Change Your Image
lemminpie
Reviews
Friends with Money (2006)
I want my money back
This movie seemingly wants us to care about a group of West Coasters, most of whom make a lot of money, and one of whom doesn't.
Well, I tried. But I didn't care about the woman (Joan Cusack) with apparently inherited wealth (who never seems to have worked for a living and is out of touch with reality) who plans to give $2 million to her kid's school but can't spare $1800 for her good friend, a maid. I didn't care about the belligerent clothing designer (Frances McDormand) with a feeling of entitlement who's having a mid-life crisis and feels no remorse at insulting anybody who crosses her path. I didn't care about the oblivious screenwriter (Catherine Keener) who's busy alienating her neighbors by building an extravagant house addition but acts like she doesn't know it's an eyesore and who doesn't pay any more attention to her husband than he does to her, and then she has the gall to complain about him.
So, why don't I care? Because I don't live the West L.A. lifestyle, for one and find it hard to relate to clothing designers, screenwriters, and the idle. Yes, two of them have problems we COULD relate to (mid-life crises and sleep-walking through life), but the script didn't flesh out these characters well enough for me to understand what was really going on. It was like turning on one episode of a soap opera and trying to figure out weeks of plot development -- where are we going and how did we get into this hand basket? If the point of this was to show how money doesn't make you happy, then okay already. That could have been illustrated with just one character and done more fully.
I thought I'd care about the woman (Jennifer Aniston) who leaves a supposedly good teaching job to work as a maid and who needs every nickle she earns. Sounds like it could get really interesting. However, the character's lack of ambition, spinelessness, and downright deviousness wears thin.
Interestingly enough, I cared more about one of the husbands, the possibly closeted gay man (Simon McBurney). The self-absorbed screenwriter (Jason Isaacs) would have been interesting if his character had been more fully developed. The third husband (Greg Germann) who exists on his wife's wealth is pretty much just wallpaper and a complete waste of breathable air. Of the two men who have relationships with the the maid, one is an opportunist (Scott Caan) who gets way too much screen time doing the same thing over and over, and the other is a cardboard character (Bob Stephenson) who, in the end, turns out to be another idle rich person who doesn't hesitate to chisel the less fortunate.
By the way, what was the purpose of the unflattering shots of most of the actors? Frances McDormand is a really wonderful actor, but the camera made her look much older than her character's 43 years. Why? What was the point of making Joan Cusack and Catherine Keener look wrinkled and much, much older than Jennifer Aniston? Why the bad hair on Simon McBurney? Because in real life we pretend we don't see these things? But this is a movie, kids, and things usually happen for a reason in order to make a plot point.
All the actors were terrific and I do admire their performances. Jason Isaacs was marvelous, as always. But the story went nowhere for me. I'm not a fan of "slice of life." I want character development, motivation, reasons. In other words, something to think about after I leave the theatre. After leaving this movie, all I could think about is "what was the point?" For the Woody Allen fans out there, you'll love it. For the rest of us, rent an old copy of 'Our Town' and stay home.
Beyond the Sea (2004)
Worth taking a look
I've been a casual fan of Bobby Darin's over the years. Having no knowledge of his personal life (other than his marriage to Sandra Dee and the supposed fact that Connie Francis carried a torch for him), I brought no preconceived ideas to the movie.
It starts and ends as a show within a show, an interesting device that takes a little getting used to. Of course, the big "issue" is Kevin Spacey's age. But if the viewer is willing to put that aside and pay attention to the story instead of the actor's wrinkles, it's an engaging movie. Maybe if they had cast an older actress (Kate Bosworth is 21) everyone wouldn't be talking about this so much.
Regardless, Spacey does an excellent job. A few times I was so lost in the moment that I really thought I was looking at Bobby Darin -- and it would startle me. The makeup, the mannerisms, the posture, the inflections. But yet, it's not an impersonation, just a very convincing performance.
The story moves along a good pace and I had no conception of time while watching the movie. There is a plot twist that is probably well known to Darin's fans, of which I was unaware and won't reveal here. Spacey's performance was very touching. Caroline Aaron's performance as Darin's sister, Nina, has been criticized as cartoon-ish. Perhaps it is a bit over the top, but having never seen the person on whom Nina is based, I cannot agree or disagree. Considering Nina is supposed to be from a flamboyant middle-class Brooklyn family of the 30's and 40's, I was willing to cut her some slack.
Perhaps Darin had an out-sized ego. Maybe he was capable of being a jerk and saying hurtful things. This biopic is clearly Spacey's vehicle, but he makes no commentary on Darin's behavior. There are no apologies, but likewise there are no overt endorsements. He simply presents it.
William Ullrich, who plays Bobby as a young boy, is engaging. Seems the kid can sing and dance, too. Spacey is clearly enjoying himself in this role. His singing is very good and his dancing isn't bad. Spacey's energy is infectious and I found myself smiling and nodding my head all the way home.
I'll be buying this one when it comes out on DVD.
The Andersonville Trial (1970)
Worth it
I watched this on TV when I was 13 or 14 yrs old and was engrossed in it. It left a lasting impression on me. Even to this day, I still think about it. As a kid, I couldn't have told you if the acting was first rate. Evidently it was; I do remember thinking the actors presented it as if the story had happened to them. I also remember being aware that William Shatner was remarkably restrained in this role and thinking how convincing he was.
I can't say this particular movie sparked my interest in American history, but it certainly looms large. Even if the story has been "Hollywood-ized" with the addition of bogus testimony of the camp commandant, the rest of the story is quite true. The sad story of Civil War POW's at Camp Sumter (the actual name of the prison) should be studied by all, not just students of American history. Incidentally, the Andersonville National Historic Site (outside of Richmond, VA) is the only national park that serves as a memorial for ALL American POW's. Because of having seen this movie, I sought out more info about the actual place and actual facts. This doesn't necessarily prove it's a well made movie, but it's the highest compliment I can pay to The Andersonville Trial.
To me, the time invested in watching this movie is worth it.