ixtar1

At times perverse and absurd, and usually both at the same time. Elle is anchored by a fabulous Isabel Huppert, but she is the only good in the film. Most of the characters are of various levels of bad character; ranging from the faux nobility, naivete and idiocy of the main character's son, to her mass murdering father. Not surprisingly, the more religious the character, the worse a person they are portrayed as being (the opposite of what generally occurs in the real world, but this seems to be a film motivated by hatred rather than reality). Several hatreds actually. Besides religion, there is the hatred of women and of men. The plot can be summarized as: Woman is raped, but she likes it, so she continues her affair/multiple rapes until she gets tired of lying and sneaking around so she arranges to have her married rapist/lover killed. Pathetic waste of my time, and the talent of all who made it.

It seems that I should like it more than I do. After all, it's made by Stephen Frears and has a first rate cast who perform well. And on the face of it the film is funny, and at times even touching. So why am I not loving it?

I think the first thing that put me off was the tag line on the billboards advertising the film. "Every voice deserves to be heard." Well that's just rubbish. Everyone may have a right to exercise their voice, but that's a very different thing from every voice deserving to be heard. Jenkin's most definitely did not deserve to be heard. So there's a serious problem with the movie's sensibility before I even get to see it.

The second problem is that the movie is funny, but mostly for the wrong reasons. We're never invited to laugh with any of the characters. Only at them. Especially, we are invited to laugh at Mrs. Jenkins, just like she was laughed at by her real life audiences. Except, if she didn't deserve to be heard, she really didn't deserve to be laughed at. Perhaps the fact that she's rich and self indulgent is supposed to make it okay, but if you don't feel guilty laughing at this movie, then there's something wrong with you. And if you understand that she was so oblivious to her own awfulness in part because of treatments for syphilis contracted from her first husband, then your guilt should be even greater. I don't much care to go to the movies to feel guilty about enjoying myself. Jenkin's was a pathetic figure, and somebody should have stopped her.

Which brings me to my third problem. They didn't stop her because they were using her. Her friends, who lied to her about her talent (or lack thereof), most likely because she funded so much of their New York music scene. Her music coach and pianist who were getting a pay check for it. And her partner, who was riding the gravy train. Perhaps his showing of affection for her is supposed to make him understandable or complex, but is he likable for not being a complete fraud and a cad? And lastly and most important, Jenkin's seems to be used by the movie itself.

The production values, especially costumes, are terrific. The performances are great. Still. Now I feel like I have to shower...again.

Like one of the other reviewers, I also went to law school. There isn't a thing about this show that plays as real; not the premise, the characters, or the plot. Also like many, I came to this because of Viola Davis. Sad to say, even she can't save it. In fact, in some places she's guilty of some horrible over acting. This is not entirely her fault, as the script is terrible. I kept hoping that there was going to be a break and we would discover that the turgid story and sleazy goings on were just some character's drunken nightmare. No such luck. Spoiler. There is not a single redeeming character in the show. In fact, they're all just widgets for all the evil things that all criminal defense lawyers are supposed to do to get off the guilty. I actually feel that I was made a worse person for having watched this.

Yes, the acting, top to bottom, is flawless, but to what end? Although it's being advertised as comedy it's drearily unfunny. It's creepily like watching a look-at-the-rubes in Oklahoma, freak show. A miserable collection of mean, addicted, distraught, and depressed family, which as individuals, might be believable, but as a group is preposterous. You wouldn't want to spend five minutes with any of them, let alone two hours. And, no, it has nothing to say about addiction or family. It seems to have little to say about anything except that the people on screen can't stand to be with each other any longer than they have to, and after this they won't see each other again. Lots of fun for the cast, and maybe even an Oscar or two, hopefully at least a nomination for Julianne Nicholson. No fun at all for the audience. This won a Pulitzer and Tonys? I can't understand what anyone sees in this piece of A list dreck.

I really wanted to like this. Donald Sutherland is in it, but this time it's not enough. The premise is ludicrous. An international crime fighting organization authorized by the ICC? Maybe someone wanted to give that organization some positive PR, but the premise never rings true, and makes for lousy television. In keeping with the formula, each of the cops has a "skill" and an "issue". Problem is each of them is so overwrought melodramatic, that none of the characters is believable, except Sutherland's officer of the court. Heavy with their issues and a suitably evil but utterly trite villain, they are a crushingly humorless bunch. No fun at all.

Saw Les Miserables last night at a special screening with a Q and A afterward with Tom Hooper, Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried. This was easily the most moving film experience I have had this year. While not perfect, it is a great film. Hooper's concept of having the actor's sing their parts live on works brilliantly, and gives his actors a freedom to emote that stage performers don't often have. Most of the stars use that to the fullest. What results are some of the finest performances of these roles I have seen. There has been criticism of the singing, and it is true that none of the principal actors has a voice to match some of the classic performances of this show (Colm Wilkinson as the Bishop excepted). But there is a difference between singing a musical and performing it on screen, and Hooper has gone with actors who could perform as well as sing. If you are looking for a re-staging of the Broadway show on film, then you are definitely looking in the wrong place. But if you are looking for performances that can move you with raw emotion, then you should see this film, even if you don't like musicals. Anne Hathaway may not have the voice of a Patti Lupone or Randy Graff, but she gives the finest performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" that I have ever heard. Hugh Jackman is as good as Val Jean. Less than perfect are Sasha Baron Cohnen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thenardiers. Where they should have been fun, they ended up as creepy. Also, Samantha Barks, who has the best voice of the female cast, just doesn't quite bring the pain as Eponine. Finally, I have never liked the character Cosette until now, a tribute to some slight changes in the show, but mostly to Amanda Seyfried. Overall this is an amazing film.

I truly do not understand why people like this film. Yes, the actors look good. So what? Yes, the performances are credible. So what? Were the characters worth learning about? No. They were all jerks, who I would just as soon have seen pummeled to death. Was there a story here worth watching? No. Did the movie illuminate something important about the human condition? Not a chance. Yes, the internet is important, including Facebook. But that doesn't mean that it's at all interesting or important for us to see how it was done. The film is technically proficient (which is why I gave it a 4), but it isn't good story telling. There's no story here worth the telling.

My problem with this film is that, as good as Clooney's performance is as Ryan, I didn't believe the character for a second. There was no reason to accept that Ryan was a real person the way that he is. No way to think that a person could be in his situation where he was "ready to make a connection" because there was no explanation as to why any functioning human being would be so connection phobic in the first place. It's not Clooney's fault. It's simply that the character was written without enough back story to make him realistic. He's a plot device and nothing more. Which is why the story ultimately fails to work or generate much emotional impact.

The rest of the cast is terrific, and both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick deserve the nominations and awards that they've received so far. Pacing is good, and the script is well written, except for the big hole where the main character should be.

The great thing about the old Star Trek was that even if the effects and sets were cheesy, the characters were interesting, the story lines were solid, and the science (especially in the later series) at least was plausible enough to not interfere with the story. This reboot reverses all of that. The effects and sets are interesting, and everything else--characters, story, and science--is cheesy and stupid. If all you want is visuals and action, then maybe this movie is for you. If you're looking for an intelligent well made science fiction film, then try renting Forbidden Planet or 2001. Don't spend money on this clunker.

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

That's right; too short. While no one could have included all the wonderful sequences contained in the book, there are several omissions here that diminish narrative flow and character development. The four biggest being:

1. The failure to explain Denethor's madness, and his foreknowledge of Aragorn (both born from the same source). The film wants us to believe he just went mad or that he lost it to grief over Boromir, and that just doesn't work.

2. No mention of the romance between Faramir and Eowyn. In a film with little love story, this should have been included.

3. Leaving out the development of Eomer as Aragorn's friend, and Gimli's rival. In the film version, Eomer is little more than an extra.

4. Eliminating the confrontation with Saruman at Orthanc and the Scouring of the Shire. This omission is huge. One of Tolkien's great themes was the growth of the young hobbits, especially Merry and Pippin. The chapter on their return to the Shire is the real climax of the book. It is where Merry and Pippin's growth as leaders of their people really shines. Also, Tolkien wanted to show how even the Shire could not escape the war. A definite missed opportunity.

Part of the problem is that The Two Towers was cut short. The confrontation with Saruman and a short sequence on Denethor could have (and should have) been included in the middle film. That having been said The Return of the King is still a wonderful film. The action sequences are breathtaking. The character development is at the right times inspiring and heartbreaking. Easily one of the best films of the year.

This is the kind of big, dumb movie Hollywood can make in it's sleep, and in this case, someone did. The producers knew what they could sell; good visuals and the Planet of the Apes name, and that is all they deliver. This movie is only about how it looks. If you care about story or characters (the makers obviously did not) you should look elsewhere.

The half thought out plot has holes you could push a planet through. Tim Burton tries to paper some of the holes with action cliches, most of which are embarrassingly bad.

As to the cast, Mark Wahlberg is not bad in the lead, but the rest of the cast saved their good work for another film. Tim Roth badly overplays the villain, General Thade. Helena Bonham Carter is just there as the pro-human chimp Ari. The rest of the cast has so little to work with, that they must have collectively said to themselves, "why bother?"

Then there is the surprise ending. It is a total waste of film. While the ending of the original (and far better) Planet of the Apes was integral to the story, the surprise in this new version has that unmistakeable "tacked on" feel. It comes out of nowhere, goes nowhere, and does not make sense at all. It is as if the film makers wanted a visual surprise ending for no other reason than that the original had one, but that they didn't want to put very much thought into creating it.

That is the overriding problem with this movie. It goes for the easy sell visual, without putting any thought behind it. As a result, it is only good for shutting off your brain for two hours. If that's all you want from a movie, go for it.