarking that I have never visited Thailand, and also that I was relying on English subtitles that had been written by someone who clearly had an imperfect command of the English language--and so it's conceivable to me that were I able to understand the ORIGINAL dialogue, perhaps my impression of the film would be a little better.

However, one with cultivated WESTERN tastes, will, I think, find, as I did, that this movie is all very forced sentimentality with little to redeem it in the way of mood, atmosphere or other beauties. I once heard sentimentality defined as "unearned emotion," and I think that sums up perfectly what I find wrong with the film.

I thought that the initial plot had been set up for me a little too swiftly, that all the characters were in their particular situations with insufficient development--"this one is a killer, that one is a crook, this one is sick and dying," etc. Contrast this, for example, with Brokeback Mountain, a film with a similar theme of the deep love that develops between two young men, and how carefully we are led to begin knowing and caring for what brought these two youths together.

From this rather simplistic, almost juvenile, beginning, the story seems to start loading thick sentimentality on with a trowel, and the piles of it begin to get overwhelming, until, as we near the 3/4 mark, I found myself looking at my watch and calculating how much more of this silliness I must endure--by that time I had given up on the film taking a turn for the better. I rarely find myself laughing with scorn at a story, and I always do my best to let a storyteller tell me his tale in his own way, but in THIS film, each new element introduced to wrestle pity from me just made me react by rolling my eyes and saying, "oh, THAT too, eh?" Perhaps this sort of heavy-handed sentiment is more appealing to the Thai audience for which the film was made, and maybe what strikes me as "unearned emotion" fills a Thai viewer with LEGITIMATE emotion, but I think you'll find the film as disappointing as I did. In fact, by the end of it, I was feeling a mild distaste for nearly every character and the film's ultimately sordid story.

=================================

Another reviewer asked about the title. In Thai, the title is: "PHUEAN--ku rak mueng wa!" which, in gruff, familiar, male language, means "BUDDY: I love you, man!" roughly. The first word, PHUEAN, is the word you see on the title, that looks a bit like a mirror image of "J" followed by "WOu."

American Playhouse: A Raisin in the Sun (1989) Season 8, Episode 1

Note-Complete.

[10/10 · 24 May 2008]

Danny Glover gives an outstanding performance as Walter Lee, and while I think Claudia McNeil (in the 1961 film) gave us a far more convincing and believable Lena Younger than did Esther Rolle--somehow, Miss McNeil gave me a woman whose hands smelt of "spic-'n'-span" cleaner and bleach, whereas Miss Rolle, even in costume and makeup, gives us the impression of having regular visits to a manicurist!--she and the rest of the cast give supporting performances that are worthy of much praise.

What's best of all, in this version, is that we get every scrap of dialogue that could be found of the play, including passages which were skipped in the original production. This makes for a longer, slower-moving drama, but it pays dividends in that the longer build-up justifies the more intense outbursts that climax each act of the play.

For example, the moving scene showing how upset Ruth becomes to learn that the neighborhood children have been combatting a live rat--this scene helps us share her motivation to visit an abortionist. Beneatha's lengthy monologues about her aspirations lend enormous depth to her character, and provide an important parallel to the thwarted ambitiousness which proves so painful and fateful for her elder brother.

The entire production gives one the impression of having had the chief goal of RESTORING Hansberry's play with the same respect and thoroughness as people apply to Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams or other "classics"--a production where all participants resolve, not to impose their OWN visions on the play, but to allow the playwright's vision and message to come forth, as originally intended.

A "definitive" version of this great play about living by principle and morality and thereby conquering limitations and adversity.

M. Butterfly (1993)

Skilled Acting; Very Weak Screenplay

[5/10 · 24 May 2008]

This is half a movie. The acting, the sets, the costumes--they are all superb, colorful and compelling. The trouble is, that when it's all over, I found myself thinking, "Well? So what?" It's a very distasteful, unpleasant, and rather cruel story, with dialogue that is dotted with sarcastic wisecracks, and no particular theme lends the story any sort of framework or structure that justifies the emotional investment we're supposed to make in the longing of the protagonist.

Among the other comments, I've come across some assurances that the stage play was far superior; I have my doubts about that, since I cannot think of very much that would redeem the story.

And so, if you're a fan of Jeremy Irons (as I am), and love seeing him even in a script that leaves you feeling as if you feasted on potato chips and gumdrops, then indulge yourself. Otherwise, you've got better things to do with your time.

Still, it gets a 5 out of 10 for very fine costumes and sets, especially in the scenes filmed in China--and one of those stars is for Richardson as the ambassador, who was an "oh-good-he's-back" secondary character who leavened the lump considerably.

The Trip to Bountiful (1985)

10 Stars for Miss Page, but only about 7 or 8 for the Film.

[8/10 · 3 March 2008]

It's hard to rate this film, numerically, because the performance of the late Geraldine Page is so dazzling and utterly absorbing, that her glow makes it almost impossible to see the defects of the film.

It's a neat, tidy, well-constructed drama, with a careful concentration on a single, simple story, and manages to make us care and worry about all the little mishaps in the plot. It's colorful, well-paced, gorgeously costumed and designed, and (assuming that you're not too cynical to enjoy a sentimental story for what it is) it's a totally absorbing and compelling two hours.

Most of the characters of the drama are complicated enough to keep the film from getting too predictable, and certainly, in the hands of the great Geraldine Page, it would be hard for character NOT to be deeply interesting. Mrs. Watts is somewhat similar to Cousin "Sook" in the beautiful Truman Capote memoirs Miss Page performed in the late 1960's, but she has far richer monologues throughout the film that could not better underline her extraordinary skills.

However, in spite of all this, I think the film is rather lacking in substance. It's QUITE sentimental, and while it never degenerates into a lament for the snows of yesteryear, it comes pretty close to it. Although there is some resolution of family tensions toward the end of the story, we never really get a terribly convincing demonstration of HOW the title's "trip to Bountiful" managed to bring this resolution about.

For that, I tend to fault the screenplay--and perhaps I'll feel differently about it after another viewing.

But that alone is characteristic: my wish to see it again at some point is PURELY because I want to admire Geraldine Page--and NOT because I found the story and film so moving. It's HER that I wish to watch, not the film.

And so, I guess, as a compromise, I'll give it 8 stars...but everybody should understand I have two extra stars in parentheses for the star of the movie who could not have been a more deserving recipient of an Oscar that year.

Wild Tigers I Have Known (2006)

The Ingredients were There; Alas, there was no Plot.

[2/10 · 2 March 2008]

First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.

The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.

It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.

I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful "crush" on an older boy that he admires.

However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating "well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes...")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.

Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.

Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of "Leah" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.

As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the "Leah" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.

I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a "gay" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the "crush" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe "crushes" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners.

The Prince and the Showgirl (1957)

Brava! Brava Dame Sybil!

[8/10 · 7 January 2008]

The Prince and the Showgirl isn't a great film, or a great comedy, but it's light, fun, colorful, and it gives you the pleasant feeling of attending a fairly ordinary little four-act farce in a comfortable, luxurious theater.

If you're looking for a comedy with substance, this isn't it; but if you're in the mood for pretty costumes, Monroe being deliciously sexy, and a cute little farce, this can be lots of fun for you.

However, there is one role and one performance in this film that makes it an absolute must for at least one viewing, and that is the hilariously funny, and PERFECTLY executed comedy of Dame Sybil Thorndike, who plays the role of a South Slavic Queen Dowager who is "a little vague"--as Marilyn Monroe, in the role of Elsie Marina says after meeting her, "a LITTLE vague?!" She's quite, quite nuts, delightfully so, has all the very best lines of the play, and delivers each gesture, each look, each utterance with such crystalline perfection and astoundingly skilled stagecraft, that you can do naught but marvel at her powers. She has only four or five very brief scenes, and yet, she manages to turn her little part into award-winning material.

It's a great illustration of Stanislavsky's dictum that "there are no small parts--only small actors." Anyway, you haven't enjoyed Dame Sybil Thorndike at her comic best without seeing this movie, so put up with the rest of it, if you don't like it--you cannot leave this earth without drinking the nectar of her playing this role. And if you don't expect too much of it, you'll like the rest of this movie, too.

Starcrossed (2005)

Rather Amateurish, Somehow

[3/10 · 23 September 2007]

I'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.

The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.

However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.

Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.

I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject.

Johnny Belinda (1948)

An "Essential"

[10/10 · 11 September 2007]

This is one of the films which you have to see, simply because it's such a superbly made movie, and it's fine if you want to shrug it off, later on, as sentimentality without substance. It's emotionally compelling, acted to a crisp all around, filmed beautifully, and although there really isn't all that much to it (it's not a film that raises questions, but it didn't set out to raise questions), you're in good hands from the beginning, and can settle back for some old-fashioned story-telling.

The late Jane Wyman's performance won her a very deserved Oscar, and although the film is quite sentimental in places, and tends to tie up all the lose ends a little too tidily, if you can put aside your twenty-first century cynicism for a little while and let the film spin the yarn for you, you'll be absorbed and carried along with emotional satisfaction.

Mostly you just have to see it for all the superlative acting, and the eloquence of Wyman's silence, which is a stunning tour-de-force.

Song of Love (1950)

A Deeply Disturbing "Must-See"

[9/10 · 22 August 2007]

This film by Jean Genet is a very symbolic, surrealistic, and depressing film, presenting, through a series of disturbing and highly erotic images, upsetting metaphors for our desperate human need for love and union with another, and the barriers to fulfillment.

Because Jean Genet's own sensibilities were homosexual, all the characters in the film are male, and the eroticism is more accessible to men who either share his tastes: for such men, many scenes of the film can be very arousing. For others, the film will probably open up a window into the experience, and for still others, many scenes may provoke disgust and revulsion. Again, because of Genet's own tastes, there is an element of sado-masochism mixed into the eroticism: indeed, all the characters but one are oppressed prisoners, literally in "bondage." However, aside from the unusual sensuousness of the film, and the surprising explicitness, the film is full of unforgettably great imagery, honest and deep emotion, and enormous poetic beauty. It is a very slow-moving, dark, oppressive film, and should only be viewed when the viewer is prepared for a contemplative, surrealistic journey; in spite of its short length (about 25 minutes), it is a very compact film, and can feel quite draining, emotionally.

It is a little gem, and I regard it as one of the "essentials" of film.

Cold Comfort Farm (1995 TV Movie)

Very Disappointing

[5/10 · 20 August 2007]

It's a real pity; it's a hilarious book, the cast is excellent, the sets are terrific, and yet, the film just misses the mark.

It was as if none of the screen writers understood the book's humor, really, and there were only a few things about the film that I did enjoy: (1) Mrs. Smiling and the way the film showed how she keeps her collection; (2) Seth and Reuben looked like brothers; (3) I adore Sir Ian in anything he does, and he did a lovely job on Amos, different from Alistair Sim, but just as delightful.

I think what was really needed for this film to work was a better screenplay based on the book. I honestly don't think that this movie captured the fun of the book in the way that the earlier BBC version did.

I actually found it a bit tedious, rather than fun, and they left out some of the best lines, really, for no good reason. I found that it got rather boring toward the end, and didn't really manage to give a sense of Flora Poste's STRUGGLE to change Cold Comfort Farm--it all changed too easily, and so one didn't really have the nice tension "will she succeed?"--she wins over everybody far too easily, and I think a good deal of the story is probably incomprehensible without knowing the book first.

So--my verdict is: find that wonderful old BBC version with Alistair Sim and Rosalie Crutchley and Faye Compton--and treat yourself to the book, which is the sort you pull out again to enjoy afresh, years later, and catch this one if it comes on TV, but don't go out of your way for it.

Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)

Deeply Absorbing, but Insubstantial

[8/10 · 14 June 2007]

Reflections in a Golden Eye is a slow-paced, quiet movie, with intense emotional content, and extremely absorbing characters which arrest our interest and involve us. It will appeal to those who enjoy psychological dramas, and quiet, gloomy sorts of "atmospheric" films, with lots of striking imagery. However, I think the sort of people who get bored without lots of action and explosions and chase scenes may find it a tiresome two hours.

I also think that in spite of its very compelling atmosphere, the drama itself isn't really very interesting, in that the story doesn't really transcend its subject matter to tell us anything interesting about ourselves, or what it is like to be a human being, or how we should conduct ourselves, or present errors we should avoid. It tells a story, like a soap-opera, and draws us in--but it's pretty much empty calories.

Still, there's no reason one cannot indulge ones enjoyment of potato chips or M&Ms now and then--one needn't have vitamins in EVERYTHING! And, as in-between-meal treats go, this one is definitely yummy. The curious relationship between an emotionally disturbed army wife and her Filipino servant, as portrayed by Julie Harris and Zorro David, is utterly unlike anything else in any movie anywhere, and very striking. The film is full of sexual titillation and deeply erotic suggestion to tickle everyone, and presents us with striking and memorable visual imagery here and there.

Marlon Brando's performance is not as masterful as some of his other roles, and I found his dialect, in this film, almost impenetrable in spots, but in the more violent emotional scenes, he delivers all the intensity you expect from him.

The story itself concerns a web of related people, all trapped in relations where none of them get what they really want--husbands who look for sex outside of their marriages, youths and men who seek sexual satisfaction in fetishistic attachments to the belongings of a desired woman or man, and everybody wanting something from some person who cannot provide it--and somehow not finding companionship and fulfillment. There is some attempt at an irony, setting these messy relationships in the context of an army-base, where (presumably) all people have clear roles to play within an efficient super-organism, in turn echoed in an early scene in which Major Penderton orders Private Williams to trim the woods near his home--and is then dismayed that his wishes are not carried out as he wishes--however, one doesn't get the feeling that the drama is well-crafted and organic. I also object to the way the film ends, which strikes me as sensational and gimmicky, and far too abrupt and out-of-keeping with the pace of the remainder of the story.

I'd say that the flaws are mostly due to a second-rate screenplay--too bad, because everything else about the film is pretty first-rate, including a dark and appealing music score accompanying the superbly acted scenes.

It'll hold your attention, it'll draw you in, but it won't require much thought when it's all over--and you'll sleep like a log, afterward, and not be the least disturbed by the story. Everything that a yummy, unwholesome bag of snack-food should be. Lip-smacking, but you wouldn't want it as a steady diet.

Black Narcissus (1947)

A Striking Thriller!

[9/10 · 6 May 2007]

This great film will only appeal to those who love great acting, magnificent sets and costumes, and unforgettable imagery. If you're the sort that loves to remember some of the great images in, say, "Citizen Kane"--I believe you'll find this film filled with wonderful, wonderful understanding of what makes great motion pictures.

It's a simple story, and as the film starts out, you really don't expect the emotional tensions to build to the intensity that they eventually do reach. The powerful performances of Deborah Kerr and David Farrar, bubbling with red-hot subtexts throughout, and the spectacular tour-de-force of Kathleen Byron, as the anxious and tortured Sister Ruth--leading to one of the most terrifying climaxes in the movies!--are complemented by a supporting cast full of delight, from the tender humor of Sabu, as the young general, to the wordless and utterly convincing portrayal of a lower-class Nepali flirt by Jean Simmons, to Flora Robson's anguished crisis of faith, to May Hallatt's hilarious clowning as the old caretaker, to the cuteness of little Eddie Whaley, Jr., as the precocious child charged with the job of interpreting for an entire convent of nuns...like a gorgeous flower-garden, with perfumed delights in all directions, this film literally envelopes you with one treat after another! It's not a film of weight and importance: it's pure entertainment, and neither Rumer Godden's novel--nor this movie--aspire to be monuments of great LITERATURE. As a drama, it's just for emotional thrills, and if you're looking for Jane Austen or Shakespeare--it's not here.

But the film is completely absorbing, visually lovely, stirring and exciting, and--if you've never seen it--is absolutely guaranteed to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up with fear--and you'll find yourself coming back to it to enjoy it all again, over and over. It's a trip off to a remote place at the top of the world, for a dramatic tale of repressed emotion--of no deep importance, but what's life without some recreation? And let's also put in a word for a luscious orchestral score, although the recording is what you must expect for a 1940's film.

If you don't know this great, great film, treat yourself to it!

Girly (1970)

I Remember Having a Blast with this as a Teenager

[5/10 · 23 April 2007]

I saw this film in the theaters when I was a kid of 15 or 16 or so, and I remember that my friends and I just loved making one another laugh by quoting from it.

And if you're a kid of 15 or 16, I think you'll like this silly film for exactly the same reasons I did when I was that age.

However, it's a very, very dopey little movie, and while I think I'd like to see it again, just to see if there WAS anything to it, back then, I seriously doubt that there was anything substantial to it.

Still--there's a place for guilty pleasures on anybody's movie shelf, and I can think of far worse things you might include on your list of guilty pleasures.

It's junk-food, though--and I think even WE knew that, when our gang of noisy teenagers decided to go see it, all those many years ago...good for nyuk-nyuk-nyuk laughter and acting out scenes from it for hilarity later on...but nothing more.

Prime Suspect: The Last Witness (2003)

Thrilling and Totally Absorbing

[9/10 · 23 April 2007]

The only remark I wish to add to the other reviews is that the music accompanying this particular mini-series of the "Prime Suspect" series was particularly appealing, I think.

So often, the music is an irritant or a distraction, whereas in this thriller, I felt it enhanced the filmed drama greatly. The soundtrack employs much East European singing, as well as Eastern-looking music from the Moslem cultures of the Adriatic provinces, and used this to help make the victims of the crimes presented more sympathetic to us.

I found the spirited dance music, with a heavily middle-eastern, percussion-and-plectra sound, employed during the exciting chase scenes, especially effective.

It's a sad story, and a police-thriller, and while I wouldn't say it transcends its genre completely, it does manage to provoke a little thought about principles, about honor, about cruelty, and about integrity and behaving justly.

Very enjoyable when you're in the mood for a thriller!

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Very Disappointing: Recommend you pass it.

[4/10 · 19 April 2007]

There are quite a few versions of Jane Austen's masterpiece now, and while no dramatization can completely capture the miracle of Austen's prose, this particular film seems to miss the spirit of the story completely, and offers nothing to compensate for the loss.

I suppose the success of the 1995 version is simply that in five hours, rather than two, the screenplay authors had SOME hope of developing the complex emotional and psychological investment that gives the story its depth, as well as having the luxury of using much of Austen's own dialogue, rather than inventing new words for everyone.

I think that my greatest disappointment is that this film lacks all of the FUN that Jane Austen builds into her work, the satirical, teasing wit that is so subtle that even the most discerning readers may miss a particular quip until the fourth or fifth reading: all of that delicious winking and tongue-in-cheek humor is utterly absent from the film.

It is very hard, for example, to imagine the angry confrontation between Lady Catherine and Elizabeth presented in such a way that we don't at least smile--and yet, in this film, all the deliciously nasty swipes that the two take at each other get lost in a confrontation that leaves us puzzled and unhappy. The film even has it taking place indoors, in a gloomy, ill-lit room, instead of as a walk in the "wilderness" beside Elizabeth's house, and Lady Catherine's hilarious exit line about taking no leave and deserving no such attention...all that is simply lost, lost, lost...and for Austen-lovers who are SO looking forward to hearing the immortal "I am seriously displeased!"--there's nothing.

And in a similar fashion, the film loses ALL of the emotional content of the novel. There's no hope of the "You are too generous to trifle with me" scene bringing tears to your eyes--come, admit it: if you're a TRUE fan of Austen, you have never once read that scene without tears welling up in your eyes!--we feel none of the quiet refinement of the Gardiners and their special relationship with their niece, we perceive none of the changes and growing up that take place in the two main characters, and, as another commenter pointed out, the sets and costumes and directorial choices are out-of-keeping with the period.

Another gratuitous mistake that serves as an excellent example of how egregiously the film misses it is a brief scene showing Mr. and Mrs. Bennett talking to one another tenderly in bed, in total disregard of the huge and deeply disturbing revelations that her relations with Darcy cause Elizabeth to experience as she matures and begins to recognize how ill her father has behaved in exposing his wife to the ridicule of his daughters--and how just Mr. Darcy is in recognizing the man's lack of good character, in spite of her love for her father. Donald Sutherland is an actor of enormous power and judgement, and I fault the director and screenwriters more for this--he cannot fight the script here, although I see glimpses of him being one of the few in the cast who brought something fresh to the characters of Austen's novel.

In general, I just can't recommend this film at all--I found it a rather boring mistreatment of the novel, and even the old Garson-Olivier version, with all its faults, captures more of the fun of the novel than this modern treatment.

So my verdict is: FIRST get the novel and read it over and over a few times. And then, enjoy the old Garson-Olivier, if only to howl at Edna Mae Oliver and sip the delicious Caroline in that version. And then treat yourself to the BBC/A&E 1995 version, to see how one CAN do a reasonable dramatization without going too far overboard (although I'd recommend you close your eyes while Darcy takes a plunge in the pool--I still don't know why they did that!) And just pass this one by; it's not worth the time.

Curse of the Golden Flower (2006)

Beautiful to look at, but not terribly substantial

[7/10 · 15 April 2007]

I saw this film in flight from Beijing to Chicago, this week, which is not the best set of conditions to enjoy a movie; moreover, I do not know if the film was edited for showing on United Airlines. But having issued that warning about HOW I saw the film, I'll go on and tell you my impressions.

First, the film is dazzlingly beautiful: gorgeous sets, costumes, attractive and compelling actors--and so, recreationally, it's a treat for the eyes. I'm not as impressed with the music of the film, as I was with its visual appeal.

Second, the acting is superb, and the film absorbed me and intrigued me.

However, unlike many other works by this director, I felt that this film was somewhat insubstantial, in that, when it was all over, one felt very much like saying, "Yes, and so what?" There wasn't much point to the story, which is an unpleasant and cruel tale of court intrigue much like any other--a sort of Tang Dynasty "Lion in Winter" without any of the fun or tongue-in-cheek quips.

It's worth a viewing--maybe even two or three--but neither the characters nor the story have much staying power.

Sugar Baby (1985)

An Adult Love Story for Adults

[10/10 · 31 December 2006]

I've known this film for many, many years, and it's high on my list of favorites to return to and enjoy again. First, let me warn you that there's a truly disappointing American remake of it, in English, known as "Babycakes," but, unlike this travesty of the original film, I'd say the single adjective which characterizes it for me is "ADULT." The humor--for the first half of the film is hilariously funny--is very grown-up humor; and the actual love story which it becomes, with its tensions and tendernesses, is also very, very mature--I think it quite likely that the movie will only appeal to people who are at least 35, but that they will find considerable truth in the way lust, infatuation, and, eventually, tenderness and caring love--and loss--are portrayed.

The protagonist is a fat, middle-aged, old-maid spinster, who works as a mortician in Munich and, one day, unexpectedly mesmerized by the gentle voice of a youthful, handsome, athletic driver of the Munich U-Bahn (subway, metro), rushes to see the owner of the lovely voice, and becomes obsessed and infatuated with him. The first half of the film tells us the hilarious adventures and desperate measures she goes through to identify him, stalk him, and, ultimately, snare him and seduce him.

*SPOILERS FOLLOW* It is here that the film turns from a trivial farce into a film of depth and true interest; a relation that started as an infatuation driven, on her side by lust and a desire for life and youth in her colorless and depressing life, and, on his side, by a nagging and unpleasant wife who drives him into the arms of a love-affair--this relation CHANGES into one of true affection, caring and tenderness, and the two, who were lusting for one another's surface qualities, slowly discover the real human beings underneath the flesh--and discover that there is more than simply lust and "fun" in their relationship.

The film moves toward a deliberately ambiguous ending that raises questions--many of them--and leaves us haunted by the lives of the two main characters, and their experience.

There are two moments of sexually explicit activity in the film, for people who are touchy about such things, but none of it seems gratuitous "sex for the sake of sex scene" and such scenes are conducted within the bounds of taste, good (not smutty) humor, and leave us with a sense of INTIMACY rather than PORNOGRAPHY.

The real adult nature of the film is in the departure from any sort of expected scenario: like Hitchcock's "Psycho" it is a film which starts off going decidedly in ONE direction, and then takes a sudden, and wonderful turn into a totally unexpected and different direction--we stop laughing, and we start identifying, strongly, and at times, painfully, with the main characters and their brief taste of an escape from their respective lonelinesses.

Can't recommend it highly enough--it's a big favorite of mine.

Come and Go (2000 TV Short)

I beg to differ with Dr. Twisted's Review!

[10/10 · 11 December 2006]

I was very surprised to discover that someone did NOT like this film of the Beckett play, or rather "dramaticule," as he called it--for it is a mere eight or nine minutes in length.

First, I really do not think that the camera motion detracts in the slightest from the action, which is considerably more colorful and "fun" than many Beckett pieces--and I could not possibly ask for a better cast, three marvelous actresses, with magnificent control of comic timing and sound, who, in spite of the terrifying constraints Beckett places on expression (he insists that the faces should be all but hidden under broad hats, and the bodies cloaked in full-length coats), manage to create CHARACTERS with hardly more than a handful of lines apiece! Perhaps the single directorial imposition on the cryptic script is, in my opinion an excellent one--and this is the spoiler, so stop reading if you haven't seen the film yet--the puzzling last line, "I can feel the rings!"--is given a much deeper and unexpected meaning, which had never occurred to me: the camera moves in closely on Flo's holding, first, Ru's hand--feeling at what would be her left ring finger--and then Vi's hand--again, using her thumb to stroke gently the empty space where a wedding ring would be worn--feeling the ring fingers of her girlhood companions, as she did as a child, at Miss Wade's...she says, perhaps as she might have said as a little girl, "I can feel the rings!" This huge puzzle of a curtain line is given real, human MEANING--in my opinion, for the first time in ANY production--and this otherwise stark, cold, mysterious Noh drama of a playlet suddenly ends with a very charming and warm image of the three old maids, remembering how, as girls, they anticipated a future as beloved wives--a prospect which, apparently, was never realized, and now, all three are (presumably) dying, although none of them know that their ends are coming soon--"God grant not!" Bottom line--I thought this was a SPECTACULARLY good transfer of this tiny little gem of a dark tragicomedy to film--and was absolutely delighted with it.

Naturally, Beckett isn't going to be everybody's cup of tea--but if you DO get in the mood for his abstract, dark vision, now and then, I doubt that you'll find this a disappointing setting of his "dramaticule." The entire series this is from, "Beckett on Film," is worth a look--a project to commit all 19 plays in Beckett's corpus to film.

BBC Play of the Month: The Wild Duck (1971) Season 6, Episode 7

If you ever get a chance, grab it for Jenny Agutter's greatest performance

[8/10 · 4 November 2006]

I saw this, when it first aired on American television, long ago...and what stays with me forever after was the amazing performance of Jenny Agutter as Hedvig.

It's all a play, until she appears, and suddenly, it's all real--until she leaves the stage again, and then it becomes a costume play again.

Everyone I remember talking this over with had exactly the same impression: all we could talk about was her incredibly touching performance, and how utterly drawn into the reality of her character all of us were.

I've never seen it again; and I've never forgotten it.

And while I rushed to see Jenny Agutter in other films, once I'd seen The Wild Duck, I've never seen her play another role which I thought was done to such perfection.

I guess it's a little like Patti Duke's portrayal of the young Helen Keller in "The Miracle Worker"...even if she would never play another role so well, so superb was that one performance, that she'll never be forgotten.

You try to see this, and tell me if I'm not remembering it right, after all these years.

Parsifal (1982)

Turn off the English Subtitles!

[9/10 · 20 October 2006]

This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherché "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.

Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.

Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.

The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.

The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.

__________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.

Babycakes (1989 TV Movie)

See "Zuckerbaby" (1985) Instead!

[1/10 · 22 August 2006]

I saw this remake of "Zuckerbaby" only after I was well-acquainted with the excellent German film, and so I really have no way of rating it in its OWN right.

However, I was thoroughly horrified with how trite and childish the remake is, compared to the original film. It is similar to my feelings about the remake of "La cage aux folles," in that all the charm of the original film has been lost.

My chief objection to it is that the adult nature of the film, its serious, somewhat dark, ambiguous tone--at times hilariously funny, at times moving and quiet, and at times despairing of human loneliness and isolation--all gets lost, and the remake feels like a room that is heavily scented with some horrid, artificial "air freshener." One feels advocacy groups rallying outside the windows, politically correct sentiments, and committees approving of everything in the remake.

I strongly recommend that, if you have NOT seen this film, you make an effort to get the German film "Zuckerbaby" instead, put up with the subtitles, and enjoy a wonderful, grown-up film on a grown-up subject, and leave this horrid remake aside.