Change Your Image
Profrplum
Reviews
Cold Mountain (2003)
Extraordinarily well-executed flawed film
This movie will probably garner Oscar nominations for cinematography and adaptation from another medium, because the script is excellent and the settings spectacular.
Renee Zellweger, happening onscreen after about a third of the movie is over, absolutely takes it over and is superb without qualification. She may well get a nomination and win an award for supporting actress. The movie has an enormous amount going for it.
But somehow it all falls a little flat. As is the case with Oakland, there's no "there, there." The picaresque journey of the male character is fine, but one is still wanting something, well, more.
Bottom line, I (who enjoyed thoroughly the end-western-shows of Clint Eastwood) actually did yawn during parts of this movie.
Sorry, all. But give Renee her Oscar.
In the Cut (2003)
A worthwhile study of the evolution of Meg Ryan. Overall, there's no "there, there."
This movie stars, among others, Meg Ryan. But if that conjures up images of ditzy, or at least if not ditzy somewhat self-contented, blondes, be disadvised. This is clearly something of an effort on the part of Meg Ryan to distance herself from her general image of the perky, maybe bright, but relentlessly perky, blonde. Think "Sleepless in Seattle," which, incidentally, I really like.
She's gone brownhair and all seriouslike. Her life is difficult, and then maybe she dies. It's all complicated, and there are all these women getting killed, and there's this cop (extremely well-played by Mike Ruffalo, who might be up for awards for this movie if there's justice in the world) who has the downplayed hots for Meg, and there's a lot of pretty well-done sex. Quite a lot. Really a lot.
I like the movie well enough, and respect the plotting enough, that I'm not giving up the ending. No spoiler here. But the whole thing leaves me feeling sort of like I've visited Oakland and validated Julia Stein's comment about it. They just should have been able to do more with it.
Nevertheless, Meg Ryan and Ruffalo do superb work. It's worth seeing for them alone, if you don't object to explicit sex and about 568,582 uses of the word "fuck."
Oh. I didn't say anything about what it was about, you say? Hm. You have a point.
It's about murder of female persons most foul, involving a word that is like "dismemberment" but different and which you should learn from the movie. It's about an English teacher who is idealistic but also cynical about how the world really works. It's about blowjobs (a word used in the movie and hence appropriate in a review on the Net), and about figuring out how it's possible to work things out with men even though you're really fearful of them due to your father. It's about a really noir view of the underside of New York City. And all of those things are well-done. But, again, it's also about a void left at the end of the affair. I walked out of the theater wondering just why I'd been there, even though I didn't resent the time spent at all. But why was I there? I haven't figured that one out yet, which means I haven't figured out why this expensively produced movie with lots of star power was made.
But I note, again, I didn't walk out feeling unhappy. May have to come back to this as I think about it later. I gave it a "7," but if I can change that, I might try after more thought. Complex working, there.
But, again, it's reasonable to say that it's mainly about a pretty successful effort on the part of Meg Ryan to let us know she can be something besides Tom Hanks's potential wife. No cute little chirps here, although those Meg Ryan lips remain those Meg Ryan lips no matter what. It's OK; it's what you do with them that matters (*chuckle*) and not what they look like in the abstract, that counts.
Certainly at least worth a matinee performance. Not a really great date flick, though, unless you're already seriously involved. Then a pretty good one, because it could get you talking about the meaning of different relationship tactics and activities.
Joan of Arcadia (2003)
Startlingly good
There have been for the last two years precisely two television shows I would go out of my way to watch: Gilmore Girls and Everwood. I hasten to add that as a fiftysomething white male lawyer I do not exactly fit The Frog's demographic -- but I do fit rather comfortably into CBS's.
But what I like is thoughtful, insightful television, the kind of thing that hold up a mirror to us in which we can view our own lives. Gilmore Girls and Everwood do that; before that, the last shows I can recall that did were Northern Exposure and Picket Fences. It seems that Joan of Arcadia is to become the third show on current television that does the same, and thus become the third show I'll either record or make it a point to be available to see on current TV.
I am honestly surprised that CBS would greenlight this show. Maybe they have a sort of 8-10 year cycle for "quirkily honest television" and this is supposed to step into the Northern Exposure slot. I don't know. But the simplest fact to me is that both the writing and acting are superb and subtle, and that the characters, particularly but not exclusively Joan, are layered and complex, while the secondary characters are clearly intended to be real individuals, not just cardboard cutouts. In addition to that, the underlying theological and plot development issues seem to be being handled in a rational and analytical fashion that could lead (has led, in some other fora) to quite interesting discussion.
My only fear for the show is that it may just prove too intelligent for the 'Murrican public, as one of the evaluations here (no names) would seem to indicate. But its being on CBS, oddly, may save it, since the intergenerational aspects may bring some older folks into its fold and get them interested in the show for its intellectual qualities, as well as Joan's charisma. Not to mention Mary Steenburgen, who is an actor of proved quality who has won an Oscar and a Golden Globe in addition to many other awards.
I think this show may be around for quite a while.
The Boy with Green Hair (1948)
Comments after three years
Well, thanks, Mark from Santa Monica. Oddly, this is the first time I've checked this thread since a few days after the post to which you referred. The Internet is an interesting phenomenon in terms of keeping thoughts alive, isn't it?
I wanted to say a couple of things. I think the comments of the folks whom I've called younger (note that there's been no response indicating that I was mistaken) are not due so much to their being trained to be sterilely (is that a word?) analytical (I'm a lawyer; I know how to do that) as it is to their lack of experience in dealing with people of differing viewpoints but still justifiably due respect. The disparaging of the semi-magical orphan group is the prime example in my recollection; again, at that time, what may now seem to some to be "silly" was very far from it. And again, the message isn't so much anti-war (although there's that element) as it is anti-discrimination, the kind of discrimination that can lead (and just had led) to the slaughter of millions, in the context not only of war but of lawlessness and total lack of respect for humanity.
I share your interest in the fact that many were impressed by this movie as youth. I was likewise impressed by the message of "The Day the Earth Stood Still," which has some antiwar and antidiscrimination parallels to "Green Hair." I was still a young kid at the time of the dissemination of "Earth Still." I'm not sure where this actually goes, though. The fact is that sometimes you have to fight. Hitler had to be fought. Indeed, if he'd been fought earlier, the obliteration of sixty or seventy million human beings in World War II might have been avoided. Hence, I supported the Iraq War II, even though I knew full well that Idiot Boy so-called supposed President hadn't a clue (I never bought the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" crap), because we should get rid of monsters controlling modern states with their incredible killing power. I don't quite know where that fits in "Green Hair," to be completely frank.
Well, enough; I ramble. But one point I do want to make. I have a commercial VHS of "The Boy With Green Hair." I found it at the 99-cent table at Blockbusters about ten years ago. I can't copy it or send it because it's boxed up somewhere due to my several moves over the last few years, but I can assure one and all that it exists. Maybe check eBay, I dunno. It's out there, though, guys and gals, just like the Truth.... (Hee.)
Everwood (2002)
Another good show for The Frog
The WB had better watch out, or people might start mistaking it for something serious.
"Everwood" joins "Gilmore Girls" as a series with a point, excellent acting (it's good to see Treat Williams finally just maybe hitting his stride after all these years since "Hair"), and outstanding writing. Gregory Smith does a fine job as well, not to mention the surprisingly strong performances from the supporting characters who uniformly make us believe that maybe for all of us somewhere there might be, and we wish there would be, an Everwood. Particularly noteworthy in this regard are young Vivien Cardone as Treat's young daughter, and Tom Amades, Treat's point-counterpoint guy, conservative and opposed to any sort of change, but with a spirit that nonetheless opens his mind from time to time without any touch of cliche in scenes that could be triteness walking in the hands of other actors.
Between "Everwood" and GG, The Frog blesses us with two of the best-written, best-acted, most lively and meaningful shows on television today. There's a long-term story arc to both of those shows, so when you try them (not "if") give them four or five episodes. And *do* try them. (While you're at it, give a glance or three at "Reba," which is turning out to be another surprise, although closer to pure comedy than either "Everwood" or "Gilmore Girls.")
Prancer Returns (2001)
A modern fable
A fine cast, particularly John Corbett and Stacy Edwards, with good performances from the youngsters, aids this otherwise slightly better-than-average Christmas tale to achieve a high level of entertainment value and sentimental expression. No, it's not for the cynical, but its admixture of the difficulties broken families experience during the holidays particularly and the hope that Christmas engenders in all but the hardest-hearted of us brings the potential for love and progress to the fore for the audience.
There's no reason not to enjoy this and let wistfulness take charge once a year. As another reviewer said, it will become a regular at Christmastime, and it should.
Oh. A final note. Jack Palance is excellent in his small but significant role.