Reviews

I am a HUGE fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I have probably read the books 6 or 7 times, cover to cover. I read it aloud to my children, all 1000+ pages, and I have a cat named Gandalf, the Mostly Gray.

I find Peter Jackson's LoTR film rich, evocative, and true to Tolkein. It has gotten better each time I have seen it--which is maybe 10 times now. How many films can handle that level of scrutiny? The script, written by people who obviously love the books, takes a brilliantly conceived but often clumsily written fantasy-saga and transforms it a real world with real people and real feelings! I have been impressed by the clarity of the script, the decisions the writers made to compress a complex epic into a 3 hour movie, and by how the writers managed to get at the emotional heart of scenes. Though I was a bit sad that the Tom Bombadil interlude and the barrow wights had to be cut, that was too bad.

Despite the many times that I have read the book, some of the characters and scenes were hazy to me, and P. Jackson has made them vivid and true. If I have a criticism, it's that they go overboard on the special effects--like the gazillion ooze-y orcs in Moria, the dripping-with-blood Nazgul or the variably sized cave troll. Could Sauron have more big sharp metal angles??? But the acting is exceptional: Ian McKellan as Gandalf is the moral center of the film, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Ian Holm are convincing as noble Frodo, wise Sam and jolly Bilbo, Viggo Mortensen is a manly Aragorn, and Orlando Bloom is a totally persuasive warrior wood-elf. I thought Sean Bean's Boromir was complex, troubled and nuanced portrayal. A film adaptation of Tolkein deserves the best of everything: best acting, best sets, best props, best costumes, best music, best script, best directing, best fighting, best effects, and I believe this film has given it the best of the best.

I have to admit I am astonished by those viewers who complain that the Aragorn and Arwen romance wasn't in the book. !!!! It must be a guy thing to miss a major plot line if it doesn't involve swords. Go back, re-read. Tolkein was big on the whole myth-saga thing, and an Englishman to boot, so relationships are deep and feelings suppressed, but it's all there. For me, the fact that the writers understood and brought it out makes me giddy: We can trust these people. We are in the hands of Masters! I can't wait for December 18.

The performances were well done: Peter Sellers was so sweet and committed, Capuchine and Claudia Cardinale were quintessential sixties females, David Niven as perfect as ever. A few scenes--eg, when David Niven and Robert Wagner (in a sweater stretched down to his knees) are hiding in Cousteau's bedroom--are nicely directed. But, but....what a profoundly nasty set of values and underlying assumptions! Infidelity, drunkenness, lechery, theft are 'cool' and sophisticated. The one genuinely good guy, Cousteau, is a figure of fun, apparently because he was clumsy, loving and blind to his wife's infidelity. What an extraordinarily weird, weird time the early 60s were! I'd recommend sticking with modern comedies that are mindless, scatological or just plain silly (anything post-Airplane, for example). It might be a good reference source if you are wondering about the styles and attitudes of the 60s jet-set, though 'Charade' would be a more pleasant evening.

The 13th Warrior is mythic, compelling, powerful and moving--a cross between Beowulf and the Seven Samurai. I found it violent, yes, which is hard for me because I am a very tender-hearted viewer. (Jane Austen is more my usual fare.) A second viewing was worth the time. It let me see the scenes I couldn't watch the first time, and gave me greater appreciation for the myth and saga of it all. It has a fresh perspective, spare narrative, excellent performances and crisp pacing. The designers did a vivid job of creating mysterious, distant cultures. Hollywood movies are not used to cold, mist, mud, pine forests and giant blonde and red-haired pagans--I relished the look of the film. I loved the development of the Northman--from strange raw brutes to courageous, noble warriors and friends. The movie is uncompromising in its depiction of Viking life. A gem of a film. I'm going to buy a copy. Its worth seeing more than twice.

What an intelligent film!!! I loved its stage-y quality--The good-humored recreation of a performance in Shakespeare's time with the audience so fully engaged, laughing at jokes we don't understand (e.g., the machinations of churchmen). I loved the details and sense of history--the sets inspired by medieval illuminations and the score by William Walton. The tight script and directing bring out the complexity of the play. Unlike other reviewers, I'd rate it higher than Branagh's more visceral, contemporary version though I can see why some might find this one pallid. It doesn't have a modern feel, and this style of acting Shakespeare feels dated to me--I've grown accustomed to naturalism. Overall, I appreciate that it is many-layered and distinctively English. I hope it accomplished its worthy goal of raising morale during the WWII.

My father used to sing me to sleep with Gilbert and Sullivan songs, so Topsy Turvy was a must see for me. I've seen it twice, once in the theatre and once on video. The first time I was overwhelmed by all the details and missed a lot. I found the pace slow. Still, I liked it well enough to want to see it again. The second time, at home on video, was far richer and more engaging. The leisurely pace became an indulgence. I think this film is in a category uniquely its own--the brilliant and affectionate re-creation of Victorian life of the 1880s. The performances are subtle and distinctive and, of course, I love the music. I'm going to watch it again before I return it.

Some old films hold up so beautifully, but I found the Garden of the Finzi-Contini's to be among the creaky dated ones. I think it must be a much better novel than movie. The only way to understand the Finzi-Continis and their garden is as literary metaphors. The dying brother?--maybe the death of the world they knew?? The unpredictable, cruel Micol? --The fate of Jews who act as though they are not Jewish--assimilated on the outside, confused and hollow on the inside. She flirts with but rejects a Jewish man who loves her, and has casual sex with an Aryan faschist whom she considers crude--just as the Ferrara Jews seem flirt with and reject their Jewishness and submit to the loss of their civil liberties. The garden?--the carefree innocence lost in the Holocaust. And so on. It's worth seeing for the beautiful young men and women--all burnished gold. The power of the film is provided by the portrayal of Georgio's family, stuggling to understand and accommodate as their rights are taken away one at a time. They are heartbreaking.

I loved this film in the 60s and read most of Faulkner because of it. I was delighted--it held up well!!! Of course, Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward have a magical, real chemistry--they are so beautiful together. What was surprising to me (seeing it after all these years) was Orson Welles (deliciously alive and crude as Will Varner) and the rich performances of the secondary characters. William Walker (Lucius) has particular dignity and gravity. Beautiful young Lee Remick (Eula Varner) and Sarah Marshall (Agnes Stuart) are also very appealing. The film was a visual treat, lush in colors and spirit. I feasted on the setting--the rural south of 40+ years ago (no McDonalds or Walmarts, no plastic, no A/C.) The plot is creaky--the film's weakest element--but the dialogue was lively and clever. It was fascinating to revisit the world that existed before feminism and the civil rights movement--that feature of the film is an education in itself. Overall, I greatly enjoyed seeing it again.

I loved Whit Stillman's other films and enjoyed Last Days of Disco as much as Barcelona and Metropolitan. Here's a testimony to how amusing the film is:My husband actually wanted to see it a second time. What I appreciate most is that Stillman captures how thinking, well educated people actually talk. The film is witty and complex-for example, when three characters deconstruct Lady and the Tramp the film works on multiple levels. The disco-scene is a curiosity. People thought this was fun?

I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.

I saw 'Bambi meets Godzilla' a lifetime ago, and it remains unequaled. It's the essence of amusing. I have continued to giggle for 30 years (!), and I am amazed at how many occasions bring 'Bambi meets Godzilla' to mind. Just recently, I found a computer generated short, 'Alien Song' which has the same punchline, sort of. It's not 'Bambi', but good in its own right, and reminds me of 'Bambi'. Hee, hee. There! I'm giggling again.

This is the best film I have seen in a long time. I found it lovely, haunting, and quite magical. Writer-director William Nicolson set the story in the 1840s to provide a structure of duty and constraint, but the world he created feels very accessible. The entire cast give strong performances--Stephen Dillane and Sophie Marceau make an appealing couple and, as their daughter, Dominique Bellacourt is a realistic brat. The relationships they form with one another feel emotionally true in a way I rarely find in films. The non-verbals are important in this film--the script is spare. Don't examine the plot too carefully--you might get cranky over details that are really irrelevant. It's a film for the heart, not the head. Here's trivial praise-to my Northern eye some scenes were photographed in genuinely cold weather, and I liked seeing winter landscapes and bright winter complexions. 'Persuasion' and 'When the Cat's Away' have the same kind of yearning tone.

Interesting to see Mel Gibson as Hamlet after Kenneth Branagh's definitive version. He may not be the best Hamlet ever, but he's certainly competent--his Hamlet has a kind of energy and restlessness. His feelings are never hidden from us. He is supported by a marvelous cast--luminous Glenn Close (Gertrude); gentle Stephen Dillane (Horatio); manly Alan Bates (Claudius), lovely Helena Bonham-Carter (Ophelia). The script really consists of 'Hamlet' highlights--one famous speech after another (camera focused on Mr. Gibson) with an occasional full ensemble scene--the players, the Queen's chamber, Ophelia's madness and death, the final fight. The castle in which it was filmed provides a spectacular background and should be given co-billing. This is the perfect choice if you want to see Hamlet, but don't fancy spending 5 hours on it.

I remember seeing 'Bedazzled' in the late 60s when it first came out, and laughing and laughing. I thought it was so witty--my first taste of British humor. Last weekend, 30-odd years later, I rented it for my 16-year-old daughter, who was pining for something light. Sophisticated in Brit humor--she was weaned on Monty Python--I wanted her to see the original 'swinging London.' I thought she might be bored, but she (and I) thoroughly enjoyed it. Time has only added luster--the script is as witty and as theologically sound as ever and the cameos as delightful. Time has only enhanced the 60s London scene--the rock star bit, my daughter's favorite bit, appears to have been an influence for the Austin Powers set designer. George Spiggot's petty irritations--the double tempt!--made us giggle. The pacing is a still a little slow--it drags at the end. My daughter loved it, however, which was a pleasure. Lots of fun to see this classic again.

A blithe film, perfect for a wintry evening. I saw it because I have loved every Tavernier film I have seen. This one was an unexpected treat--I was prepared for something dark and moody, and instead got Gallic sunshine. The plot is about as serious as a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, but it really doesn't matter. It's all delightful froth. Twenty years have passed since the famous adventures of the Three Musketeers. The film begins with an escaped African slave and a mysterious raid on the convent in which Eloise, the daughter of D'Artagnan, has been raised. Quick tempered and bold, she vows to avenge the death of the Mother Superior, disguises herself as a boy and leaves for Paris seeking her father's aid. The film records the amusing history of her subsequent adventures and companions. The French do this kind of picture better than any one else--it's civilized, affectionate, jolly, self-aware, playful, and respectful. Sophie Marceau is luminous, whimsical and feisty as Eloise. I wish we could see her in more roles. Phillipe Noiret is perfect as D'Artagnan, moving and comic simultaneously. Over-scheduled Americans may fret at the pacing, but just allow yourself to be a little French--enjoy the tale, the lack of American style violence and the delightful performances, music, and sets. C'est tres jolie.

I have loved Mansfield Park since I was a teenager--it was the first Jane Austen I really understood. I suppose I identified with thoughtful, oppressed, overlooked Fanny! My first reaction was that the film was okay, but over the next several days I got more and more cranky about it. I ended up really finding the changes distasteful. I appreciate that the director was trying to translate some of Austen's delicate points into something that modern minds can grasp. It just bugs me when modern sensibilities distort a tale to impose a political agenda. Still, I suppose the film was pretty and well acted, and the costumes and settings were commendable: It beats 'Saving Private Ryan'. But I'd recommend 'Firelight' or 'Persuasion' if you want romance, and 'Welcome to Sarajevo' if you want genuine political issues.

Normally, I avoid anything that has explosions or injured people. I will never see 'Saving Private Ryan,' for example. But my husband was interested in this because it was filmed on location in Sarajevo during a cease fire and interweaves real footage of the war with the movie. In addition, it stars Stephen Dillane, who is really one of the most interesting actors around. So I saw it with my husband and found it very worthwhile. Surprisingly, I was able to watch the violence and gore--perhaps, because it was real, not filtered through the fantasy and political agendas of a Hollywood director. The location adds a great deal, as do the Bosnian/Serbian performers. The best scenes were those that suggested how life was going on in the midst of the rubble--both for the journalists and for the residents. The faces were incredible. Woody Harelson was wonderfully cast, a nice antidote to a potential good guy-bad guy dichotomy. Stephen Dillane's understated performance is impressive--he does conversation so beautifully. All in all, a very worthwhile, interesting film, even for those of us who generally prefer Jane Austen and silly comedies. It's complex, multi-layered and touching.