Change Your Image
BKTrayner
Reviews
Effie Gray (2014)
Where's the Scandal?
Great Masterpiece Theatre costumes, characters, and setting, but the whole this is a slow motion bore.
It's obvious from almost the beginning that the domineering parents don't like Effie. Nothing new about this plot -- been there and done that. Then we learn that something is clearly wrong with Ruskin, the mama's boy, who won't have sex with his wife.
This story line goes on for an hour or so, and then we are introduced to a painter who captures Effie's heart -- now it's another version of the Forsyte Saga -- but we don't actually see any love scene.
Then Effie finally goes to the lawyer and finds out she can get an annulment, and the movie essentially ends with the lawyer serving the divorce papers.
We looked this up in Wikipedia. The story as presented in the movie is essentially true and accurate, but the "real" story goes on to a public scandal over this divorce with the re-marriage to the painter.
The summary on IMDb indicates this will be about this "scandalous" love triangle. We learn for the first hour about two sides of the triangle, and we meet the third side in the second hour, but nothing about the scandal. This could have been a great movie with lawyers fighting in court, newspapers chasing Ruskin, etc. Instead, Emman Thompson simply wrote a screenplay that strips this historic episode of any dramatic interest.
In the small art theater where we saw this, my wife and I were the only ones in the audience. The projectionist was just about ready to lock the door and go home. After see this move, we understand why.
Bad Words (2013)
A Good Plot Spoiled
The concept behind this film -- that an adult hatches a plan to enter a spelling bee because of a technicality he finds in the rules -- is clever. It would allow a plot to be spun out about the people trying to get him kicked out legally or illegally, his tactics to stay in, etc.
The problem is the foul language and the basic nastiness of the movie to the point where my wife and I almost walked out.
In the first place, our "hero" (who apparently is a good enough speller to win the bee on his merits) goes way beyond simply using a technicality to be eligible to compete. Rather, he uses cruel and crude tactics to disqualify other contestants. This is supposed to be a "comedy," so we are supposed to be laughing at this. Sadly, a few people in the theater were laughing (when they weren't texting their friends).
And then there is the language. There's got to be a difference between using foul language in a movie for emphasis or to simulate the real world, but in this case the writers simply said, "Let's put as much potty talk in as we can for no other reason than to give a double meaning to the title." Add in some casual sex. Add in taking one of the contestants our hero befriends to a bar and slipping him drinks under the table.
My advice: don't go to this movie, and don't go to the next one made by the same director
Les adieux à la reine (2012)
Good Historical Drama, Great Costumes
I enjoyed this movie specifically because it dealt with the first few days (only) of the French Revolution -- no need to watch people being beheaded. I thought is was a realistic and interesting portrayal of Marie Antoinette because it didn't attempt to make her sympathetic or to cast her as a misunderstood, crypto-feminist. Too many books these days attempt to do that where, lets face it, she was eating cake while millions starved. The French monarchs got exactly what they deserved.
I enjoyed this move because I could follow the dialog since it was with subtitled. I don't know why it is, but all movies involving the French aristocracy in the 18th century has the characters chattering at a rapid rate. This must be because pictures from that period make you think that's how someone dressed up like that would talk. But I am sure that lots of people in those days spoke slowly and deliberately. Further, I don't understand why the latest fad in movie scripts is unintelligible dialog mumbled. At any rate, these characters spoke in the usual staccato, but since there were subtitles I got every word.
There is a lot of dramatic tension in this film because of the angst of the characters left in the dark as the Old Regime crumbles. If you know anything about the period, you know what the main characters will do, but for the rest ... who knows? People who have criticized this film for not providing background or context should consider that this is a French movie aimed at French people. I don't think we would need much context if a movie started out with people in colonial garb and a big sign that said, "This way to Bunker Hill."
Now to the spoiler, and my puzzlement leaving the movie. At the end, the heroine is dressed up as a noble woman (who is the lesbian lover of Marie Antoinette) and the noble woman is dressed as the servant. The idea is that they will take a carriage to escape France, and if they are stopped the servant-heroine will die. The carriage is stopped, and after a long minute of having her papers examined our heroine is motioned to go on to safety.
No one has commented on this, but I'm wondering: the officer who examines the papers must know who she is. He must be someone who we have seen earlier in the film at Versailles. It would make no sense any other way since she is dressed up as public enemy #1 and there is an angry crowd in the background. Who was the soldier? One of the problems with this movie is that it is hard to keep track of who's who, and it is a directing mistake (assuming I'm correct) to fail to make us aware of the identity of the soldier. (Were I the director, I would solve this by dressing him in WWII uniform, but I guess that's why I'm not a director.)
Next spoiler. Other viewers have focused on the lesbian relationship, and they question the authenticity of our heroine being so devoted to the Queen who is a self-absorbed airhead. My question: when the queen tells the heroine about her great love, you get the distinct impression that the heroine believes Marie Antoinette is about to name her. Earlier in the film, we see the queen essentially fondling her. Is our heroine supposed to be a closet lesbian? If so, this explains why she is so devoted to the queen and also why she agrees to put on the dress that makes her a target for the mob.
The Descendants (2011)
Tired of Downer Movies
Once they get an idea, they run with it, and run with it, and run with it. Maybe it's just me, but I'm struck by the number of indie or grown-up films I've seen of late that are depressing. Not that this movie didn't keep my attention, but I'd rather spend my 2 hours in the movie seeing something that kept my interest. Moneyball. Ides of March. So my review here is that you only go to this movie if you want escapist entertainment -- that is, escape right back into your very own miserable existence.
As to the movie itself, I think it is a more realistic portrayal of a real world situation with a loved one on life support -- not like all the happy nonsense you see on the "Today" show where everybody is so happy that a parent has Alzheimers and the medical bills are eating up the estate. Here the medical problem central to the movie is ripping everyone apart. Realistic, but not my cup of tea on a winter evening.
Upstairs Downstairs (2010)
How The Mighty Have Fallen
It's really not polite to directly criticize other reviewers -- they are certainly entitled to their opinion. But it would be interesting to know the ages of the various people who have given this series a high rating.
While it is probably true that the younger, twittering crowd would not sit still these days to watch the original Upstairs/Downstairs, PBS and the BBC have made a serious mistake abandoning the core audience. It's like a farm stand selling Grandma's Homemade Apple Pie that decides to increase business by switching over to sell Grandma's Fastfood Fries -- with the result that after a year or so there is no more Grandma's anything. They've established a trust fund to "save" MPT, but why bother? Use the money to Save the Whales instead.
So here we have Masterpiece Theatre producing a potboiler soap opera in 3 episodes with gorgeous costumes and absolutely nothing else.
To begin with, the series shares nothing with the original except a name. The 20 minutes wasted in the first episode that goes to opening up the old house is simply an attempt to trade upon the original franchise. It is unbelievable that the place would have been vacant that long, and how does it advance the story in any way at all? The maudlin long gazes out the window by Rose accompanied by violins -- the wine cellar key with Mr. Hudson's name being replaced -- what is that all about?
Each episode has improbable plot twists. The new servant in the first episode who turns out to be on parole and ends up back in jail. The servant in the second episode who conveniently has asthma and dies in the final reel. The sudden discovery of a long lost sister with Down's Syndrome in the third episode who is conveniently in the same facility as the conveniently troubled daughter of the deceased maid. (This particular chestnut is inherently improbable as you would think that mom would have put the child in a different facility to avoid her son discovering his sister.) The head butler who moonlights as an obstetrician. The seamy love scenes. All trite stuff.
And where it isn't trite, the material points more to today's concerns than to creating the world of the 1930's. We have the special needs child that was shut away, the refugee from Nazi Germany foreshadowing the Holocaust, the ethnic minority, etc.
In the original series, there were a couple of times when something from the "real world" popped up in an episode as a plot devise. One time Prince Edward came to dinner, and the whole show revolved around staging such a dinner party. And, of course, Mrs. Bellamy went down on the Titanic. Here, we get Moseley in one episode, Wallace Simpson in another, and the Abdication thrown in for good measure. So much for subtly.
In contrast, the original series revolved around the slow development of a group of complicated characters: Richard Bellamy's role as an MP combined with his uncomfortable position at home where his wife had all the money; and the subtle relationship between the servants downstairs and the gentry upstairs culminating, I suppose, when Richard came to the bedside of Mr. Hudson when he was sick; and the problems when Richard married his secretary because the servants would not accept someone who didn't know her place; and the long, slow decline of the brother following WWI; and the cast of characters who made occasional appearances like the family lawyer who would eventually show up to resolve difficulties or Prudence ("Pru") who would stop to see her friend Lady Bellamy and who later thought Richard would be a good match (and so did the audience) but Richard didn't show interest.
So this failed effort is simply a sad parody of the original and inadvertent commentary on how dumbed down MPT has become.
The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
At Last, A Movie For People With ADD!
There are many movies with impossible plots that are entertaining because you are carried along by the story. You don't notice the holes in the plot until the next day. In this case, the plot is not merely preposterous, it is transparent. As such, it is impossible to enjoy the movie because you are sitting in the theatre analyzing its faults. Let's begin with the idea that Matt Damon looks for his true love for 3 years after their chance meeting. O.K., so I didn't realize until the next day that his true love had crashed a wedding and that she was last seen being chased by security people much faster than she was. Matt could simply have checked back at the hotel to learn her identity. But even while I was watching the movie it was obvious that he plays a well-known public figure. So why didn't she just call him up? Once you realize this is all she would have to do, the premise of the movie collapses. In addition, as other reviewers have noted, the human hero is outwitting God. How believable is that? The angels suggest that God just doesn't have the resources to monitor everybody, so He focuses on "important" people. That's simply annoying. This is a God who (rather than knowing when any sparrow falls) apparently only knows when a condor falls. And then you have the angel who violates God's orders to help our hero find his true love by loaning him his cheesy hat. I could only think of the Red Hat Ladies. Where do they end up when they go though a door? I've never read (or heard of) the scifi novel from the 50's that this is based on, but I recognized the genre when it was postulated that all the large events of Western Civilization could be explained by times that God intervened and times when God took a hands-off approach: God was on-duty up to the Fall of Rome, but took the day off during the Dark Ages, etc. Other reviewers quibble that this ignores other cultures, but 1950's scifi was into sweeping concepts like this. Frankly, it is kinda neat, and as a teenager I would have been intrigued. But the problem here is that Hollywood has taken what was probably a pretty good idea from the 50's and trashed it. I'd bet that the author made a much more credible case for his premise and tied up the loose ends in a way that was internally consistent. Not so here. I give three stars because of the scenes of New York and because smoking was not prominently featured. Even Big Tobacco passed on this turkey.
The Company Men (2010)
If You Like Michael Moore Movies, You'll Love This One
The plot line of this movie is so realistic that it looks more like a Michael Moore documentary than a work of fiction. All the issues surrounding the main problem facing America today are aired in this movie through the story line and the characters. Corporate downsizing, outsourcing, foreign competition, the passing of a way of life, aging infrastructure, corporate greed -- they are all there, and they are all explored through these characters.
On one level, this was a pretty grim downer of a movie on a night where we simply wanted entertainment followed by beer and pizza. At the same time, this was a gripping film every bit as engrossing as True Grit. That's in part because each character was a good person we could identify with and root for. No one was the raging alcoholic or drug addict blowing money and opportunity. Other reviewers have noted these folks had it pretty soft, but I think it is hard to make this movie work if the people who are the losers start out as losers already. It's the fact that the employees of this company are hard working and successful that creates the wrenching drama.
Each of the characters was perfect, and they should introduce a new Oscar category for best ensemble. There weren't any situations that were unrealistic in the sense that no character (except maybe for throwing rocks at the company) did or said anything that was out of character.
For example, Ben Afflack is perfect as the mid-level accounts manager dressed for success and mostly concerned about his golf score. His loving and sensible wife says he has to sell the Porche, but I think he has it right when he refuses: in order to succeed he must keep up appearances. So even in such a small detail, the dialog explores and develops these characters and their situation.
I'm sure that this is a movie that speaks to people over 40 more than to a younger audience, but for an audience where this movie is playing out before them, it really hits home. Is maximizing share price all that matters?
Black Swan (2010)
A Horror Movie Marketed As An Art Film
I wrestled with whether to submit a review for this reason: everybody is entitled to their own taste in movies, and the mere fact that this movie is not to my taste doesn't make it "bad." On the other hand, I note that people who obviously like horror movies have given this movie an enthusiastic rating so that, on balance, I see no reason why I shouldn't rate it "awful" based upon my dislike of this genre.
The next question I asked myself was whether there was any point in submitting a review -- what could I add beyond simply dissing horror movies. I answer that question this way: I saw this movie because it was released at year's end with an "Oscar buzz" and it turns out to be simply a horror movie. It has all the gory scenes and demon-like characters popping up suddenly when a door is opened that is de rigueur in such a flick.
The story that underlies this tale profiles the psychiatric torments of a profoundly disturbed individual. As such, this tale could have been told without the gratuitous "sex" and without the special effects. It is sad that the movie industry has come to the point where the fare of mindless summer blockbusters is now being served up as serious drama.
If horror movies are your thing, go for it. Otherwise, I'd take a pass.
The Next Three Days (2010)
Great Flick
As other reviewers have said, this movie is exciting all the way through. You never are sure what is going to happen. We liked this movie because it's plot is intricate and twisting, but all the loose ends are tied up. There are slow moments, but never really any dull moments because the tension is always there.
My wife and I avoid movies that are all about special effects or top heavy with impossible action sequences that no one could possibly survive. (O.K., there are some things that are pretty unlikely, but you will be carried along by the action and it will not distract or detract.)
We also have grown tired of movies where the plot starts out in one direction and wanders away to who-knows-where after the first hour. We go to the movies to see people we like do neat things rather than watching a bunch of losers share their suffering with us.
It you want to completely forget about all your troubles and have a fun evening with Russell Crowe, this is the movie for you.
The American (2010)
A Tiresome Two Hours
I use the "flat bottom" index to evaluate movies. If my bottom feels flat on the seat, it is a boring movie. I would not go to any movie looking for special effects, but I do like an interesting plot and some action.
This movie's plot is simply obtuse. We have a hero who we never figure out what he actually does, enemies we have no idea why, a mission that makes little sense, long intervals where nothing much happens, etc.
True, the plot lacks the annoying special effects, but it is still unbelievable. It seems Clooney is making some kind of a special weapon for somebody or other (who would probably be able to get it with less hassle on the internet within 48 hours), and somehow he is doing all this intricate work that would require all kinds of machine tools in a place that barely has electricity. The plot also includes impossible characters: the femme fatale who is some sort of assassin, the prostitute with the heart of gold, and the all-knowing, all-seeing local priest. We are only missing a cameo appearance by Dr. No.
Better than the other summer nonsense released recently, but still not as good as reruns.
An Education (2009)
Smoke Screen
I give this an 8 because it was the first movie in some time where I forgot my other problems and enjoyed myself.
That said, I was annoyed and bothered by the gratuitous smoking in this movie, and I am sad to see that a movie can retain a PG rating with this much smoking in it. I say "gratuitous" because at no point in the movie did someone burn a hole in a carpet or be diagnosed as having lung cancer (which 1 in 10 of these characters would be in real life). As such, smoking played no role in the movie whatsoever, and for those who claim it was "part of the 60's" I would point out that at no point were Vietnam or the Beatles mentioned and they was also part of the 60's. Smoking was everywhere, even inside a closed car. You cannot convince me that Big Tobacco didn't do some product placement in this thing.
I believe as movie goers we should raise more of a stink about this issue. It should simply be unacceptable at this point to glamorize the notion that smoking makes you sophisticated or a part of the good life. We should object that a movie like this is approved for children to see.
Bright Star (2009)
Too Slow For Comfort
It is a beautiful costume drama set in Victorian England. There are no preposterous car chases. Nobody morphs into an alien. It is not a cartoon supposedly for children that contains all sorts of off-color jokes to train the next generation of off-color individuals.
And, yes, this is one of those romances where they are able to create tremendous sexual tension while everybody keeps their clothes on.
BUT. This movie is simply slow, and your mind wanders "lonely as a cloud" watching it. Compared to "Sense and Sensibility," for instance, it is missing any interesting/quirky/humorous secondary characters that make you chuckle or saying "Right on." By reducing the story to the minimal number of characters and telling you the minimal amount about each one of them, there simply isn't enough going on.
Just because we like to see dramas set in Victorian times with great costumes, etc., doesn't mean we don't want to become engrossed in the movie and to forget about all the stuff going on in the real world. A good movie should have a compelling plot that keeps you interested. Maybe this would be a great movie if you cut out 30 minutes of it.