Change Your Image
ruahe-biz
Reviews
Kingdom (2007)
Charming British comedy. Leaves one thinking. Stephen Fry was fantastic,
I I watched a couple of episodes when the series was first on, but missed most. I was glad to find it streaming recently, and watched the three seasons of it this last month. I found it warm, funny, uplifting and a little quirky. It was well done and Stephen Fry was excellent. Occasionally there was an episode that didn't live up to the rest. Most however we're very good. In this Quaint Village, Fry plays a sensitive compassionate lawyer, Peter Kingdom, who cares deeply. He's a bit too introspective at times causing him some angst. It is a light dramady and tackles modern issues of love and community, diversity and acceptance, Fry leads but there were some excellent supporting actors. I love everything about this series. One exception was the last episode. In itself a very good episode, but it leaves one hanging. Were they expecting to continue the series? Very serious ending of the episode leaving Peter Kingdom to ask "Who am I?" If was to be the series finale, it failed miserably. If it was a lead into the next season that ended up not being made, it was good. Since it did not continue, I was left feeling cheated of a "promised" resolution. Perhaps they should have allowed one more episode to explore the questions and feelings of the characters in what turned out to be the last episode. Still, it's worth your while to watch the series. Excellent.
(By the way I loved Fry in "Jeeves and Wooster". It was my first Fry encounter. . A very different and hilarious role. Fry is very versatile. A couple of reviews mentioned he wasn't good in that and Jeeves was a "jerk", implying that the Kingdom character was more suited to Fry. As an actor he's suited to many types of characters. Jeeves wasn't a jerk, but a wise knowledgeable butler who helped his clueless dillitant, the one he served, from getting into too much trouble due to Woosters ingnorance not his malice.)
Gleason (2002)
Brad Garret was excellent. Very Good biopic. Ending seemed abrupt.
Brad Garrett characterization of Jackie Gleason was superb! It wasn't only that, while he didn't look exactly like Gleason, his mannerisms and movement allowed me to see Jackie Gleason. At times forgetting the actor playing him. It was the depth of the character portrayed by Garret in the subtle expression as well as the more obvious physical portrayal. Michael Chieffo played Ralph so I could see Art Carney. In a similar way, Kristen Dalton was Audrey Meadows.
This was better than the average TV biopic. The plot and the acting was excellent. The flashbacks were seamless. They helped us to understand his negative behavior. Jackie Gleason character was shown in an honest, less than flattering way. Yet it was not cruel. It showed why. He was still that little boy who was hurting, discounted by a drunk father. Even his mother who showed him love, was flawed by her own pain at the loss of a son and the actions of his father. Doubting himself; always trying to prove himself, in many ways he became just like his father. He caused the same kind of pain to his own wife and kids. It also showed his comic genius.
I do believe they should have at least alluded to his movie career and his great dramatic performances. Perhaps it was the limitations of a TV biopic. It missed out on rounding out his character and talent. The other flaw in the film was the ending. Its abrupt end. He looks back on the Honeymooners, remembering key lines, which seem to also speak to his personal life. The end. There was no transition to get to that scene. It came unexpectedly. There was little to say that part of his career was ending, until that moment. It left me a bit empty. The rest of the movie had led me to expect more.
Licorice Pizza (2021)
Well acted train wreck
There have only been a couple times when as I watched a film and began to understand that it was going nowhere and it was a terrible,.... that... I kept on watching unable to turn away. Like a train wreck. You know it's going to end badly, but you keep watching. You have Hopes that it might get better, but it never does. In some ways it was fascinating. The meandering pointless journey was actually well filmed often. Yet I could not care about the characters in it nor did I see them caring either. The movie seemed to have a lot of potential at first. I kept waiting for the potential of the film to break through but it refused. Like the characters who refused to see their own true potential. In the last 9 minutes it came close to purpose and the characters seemed to find themselves and each other. They always seemed to reach out to the other when other things fell apart. At the end there is no relief that finally they have found what they have sought and need. It just seemed their "catch as catch can" existence left them with little other choices, since they had made no real effort to grow and develop into fully alive individuals. The Sony and Cher song used spoke to their desperation " You not real pretty, but you're mine". It is possible for a movie about this kind of "relationship" to be a great movie. But this film like the characters, meandered with no sense of purpose and seemed to come to the ending through chance and happenstance. ... and yet I could not turn it off. It left me feeling empty as if I had wasted my time..
Love, Weddings & Other Disasters (2020)
Too many threads which did not weave together well
There was very good story lines mixed with terrible story lines. The ridiculous lines were unbelievable and irritatingly seemed to interrupt the others. Jeremy Irons and Dianne Keating's line was good bar underdeveloped because it only scratched the surface. The bad lines interrupted it. Samme with the story about the wedding plabpnner amp day the wedding couple. Had these been better developed dropping the ridiculous unfunny parts or at least keeping them to a minimum like a background it could have been good. Jeremy irons was very good and Maggie Grace was excellent. Diane Keaton's. Potential not allowed to show as well as it might. Director or Writer's fault. As this story line felt cut off. Somewhat fun despite irritations due to the underdevelopment of the best parts and seemingly dumb interruptions supposedly apart of the plot..
Father of the Bride (2022)
Fantastic!! More than just a remake of a movie, but it stands on it own ground.
Admittedly, I didn't expect it to be a great film at first. As the movie progressed, I realized that while the movie has a similar theme to the"classic", it has enough of an original take on it that it stands on its own. As such it was a heartwarming film that dealt with unique cultural obstacles, and cultural beauty while the father struggles with change and his own stubbornness that gets in the way of enjoying his daughter 's joy and his own marriage. It was poignant and funny and yet in a totally different way than the Steve Martin version. More of the humorous emphasis was on the wedding planner using the physical comedy of Martin Short. I enjoyed the great acting of Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan. It was most enjoyable and well worth watching.
I was shocked at the many negative reviews of the movie, which seemed to stem from the fact thdat this movie was the remake of an earlier "classic".
Some said it wasn't as good, the new had unknown actors just filling in the roles of Steve Martin and Dianne Keaton, some complained about why Hollywood would make a remake of a classic movie, several implied that it was negative to have the remake include Hispanic culture, no one could play these roles as well as Steve Martin and Diane Keaton. It seemed that the critics dint know that the "classic" movie with Steve Martin, was itself a remake of a 1950 film of the same name with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. The original classic film. Very funny and poignant. The Steve Martin version was made in 1991; based on the original, yet had its own unique take and very unique sense of humor. I enjoyed both of them. There was also a TV version in 1961; which I did not see. So "Father of the Bride" is not a pristine pure classic untouched. It is a compliment to the original (Spencer Tracy, 1950) that each of the makes were made. Fortunately for us, Each was made with creativity and enough originality that neither were a duplicate of each other. Remakes have been made since the beginning of movies. Sometimes with terrrible results, but many times with genuine tribute and original take on the theme. West Side Story 2, A star is Born 4 . I could go on. So why is there so much anger over this remake, seems for some to be about the embracing of the Cuban and Mexican culture that the film embraces s. It is done quite well with the limits of a romantic, family comedy. So if it because you truly don't like remakes because they might not live up to the movie you love, don't go to see them. I say give them a chance. Some may disappoint while others may be a genuine tribute of creative minds that take the story or the theme and bring it to a new level, perhaps more inclusive as well.
Death on the Nile (2022)
Not as good as the last movie "Death on the Nile" with Ustinov, yet much better than Branagh's "Murder on the Orient Express".
I hated Branagh's "Murder on the Orient Express". An Agatha Christie fan, I bought it sight unseen. I wanted to share it with a friend, but I was embarrassed that I did so. Read the book several times and watched various versions, but we were bored with it and Branagh's Poirot was terrible,
So I wasn't Expecting much from this movie, more or less based on Agatha Christie's "Death on the Nile". Branagh improved his Portrayal of Poirot greatly. I actually enjoyed him in this. But there were major flaws in the film. I kept going back and forth between a 6 and 7 rating. The whole backstory of Poirot in the war only to explain the mustache and connected to part at the end, was completely unnecessary. I enjoyed the film overall, though the transition from his questioning people to when he figures it out was unclear and abrupt. I thought the acting was very good.
After reading the many bad reviews and remembering my reaction to "Death on the Nile", I'm wondering if my ability to enjoy it despite its flaws might be because I no longer remember every detail of the book or former movie. So I might not be as aware of changes made to specific characters.
I had read "Murder on the Orient Express" many times and the ending is quite unique and a real surprise. The suspense leading to that ending is what makes the story so great and Branagh s movie didn't pull it off at all. His portrayal of Poirot was not Poirot at all. In this film, "Death on the Nile"he came very close to my image Of Poirot (till the end and a few of his emotions). I did like the movie with Ustinov. While he was very good acting, he was not my image of Poirot either
Puzzled that some didn't like it for the black characters. Almost angry that Blacks would be included in a classic. Only for whites? Mote and more black characters are being included in other period pieces. Black people are a part of history and in entertainment pieces especially to include them is appropriate in our day. Also wondering about negative reaction in general to Gal Gadot for supposedly being a terrible actor. While the Wonder Woman sequel was terrible, the first was great and her acting was also terrific in that movie. It's hard to be noted for good acting in a terrible plot and movie
(Sequel). I thought she was good in this. Her character could have been more rounded. Problem with script and direction.
Cats (2019)
I liked it. Seems most did not. I wonder how many saw the stage production.
I liked it. Seems most did not. I wonder how many of these saw the stage production. I was looking forward to seeing movie after enjoying the stage production. That was a hit, though plot was thin and somewhat confusing. With the pandemic and the movie not streaming on platforms I had, I did not see it at first and heard and saw all the rotten reviews. I still had to see it for myself. I was expecting to dislike it based on reviews. I was uncomfortable at first with "more realistic" cat "costumes", animated and the ear twitching. There were characters played well by great actors who could not sing. The plot was thin of you just look at from point A to B, without looking at its meaning. Hint: it's not about cats, but about us. But the movie actually made what was happening much clearer to the audience . Outside of the few who acted well, but could not sing, the entertainment value, the singing and dancing and the music by Andrew Lloyd Weber was fantastic! The acting, singing and dancing by lead Francesca Hayward was phenomenal. Most of music and dancing were very good. The tap dancer was excellent! At the end I was moved. They could have done with the last treatise on how to treat cats. Were there flaws.? Yes. Similar flaws were in the hit stage production. The virtual costumes admittedly turned me off at first. But I got used to it and I found it genuinely entertaining and moving despite that. Perhaps others spent too much time being literal and missed the heart of it. Or perhaps they could get past the "costumes". The difference in shoes had to do with the type of dancing being done. The white tennis shoes did bug me until I saw the dance being performed. I wanted the give it more stars based on overall enjoyment of it, but aforementioned flaws caused me to have to go with 6. I did enjoy it!
Spinning Man (2018)
Good premise, promising plot, storyline seemed to work, then the letdown.
To have a plot in which we are unsure whether the main suspect committed the crime and near the end he himself isn't sure either -has proven to be a great plot in several movies. But not in this one. Done well it is balancing act - Building the tension, the uncertainty, the suspense with precision. This movie fell far short. It began well enough. The flashbacks and philosophical arguments about truth and memory, seemed to be providing the foundation for the uncertainty of whether he did or did not commit the crime. Even in this part there were flaws in logic at times, but the ending made no sense. Was it believable that he had indeed committed the crime. Yes. Was it possible his guilt over what he had done and his memory issues causes him to believe he committed a crime he did not, yes. The Problem with the ending is that it does not develop these possibilities well. The policeman's explanation that it was only an accident was not that well illustrated. It just ends. The confusion of the former suspect as to what just happened, mirrors the audience's confusion. There have been films that purposely end in ambiguity and lead to thoughtful reflection. This is not that film. It is as if it ran out time, out of the balance, and rushed to an ending. It just hung there. Making little sense, it was a letdown and betrayed what suspense and balance the movie almost achieved. It isnot worth seeing.