Reviews

I really wanted to like this movie. I saw it in a community hall with the director present. Most of it was filmed in my town. Philippe Spurrell's intention was commendable, which he stated was to educate people on the history of blacks in Canada. But you've got to be entertaining and coherent.

Here's what went wrong: first and most glaringly, the era. It's insane that anyone could have crazy white people holding colonies of black slaves in a farm shed in 1968. The fictional town of Ste-Harmonie is a short bus ride from Montreal, not a remote jungle village accessible only by footpath. It just made everything fall apart. And why invent a story that never happened and present it as a history lesson? Isn't there enough real history to explore? I can think of a dozen ways to tell this story that wouldn't have elicited laughs or groans.

Then there were odd anachronisms like James not having a cell phone in 2006. He has to use the old rotary dial phone in a bar. Guess what? People in the country have cordless phones just like city folk. And the bus! There are no buses from Montreal to rural towns and there haven't been for at least 30 years. It's as if the director is lost in a Green Acres time warp.

To give the movie its due, the look of it was very nice with great outdoor cinematography and realistic props. I understand it was made for practically nothing, which would preclude re-shoots and even dialogue rewrites. And though most of the cast was on the wooden side, the lead actor was pretty decent.

To be honest, in the end I rather enjoyed watching most of The Descendant, though I couldn't admire it. There's talent there, as yet very raw but probably worth developing. Give this man some money, a good script, good actors and I'm sure he has a career ahead of him.

Let's call this movie growing pains and wait for the next one.

*Spoilers*

For anyone who doesn't know, this is a made-up story about a real person. Even though he's been dead for 400 years, aren't there libel laws to protect a person's reputation?

Although it purports to show the relationship between an artist and his muse, the movie is really about a dysfunctional household seen through 21st century eyes.

This is how the family breaks down: Vermeer is a sour-faced, henpecked husband who escapes to his studio every chance he gets. His wife is neurotic and consumed with jealousy. His mother-in-law, who looks like an escapee from some zombie movie, is a tightwad who rules the household with an iron fist. One of the kids is a psychotic who creeps around spying on the new maid and tries to get her fired. The family has a patron who's a total neanderthal and yet they all kow-tow to him because he buys the paintings. Into this mess comes a seriously stiff Scarlett Johanssen to shake things up. Mayhem ensues at a snail's pace and culminates in pierced ears, tears, and the attempted stabbing of a canvas. If this is your cup of tea, well, enjoy.

A few more random observations: None of the women have any eyebrows and some of them aren't allowed to show their hair. Vermeer doesn't own a hairbrush. The family lives in luxury under the constant threat of bankruptcy. Scarlett is not convincing as a maid. She looks like a Hollywood actress picking up a scrub brush for the first time in her life. Most of the characters walk around with blank looks on their faces. There's no ending; the movie just stops at one point.

Conclusion: While not offensive, "Girl" just doesn't deliver much of a story or any compelling characters. And worse, a fine artist comes across as a real schmuck.

5 stars out of 10.

Some degree of spoilers.

When I heard bad things about this movie I thought it couldn't be worse than say, Kate and Leopold or You've Got Mail. Let me tell you, compared to this piece of garbage, those are Shakespeare.

So I rented it, thinking it would be a piece of harmless candy for a Friday night. Wrong. Though my expectations were low, they were, in the end, way too high.

What you've got is an assortment of half-baked story lines so crowded together the director hopes you don't notice how utterly shallow and pointless they are. I didn't give a rat's arse about a single character, including the little boy, because they were all identical.

The worse "couple", hands down, was the two porn people. This was just such a mindless excuse to throw in some nudity. They were actually edited out for three-quarters of the movie, until somebody remembered them and brought them back for the big airport finale. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas.

The second worst was the Prime Minister and the secretary. Right. The Prime Minister knocking on doors in a working class neighbourhood looking for a date. Puh-leese.

And then there's the woman who can't spend even one night with a guy because she has a handicapped brother. That is such a load. And if the jerk really wanted a relationship with her he'd learn to accept her brother as part of the package. What an insult to the mentally handicapped.

I can't be bothered to go through the rest of them.

By the way, scenes with happy natives clapping in slow motion while the music builds to a crescendo and Whitey stands there like the conquering hero to rescue the dusky maiden from a life of working as a domestic for the likes of him SHOULD BE OUTLAWED. God, no more. How do all those idiots in her village know that he isn't a bigamist or a criminal?

The one tiny bright spot was the washed up old rocker who seemed to be laughing at everyone around him while he collected his paycheck.

Anyway, the ultimate message seems to be that if you've fixed your sights on someone, no matter for how short a time, you should do psychotic things in the so-called name of love, and you'll get your way. Don't worry about getting to know the person, just cut to the cheering public declaration of love.

Oh, yeah, in this post 9/11 era, that kid was lucky he wasn't shot running through airport security. Or maybe his blondness saved him.

Rating: zero on ten.

Unavoidable spoilers!

I like a romantic comedy as much as the next moviewatcher, but this one had so many dumb things about it that I couldn't ignore them and enjoy the story. I don't even know where to begin, but I'll give it a try.

Pains are taken to impress upon us that Frances, the leading lady, doesn't have much money after her loser husband takes half the house plus alimony. Well, fine, but when she goes to Italy she suddenly becomes independently wealthy, first buying a villa then employing three Polish workers full-time to restore the place. They were there the entire duration of the movie, which covered at least 8 or 9 months. Wardrobe? She arrived with one suitcase, but never wore the same thing twice after that. We see Frances tapping absently at the laptop occasionally and I suppose we're supposed to imagine she's reviewing a book...I wish I could get on that payroll.

Italian stereotypes? You want it, you got it. Crazy old contessa who takes bird poop on the forehead of a stranger as a sign to sell her the prized villa. Okay, whatever, even though she would have gotten more money from the German couple who had first dibs. Suave love-em and leave-em Romeos? All over the place. Simple, good-hearted locals happy to pick your olives for you? A whole villageful.

And then the biggest problem of all: Diane Lane's performance. How could an actress who was so good in Unfaithful be so bad this time? She twitched and grimaced like a female Hugh Grant, using delayed reaction goggle-eyes instead of emotion. The self-grabbing congratulatory dance she did in her bedroom after scoring with her young stud was painful to watch. Another awful scene was when Patti came back pregnant and abandoned and lay in the bed crying. Diane Lane's face was vacant, with a fake little soap opera frown of concern on her brow and a simpering smile on her mouth. Awful, and inexcusable of the director to leave that shot in.

And all of this was just too long, with so many little unnecessary scenes that we didn't need. And what about that Tuscan sun we were promised? There were virtually no shots of the hot passionate sun of Italy, which would at least have helped to explain the crazy behaviour going on all around.

And after all that poor Frances ends up with a goofy-looking failed American writer, while all that prime Italian beefcake goes to waste. Like my evening watching this.

3 stars out of 10.

I don't usually go for family melodrama movies, but this one had superior acting and so many small unexpected touches that I found myself genuinely caring about movie characters...which is very rare for me. The scene with George and Robin dancing with Sam looking on is heartbreaking, given what we know will ultimately happen.

Kevin Kline is like the rock of Gibraltar, Kristen Scott Thomas is not capable of a wrong move, and Hayden Christensen is outstanding. A word of warning: be on your guard for the father and son surf scene. It appears about three times in the movie, with additional emotional significance each time.

Rating: 8 on 10.

Mild Spoilers

Why bother with the time travel thing? The so-called science of it is murky and unconvincing and it doesn't do a thing for the plot. They may as well have had Hugh Jackman as a modern upper-class Englishman coming to New York and the effect would have been the same; he would have been just as offended by the crassness of the advertising business without having to have come from another century, for Pete's sake. They didn't even capitalize much on the fish-out-of-water angle. It seemed like no time before Leopold was comfortable using the toaster and the telephone and wearing modern clothes.

Why did they bother? Out of sheer desperation to try to inject this run-of-the-mill, chemistry-free, Julia Roberts reject of a vehicle with a little pizzazz, but to no avail. Take away jumping off the bridge and you've got "Sleepless with the Duke of Albany".

Meg Ryan is getting a little long in the tooth to keep on playing the ditsy ingenue who needs to be told by a strong man that deep down she really does want love over independence.

And are we supposed to buy the notion that a woman with a choppy haircut who wears men's suits and strides around her glass-walled office building waving her arms in the air will really find lifelong happiness wearing a corset and tidying the knick-knacks as a 19th century housewife?

Rating: 3 out of 10.

* PLOT SPOILERS *

I just watched this movie again for the first time in many years. What can I say? As sure as death and taxes, this is what you will see in a Barbra movie: Her leading man will be many, many times better looking than she is(which isn't a bad thing); she will be the moral authority of the whole film, meaning that her politics, her philosophy, etc., are unquestionably the right ones; her manicure will figure prominently in several scenes; and without fail her leading man will sigh in wonderment: "You're so beautiful!"

Onto the plot: stagey and filled with cliches. Does anyone really stand on a street corner and bellow "Ban the bomb!"????? There is no logic in having Hubbell and Katie marry when from the start they come from two diametrically opposed political camps, and the attraction he may have felt for her (which I felt wasn't at all in evidence) would have been dealt with in a series of backdoor encounters until he got her out of his system. How can we buy that he would go against everything he knew to be true--that they would never be in sync--and try to build a life with her? Any why would he be so bummed out that she goes to Washington to protest the blacklist? It's not like she was bringing crackheads home to rehabilitate, or giving all their money to her causes.

And finally, the most preposterous thing is that when Hubbell learns he is to be a father, he's delighted, but that when he decides to leave Katie he totally turns his back on the baby. How could all that paternal feeling just vaporize? He's such a prince he agrees to stay with her until the kid is born, and even sees her in the hospital, then disappears from her life forever, until Barbra has a chance to tell him on the sidewalk that he has a great daughter and that he'd like her. Huh? I felt I must have missed some major development, especially when he asks her if she's still married and if her husband is a good father to HIS kid. Bad, bad editing, I guess.

As a love story, this movie isn't one. As a period piece, it's quite fascinating. As a Barbra vehicle, it's like all the others, and in spite of yourself you might end up admiring her sheer single-mindedness at constantly portraying herself as a beautiful, sensitive trailblazer.

Spoilers Ahead

The setup for the inexplicable and artificial antagonism between the rich lady and Giuseppe(or Peppe)the cabin boy, consists of a few scenes of her demanding this or that and him grumbling to the three sweaty kitchen workers when he goes down to get the coffee. Just so that we understand how mean she is, the script makes her call him Guido, nature boy and Pee-Pee. Yes, that's the caliber of the writing.

When Madonna demands that nature boy take her out in the dinghy he demurs, because he knows the sea. But the plot must be followed, so they get shipwrecked on a beautiful resort island, and wouldn't you know there's a cute little furnished cabin waiting for them, plus an old tire to fashion into a spear gun.

Of course it takes a little time to iron out the kinks of the relationship. He has to kick her backside and smack her in the face a few times, but in due course she learns to kiss his feet and they fall upon each other in a passionate embrace.

Just so that we know they're in love, we're shown a 15-minute montage of them rolling around on the beach in various configurations of their shared clothing, with some isn't-this-romantic music in the background.

Madonna is so taken with her young swain that she hides when she sees a yacht nearby. She wants to spend the rest of her life eating octopus and drinking island water from a coke bottle...and why not?

But Guido wants her to prove her love by declaring it to the world, not just by doing him in the sand over and over. He flags down the next passing yacht and the next thing you know she's reunited with her husband...well, you can guess the end.

Mr. Ritchie is not kind to his wife. A loving husband would have steered her to community theater to get this acting lark out of her system, not hung her out to dry in this turkey. I truly felt sorry for her. I know she did her best, but when you can't, you can't. And who on earth took care of the lighting? One of her old enemies? She doesn't look that bad in most photos you see of her.

The one redeeming thing in this movie was young Adriano, who is capable of showing heartfelt emotion in spite of everything going on around him. His telephone scene near the end was something to write home about. I'm hoping he has a long and prosperous career in showbiz.

Because of Adriano Gianinni, I'll give the movie 3 out of 10.

***SPOILERS***

Here's what this movie doesn't address:

1.Why is Hally Berry's son obese? Could it have something to do with the fact that his old man is on death row and his mama is a chain-smoking, child-abusing, shot-swilling uneducated deadbeat who'd rather buy gifts for her boyfriend than pay the rent? Just a thought.

2.How can a man raised in a proud tradition of bigotry do a complete turnaround which makes him fix up the house, banish his ailing father to a home, hand over the carkeys of the son he tormented to death to someone he's known for a few weeks, and let the black children he previously despised onto his property?

3.Why is his freaky, stomach-turning encounter with the town's dead-eyed hooker identical to his son's? Do they watch each other? Well, it's nice to know they did have some things in common.

I could go enumerating the absurdities of this foolish, dirty movie, but it's been done before. All I'll add is that I wonder what would have happened to Billy Bob if that woman screeching over her dead son had been 55 and fat...would he have had the same epiphany and started to love black people if he hadn't been doing gymnastics on Hally's blow-up doll body? Food for thought.

And the fact that this travesty won Miss Berry a best actress award just goes to show that in the great lottery of the academy awards, when it's your turn, it's your turn. I guess by 2005 they'll decide to get sensitive to Asians, and Lucy Liu will win for her riveting turn in Charlie's Angels IV.

This movie sickened me. Don't watch it unless you have a very strong stomach.

Warning: Spoilers

The first thing I have to say about this movie is that it was duller than dishwater. It's long, it's slow, nothing happens, and then it just ends without rhyme or reason.

Second thing: virtually every female in the movie spends all her onscreen time fully or partially naked, even when it had nothing to do with the plot. Why did we have to see Nicole Kidman get dressed for the party at the beginning? Why didn't we get to watch Tom Cruise start in his birthday suit and then put on his clothes? I guess it must be because Stanley Kubrick, now gone to the great beyond, must have been some kind of pervert. It just got to be ridiculous. There are Tom and Nicole whining to each other in the bedroom, with her in see-through underwear rolling around the floor, literally, while he sits sedately on the bed in dark boxers. Then he goes to some sick black magic orgy in which all females march around starkers while the men boink them not only fully-clothed but in full evening dress with big long Dracula capes. Blecch. Enough with the adolescent/geriatric Hugh Hefner fantasy.

When I think of all the pulp and paper, not to mention ink, wasted by so-called critics extolling the mastery of this steaming pile... Even the acting was dull. I've only seen Kidman in two movies, and she has the same fluttering mannerisms in both, and mannerisms aren't acting, no matter what they tell you in Drama 101.

In the end it was inexplicable. This waste of time wouldn't appeal to horndogs wanting a triple X movie, and it doesn't appeal to normal movie-watchers wanting a coherent story and a little intelligence.

I'll be generous and give it one star.