Change Your Image
LaChantefleurie
Reviews
Parenthood (1989)
A Sweet, warm-hearted, and subtle comedy
One of the things I like about this movie is its...lack of obnoxiousness. Other comedies throw their scenes in your face with little tact and no subtlety, but not so with this movie. Not to say that it isn't funny. It's absolutely hilarious! But the main thing that appeals to me about Parenthood is the warm heart that is at the center of it all. These characters have nuanced, complicated, and not overly dramatic problems. Just like REAL PEOPLE, and unlike many of the one-faceted characters seen in movies today.
And what better actor to play Gil than Steve Martin? A comedic genius, Martin is capable of playing anything from slimy to sincere, conforming perfectly to his role, and it helps that he's not a cynic. Also watch for great appearances by Tom Hulce, perhaps best known as Amadeus (poor guy, where'd his career go?) and a very young Joaquin Phoenix as Gary.
All in all, a very funny and very sweet comedy that I will give a 9/10!!
Caddyshack (1980)
Mixed reviews, mixed opinion
Yes, this movie is vulgar and disgusting (and has nudity that is COMPLETELY unnecessary and has NOTHING to do with anything!). But I really did laugh at many of the jokes. Believe it or not, Chevy Chase is funny in this movie (how old is this, anyway?) and the absolutely w-o-n-d-e-r-f-u-l Bill Murray is a gophericide (??) obsessed groundskeeper who is in a permanent state of drug-induced stupor, and very funny while he's at it! Rodney Dangerfied is his usual obnoxious self, and I've never seen a movie with him in which I liked his acting. And the girl, the appropriately named Lacey Underall, was stuck in the movie last-minute to capture the drooling male contigent, and it shows how extraneous her part is from the rest of the movie. Oh, and the star Danny Noonan? Forgot about him every time he wasn't actually onscreen. Why WAS he there anyway?
So, this is an okay comedy with some good gags, and I can see how many people would love it (so don't kill me!) but it's certainly not my cup of tea. Involving burrowing rodents...why not watch a movie with a groundhog instead of a gopher? Groundhog Day...now THAT's a comedy.
2.5 out of 5
Amadeus (1984)
What they said!
Well, the fact that all the good things to be said about this movie have been covered has been covered, but I'll just add in another vote of 10 to all the rest. Left me astounded and feeling that this is, indeed, the best movie ever to come out of Hollywood! Although, in my opinion, Hulce should have won the Oscar instead of Abraham. They were both superb, but unfortunately the Academy could only pick one (they should have made a special provision in the rules for these two). I was squirming with discomfort for poor Mozart every time he let out that awful giggle in front of various aristocrats and they were staring at him dubiously.
Well, no need to elaborate further. The other hundred have already done that for me! ~10/10~
Roxanne (1987)
My all-time favorite comedy!
Just let me say that Steve Martin wrote and starred in this hilarious yet tender comedy about (essentially)"Cyrano de Bergerac" transplanted into a small town in the 1980s, and you should know right off the bat that'll it be a great movie. I was slightly skeptical when I saw that Martin wrote it, for most comedians are anything but literary men. However, this turned out to be THE best comedy that I have ever seen. Steve Martin is VERY funny and VERY intelligent and VERY talented, and one shouldn't shy away when his name appears on more than the acting list.
Specifics escape me, there are just too many classic moments in this film that come to mind. Well, rent this movie and watch it, and you'll see what I mean with Martin (in a very good make-up job) and the film in general! ***** out of *****!!!
Shining Through (1992)
Ugh...
I've watched a whole lot of movies with out-there plots and glaring errors in accuracy. But who cares, on the sole condition that the acting and the script are good? It's nice to enjoy a movie in which the situations are improbable but funny once in a while. Unfortunately, that does not apply to this sad attempt at filmmaking, as the script is worthy of second-grade storytime and over-cliched beyond belief, and the acting is scarcely better than robotic. That last comment is directed almost exclusively at Melanie Griffith. When I first heard her voiceovers, I sincerely thought that the lady speaking had only recently learned English and didn't understand what she was saying. Her performance was wooden at best, and when she did show emotion it was at inappropriate times and ways. Michael Douglas and others were tolerable, but when the leading actress just sucks, there's no way to salvage a movie.
3 out of 10
Gladiator (2000)
Highly UNDERrated
I was reviewing the comments above and was surprised to see that most of them were derogatory or lukewarm about the movie. There are some who call it an action flick and some who call it Oscar fodder, and truthfully, it is both. But even if you don't see all the different aspects that come together to make this movie so wonderful, the Academy did. There are REASONS that films win Oscars, in case you didn't know. **Possible spoilers, somewhere in the message, yeah yeah...** First, let me say that my opinion was extremely biased against the movie in the first place. I was feeling sore that Russell Crowe beat out Tom Hanks for Best Actor, and didn't even bother to see Gladiator to see if it was justified. Before I saw this movie, I was grumbling, "Piece of crap...Russell Crowe probably sucks...I know I'm gonna hate it." After...well, my tissue box was empty, my mouth hanging open, and my Tom Hanks posters in the trash. I had never cried at a single movie until this one. What really astonishes is the large percentage of people who seem to hate it. Perhaps they're automatically going against the Academy because it picks so many crappy movies, but this time it was right on target. Those people were right, Gladiator didn't deserve best picture of the year. It deserved best of the decade.
The blood and gore portrayed were real, and graphic enough to deserve an R rating. But they were not put there just for show. Every maiming/decapitation had its place in the movie. Partly why they showed so much gore is to chronicle Maximus' resignation to the fact that he must kill to survive, and not only that, but must kill in front of the bloodthirsty Roman public for entertainment to survive. He maintains a hearty disgust for it throughout the movie ("Are you not entertained?") but doesn't fight it. There is no controversy on that point. To think that all the arena scenes were completely pointless is wrong! Through them, Maximus gains the support of the people and enough power to topple the emperor.
Need I even mention the acting? Definitely! Russell Crowe deserved every praise he got, but there is one actor who didn't get praised nearly enough. Joaquin Phoenix. Most movie villains are corny or just plain evil, but Phoenix's Commodus is multi-layered and complex. He provides the perfect foil to Maximus, his dangerous insecurity makes him a loose cannon to compete with the gladiator's quiet confidence. By the end of the movie, I hated him with a passion; hated not only the character but hated him, so thoroughly did he immerse himself into Commodus. His insecurities make him all the more sinister, and as he was 'telling' Lucius the busy little bee story, he truly scared me. I was getting chills! I haven't seen him in Quills, but he was getting many compliments on that too. Let me just say that he's one of the best actors in Hollywood! British great Derek Jacobi delivers a sold performance as Gracchus, the pro-republic senator who enters the conspiracy against Commodus. Too bad he didn't get more screen time here, or something more remarkable to say and do. Derek is great in any movie, however! Connie Nielsen didn't really stand out to me; although there is certainly nothing bad about her acting, in a cast of such talent she was the status quo. Oliver Reed and Richard Harris complete the ensemble to make it the movie where everyone is an award-winner.
If you want something that truly shines, in story, setting, cast, special effects, and pretty much anything else you can think of, don't hesitate to watch Gladiator. You won't be disappointed!
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
Failed to capture the true spirit of Anne's diary...
*possible spoilers*
I understand that, like any other movie from the 1950s, that this one tends to the clean and sentimental side. This screenplay has a few changes from the original stage production, putting emphasis on different things, and the portrayal of Anne was completely shallow and typical (which was definitely what Anne Frank was NOT). Before us we see a changed Anne Frank, one of whose favourite activities seems to be staring at her surroundings with a vacant look in her made-up eyes, or staring at Peter and waiting for him to kiss her again. She has no depth at all, this girl, reading off her deep insights into human nature with a cute drawl and a classic film-star pout as if she were made of wood, with little or no appropriate emotion. Yes, she has emotion, but when she says anything, it's as if she's emphasizing words at random to add some flavour to her acting, and really has no idea what she's talking about. This girl doesn't understand the intelligence and deep insight that her character is supposed to have, doesn't know the endless thinking and anguish Anne went through to come to the place where she could accept her situation without flinching. This one doesn't have a problem with accepting her situation, for the sole reason that she doesn't seem to get it in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, this movie wasn't BAD. It would have been okay, if it were standing on its own, but somewhere during its making the real Anne Frank got lost. For everyone who has read the real diary, this is only a shadow, one layer, of what that book really was.
Hunchback of Notre Dame (1998)
Les gargouiles ne parlent pas...
Another classic example of an outstanding masterpiece of literature completely ruined by Disney. My opinion of this sop is basically covered by the previous comments; however, the moment that really did it for me was Quasimodo sweeping joyfully down the battlements of the cathedral, all the while singing a canned melody. We see none of the beautiful story and deep, introspective look into human nature that the Victor Hugo novel contains. None of the horrible dilemma Esmeralda has to face, of her finally finding her mother (Paquette, la Chantfleurie) only to be ripped from her arms and hanged in front of all of Paris. And my final gripe, and a big one: the gargoyles don't talk! They're big hunks of stone, and are supposed to look more forboding than friendly. Perhaps if the original was a comedy, this would have done quite well. Yes, I know that it's Disney, and that unusual smartaleck companions are mandatory. But the point seemed to be missed big time. The book was heart-rending, this just gave me a headache. Disney, stick to mermaids next time.
Les Misérables (1998)
A masterpiece!
Okay, so a few character relationships are altered, I'll allow that much. But who can find any major flaw in this movie? The screenwriting and the filming are superb, and the actors are the best to be found. So many films that attempt to capture the spirit of the original novels (note I said spirit, not word-for-word text), especially classics, fall flat because they are simply trying too hard. This rendering even had me in tears towards the end, which is certainly not an easy thing to do. Perhaps extreme purists howl in dismay at the slightly altered portrayal of Cosette, but the filmmakers had to choose what to put the most emphasis on without going over three hours. I recommend this film for anyone and everyone!