Change Your Image
newyorker_film_buff
Reviews
Knights of the Round Table (1953)
The script SOUNDS Shakespearean, but it isn't.
For those who may have thought that the Middle English styling of the script must have been originally penned by Shakespeare, please note that the script was in fact written by 20th-century screen playwrights Talbot Jennings, Jan Lustig and Noel Langley, who based their words on the famed book by Sir Thomas Malory. Shakespeare had nothing to do with it. Sorry, Bard of Avon fans.
Having said that, the script as written seems appropriate enough for the story and screen pageantry, but at times the film takes itself so seriously that it practically begs for parody. It's handsomely mounted, though, and serves as a pleasant time-passer for those who have an affection for the Camelot legend.
Beerfest (2006)
the worst film i've ever seen
Friends have told me that "Freddie Got Fingered" was the worst film they'd ever seen, and when I noted that critics agreed it was terrible, I skipped it. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Then I'd at least have some kind of baseline to compare "Beerfest" to. "Beerfest," for me, is without question the worst film I've ever seen. No plot, over-the-top "comic" acting, crude sexual humor and sight gags, and -- the worst sin a comedy can commit -- decidedly unfunny.
This film was offered, unadvertised, to an audience for free. The name of the film was not revealed until the lights went down. The thought that ran through my mind before the opening credits was, "What kind of movie doesn't demand the price of admission?" I found out. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. After 45 minutes of torture I could stand it no longer and walked out. I've never done that before, and now I know what it feels like to be subjected to a movie so awful that walking out is the only option for one's sanity. Thank God I didn't put forth even a penny for seeing this movie.
If you're a grown-up, do yourself a HUGE favor and skip this film. It's directed at an adolescent mentality that even some teenagers may find abhorrent. My rating: 1 (out of 10). My regret with the IMDb rating system in this particular case is that I cannot do as Roger Ebert occasionally does, which is to assign a truly terrible film a "No Stars" rating. That is exactly was "Beerfest" deserves -- not a 1, but a zero.
ADDITIONAL NOTE, POSTED HERE ONE WEEK LATER : I wrote this before the film's official release, which is to say, before the major critics had had a chance to see the movie and write their opinions. Those reviews are now available (check the IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.), and I'm not surprised that they find it an abomination.
Uptown Girls (2003)
Forget all the other critics' pans -- Ebert is right, it's a good film
"Uptown Girls" took a heavy blast from the USA's film critics, and almost standing alone was Roger Ebert, who in my opinion correctly gave it three stars (out of four). This is a wonderful film, full of fun and even wisdom, and the chemistry between its two stars -- Brittany Murphy and Dakota Fanning -- is saucy, sweet and endearing. Kudos to them both: to Murphy for her Lucille Ball-esque comic timing and deft physical humor, and to young Fanning for her exquisite skills in acting, morphing from an acid-tongued and bitter youngster to a heartbreakingly sensitive child and genuine friend to Murphy's character Molly Gunn.
Comedies, especially critically panned ones, are usually D.O.A. when the Academy considers Oscar nominations, so I don't hold out much hope for this film to receive any recognition. But it should. Both actresses deserve serious consideration. Fanning could justifiably take Best Supporting Actress. But even if she's overlooked next March, I predict she'll garner an Oscar in future years anyway -- and so will Murphy.
Bobbie's Girl (2002)
That one bizarre, tasteless scene -- am I the only one who noticed it?
Overall this was an excellent film, but there was one odd scene at the very beginning that made me wonder if the rest of the film was going to be just as bizarre. It wasn't, and kudos should be given to the entire cast, most especially Thomas Sangster, a superb young actor who plays 10-year-old Alan. But that one scene still remains in my mind as one of the most strangely played I've ever observed. When even the sharpest critics failed to mention it, I was truly befuddled.
So what is the scene I'm objecting to? It is the moment when Bailey, played by Bernadette Peters, approaches Alan at his school and bluntly reports to him the death of his parents in a tragic auto accident. (The headmaster had chosen not to tell the boy what had happened, instead waiting for a family member -- in this case, Bailey -- to break the news.) After this sudden announcement, Alan looks only mildly surprised, glances toward the headmaster, then back to Bailey, and never sheds a tear (nor ever afterward in the film, except at the end, and not about his parents). Bailey, meanwhile, goes into some kind of odd comic shtick where she attempts to add detail. "There was a terrible accident," she says, then with a squeaky comic voice and mugging expression segues into "Ooo, it sounds like a mystery where people stand around saying, 'There's been a terrible accident, ooo, ooo....'" Immediately afterward, the film merrily bounces along as she takes the boy from the school, with hardly another mention of the tragedy that has just happened.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In an otherwise sensitive film of the highest quality, why did the director allow that early scene to be played that way? Wouldn't Alan have cried at the news? Wouldn't Bailey have hugged him to console him and perhaps even wept with him? I found the scene tasteless, and I thought the follow-on treatment of the accident (nearly no mention afterward) to be a convenience of the scriptwriters to get the plot moving along quickly (two lesbian lovers find themselves "mothers" to an orphaned child with resulting complications, both serious and funny). Am I the only one to have been disturbed by this scene? Or is there something I'm missing?