Frida 2002

5/5

I have wanted to see this film for a while, but kept putting it off because I knew a little about Frida Kahlo's life, which appeared to be mostly sad and depressing, but Joe finally got me to watch it last night. And while yes, Frida's life was sad and depressing and full of pain in many ways, she also had such fire and spirit and joy in life as portrayed by Hayek that I wish I'd seen it sooner. It is truly an amazing performance that should not be missed if the subject matter is of interest to you. It's clear that everyone involved was deeply moved by this story, though they did omit or combine parts of her and Diego Rivera's lives to fit better into two hours. I didn't recognize Richard Dees as her father or James Woods as Leon Trotsky or Ashley Judd as Tina, and Alfred Molina is his usual stunning chameleon-like self. The supporting actresses are just as good, esp. Valeria Golino as Rivera's previous wife who becomes Frida's close friend. The emotion between Hayek and Molina is heartwarming/breaking and very realistic, as you have no doubt how much they love and respect each other despite the pain they continually inflict on each other. The period costumes and sets are perfect, and the dream sequences based on Frida's paintings are so unique and telling that I can't imagine the movie without them. It's clear that the writers used Frida's paintings to give an idea of her state of mind at certain times of her life, and the music just adds to the feeling. There was no part of this film that threw me out of the time/period or the struggles of her life, and despite knowing how it ended I was totally absorbed and caught up in every moment. This is rated R for good reason, with a good bit of nudity and one explicit lesbian sex scene, no real violence to speak of although the part where she has a miscarriage is quite disturbing.  Yet another to add to our Must Own List!

The Greatest Show on Earth 1952

3/5

I mostly watched this movie to see the 1950s circus acts, and didn't expect to like the movie itself. Despite a hokey predictable plot and annoying voiceover, terrible editing and blue/green screen effects, and some of the worst scene changes I've ever seen on film, I found myself totally caught up in all aspects of the movie. All of the leads are outstanding; Betty Hutton and Cornel Wilde have excellent chemistry, and it's great fun watching Chuck chew the scenery in the way that only he can. The train accident is amazing, reinforcing my belief that CGI effects are being used far too much these days. I highly recommend this if you like the circus, you won't regret the time spent.

Alexander 2005 SPOILERS

0/5

First of all, let me warn anyone who's reading this that I am giving away important parts of the story--although if you're gullible enough to see this honker ain't no spoiler going to ruin anything that wouldn't be ruined anyway.

This film's bad reputation is well deserved, and we saw the much-touted Director's Cut. The only good thing about the entire movie was the views of ancient Babylon, and they didn't show as much of that city as they did Rome in "Gladiator".

Let me explain that I have been interested in Alexander and Roxana since grade school. They are some of the historical figures I've always been fascinated by next to Kassandra (yes, I saw "Troy" and was upset she wasn't in it), Cleopatra, Morgaine/Morgana, and Boadacia. One of my favorite novels of all time is the fictionalized but historically accurate "Roxana" by Helen Moreau (1977). Although not 100% accurate according to the other histories I read to double-check it, it has most of the pertinent facts straight which this movie does not.

I sure wish ol' Oliver had read that book. Holy crap. Between the historical facts being all screwed up and Colin Ferrell's atrocious (can it be called) acting, what a putrid stinker. And his frigging accent was absolutely horrid, what kind of an actor can't disguise his own natural accent?! He reminded me of Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood", another total stinker.

Where to begin. Colin played Alexander as a whiny little bitch who craves Daddy's love and idolizes yet hates Mommy. He also apparently falls in love with his best friend which, although clearly very common and approved among Greek men, was Not A Good Thing in this instance for a reason no one ever quite explains. All though the movie Alexander is making googly eyes at some boyish young man or another, and it gets really distracting.

I didn't have too much trouble with the other actors, I think they did about the best they could with what they had. Poor Rosario Dawson barely had any screen time and when she did, she was either covered in robes or butt-nekkid. They had just about everything about her wrong, including the fact that she was NOT a barbarian from nowhere, she was the daughter of a Persian satrap and royalty in her own right. There were tons of other errors and omissions where Roxana is concerned and while I won't go into them here, it was very noticeable and disappointing.

The flashbacks didn't work at all, they were distracting and confusing. It would have worked better in a linear fashion, although I don't think even that would have saved this stinker.

Let me summarize this with two words: DON'T BOTHER. Even if you've heard that the director's cut is better and worth seeing, I'm here to tell you it's not. Spend your $3 rental fee on more cerebral fare such as "Dude Where's My Car" or the 2-1/2 hours washing your car, which has results you can see so you don't feel your time was wasted.

I want my two and a half hours back!!

Monster's Ball 2001

5/5

Although I hadn't originally wanted to see this movie as I'd heard it was violent, dark, and depressing, I took a co-worker's advice to see it and then decide what I thought. This is one of those films that I sat and thought about for a good 10-15 minutes after the final credits rolled, trying to decide what I thought of it. First let me say I'm very glad I did see it, and plan to see it at least once more--probably with commentary. Next, I do want to mention that there was a lot more realistic violence than I like to see but every bit of it was integral to the story. Most importantly, however, is the story itself, which was absolutely stunning; the acting, which was very much Oscar-worthy from everyone; and the soundtrack, which was as important as the story itself. I found the amount of graphic sex a bit disconcerting, but understand that it was important to understanding their relationship and how it evolved. This is definitely one of those films that you need to see for yourself even if you think it might not be for you--like me, you might be surprised, touched, and impressed.

Rent 2005

4/5

Since I've only ever seen 2 Broadway plays ("The Lion King" in Toronto and "Riverdance" in Detroit twice) I wasn't sure about catching this movie adaption of "Rent". It was recommended by Netflix because we watch movies with Taye Diggs and Roshario Dawson and have recently been doing MGM & RKO musicals, so I tossed it in the queue and promptly forgot about it... until it arrived the other day.

I did try to watch "Moulin Rouge!" some time back but got bored and wandered away about halfway through but never say never, right? For the first half hour I was rather put off by the format of "Rent", which I'm sure worked much better on the stage than on location. I even considered giving up on it. But as time passed, I got so caught up in the story and the incredible songs and singing that I barely noticed the format. By halfway through the movie, I was reacting emotionally to the characters. By the end I was in tears, the overall story and characters hit me so hard. I'm going to have to own this one.

If you're homophobic or have a problem with mixed-race relationships, you won't want to see this one. But if you're not, even if you don't care for musicals, I say give this one a shot and endure at least the first half an hour. I'm sure you won't regret it--I know I don't.

Ziegfeld Girl 1941

4/5

Although "Ziegfeld Girl" isn't one of the better-known MGM musicals (probably due to it being in b/w), it is among the best of the time. There aren't a lot of musical numbers and more story than usual for the formula, which really does make this one stand out and may draw fans of the 1940s-era drama rather than just musical aficionados. The racy banter is both noticeable and amusing, causing my husband and I to exchange startled looks several times. Worth a mention in is the appearance of a young Jimmy Stewart, who (thankfully) doesn't do any musical numbers but does give an outstanding supporting performance as well as having good chemistry with Lana Turner, who plays his fiancé. But everyone in this film is letter-perfect, most notably Hedy Lamarr who is absolutely iridescent and works well beside Garland and Turner, who are at their finest as well. The passage of time is well done more by showing how the characters change rather than their surroundings. And what can be said about a Ziegfeld production number? Today's audiences would probably be bored out of their iPods, but in the 1930s it was clear that oddly-costumed, half naked women simply walking around on stage in time to music were quite the draw, although some of the costumes are rather risqué even by today's standards. Be sure not to miss the fish number near the end, the costumes will have you either scratching your head or laughing out loud. Worth special note is the appearance of Edward Everett Horton, a staple of 1930s-1950s MGM films, as the unseen Mr Ziegfeld's main assistant. Although I personally think his best appearance was in "Top Hat" (a close second is "Arsenic & Old Lace"), he is at his droll, witty best here as well. If you are a fan of musicals I would highly recommend seeing this one (I plan to own it) and would also suggest it for fans of the 1940s drama genre such as "Casablanca" and "Notorious" due to Turner's dramatic storyline.

Hitch 2005

4/5

Just got done watching "Hitch", which I had wanted to see in the theater but missed it because I blinked; I sure wish they'd leave movies showing longer. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of Will Smith and if you are too, don't miss this film. Even if you're not a Smith fan but want an enjoyable, amusing (with the occasional LOL moment) movie to relax with rather than something that will keep you on the edge of your seat or scare you, this is a good one. I will admit that it was more or less predictable but it was fun to watch them all get to the end. There were several interesting misdirections which caused me to be a bit surprised at the way things happened, though not how they turned out. This did remind me a bit of "Laws of Attraction", though "Hitch"'s story was quite a bit more original if just about as predictable. But the chemistry between the leads in both movies, as well as the dialog and acting, is so outstanding that I really enjoyed both. I'm not a big sucker for romance movies and more often than not, don't like them, but this one I have to own.

I do have to admit that I'm not quite sure what Smith's warm, charismatic character saw in Mendez' cold, mean bitch, but they did make a pretty good odd couple.

Mrs. Henderson Presents 2005

5/5

This fine little movie is closely related to many other fine little movies: The Full Monty, Greenfingers, Waking Ned Devine, and the like. If you enjoyed those, don't miss this one. From sets to CGI to costumes to hairstyles to language, this film doesn't miss a trick. Not once does it ever throw you out of the time period, not even when it switches from the 1930s to the 1940s. The newsreel shots of the Blitz are enough to make you cringe, while the exchanges between Dench and Hopkins will have you rolling. Nothing here seems forced or fake, be it good or be it bad. One that has found a permanent place in my collection with the other fine films listed above :-)

Bubba Ho-Tep 2003

2/5

I got this partly because it's a Don Coscarelli and partly because of the odd reviews. Well, now I know WHY it got such unusual reviews. I say keep the money away from Mr. Coscarelli so he can make good bad movies like "Phantasm" and "The Beastmaster", which are two of my al-time favorites (I have not, and will not, see the sequels). Give the man a good budget--well, better than the other two anyway, which I know isn't saying much--and a couple of good actors, and he screws it all up with a lousy script. This was definitely one that could have been an excellent movie along the lines of "Secondhand Lions" if it had just made more sense and been told in a more linear fashion. I wanted to like it, but it let me down something fierce. If nothing else it's worth seeing for Bruce Greenwood and Ossie Davis Jr, they are excellent together and do their best with this mumbled mess of a script.

Sleepless in Seattle 1993

5/5

I can't believe I haven't seen this movie before this, esp. being a huge fan of Tom Hanks. This is just one that slipped by and I am SO glad that I decided to watch it. It's everything that I had heard: warm, funny, touching, well acted and directed, and with cute kids to boot. My only very mild gripe is wondering how they worked things out, but it doesn't lose a quarter of a star for it. Highly recommended, much better than "You've Got Mail".