Change Your Image
Italianrain
Reviews
Shallow Hal (2001)
Means well, but comes out seeming hypocritical
I had heard all of the critical talk about this film portraying women badly in this film months before it even came out. Generally being turned off to stereotypical plots I was very hesitant to see this movie. Of course all of my friends totally loved this movie. They thought it was sweet and charming and bashed the critics for thinking that it was demeaning to any one type of social group because they felt that since Hal chose to be with Rosemary at the end of the film that that meant that the movie itself was teaching everyone some great beautiful lesson about how you can see the beauty within. Well being a plus size girl myself (Im a size 16-and cute to boot hehe)I made myself watch this movie, and all I can say is that, I beg to differ.
To be fair I do think the Farrelly brothers were trying to send a positive message here. I don't think that their intent was to degrade anyone, but they ended up making the movie a hypocritical mess. Not only did they portray "Ugly" woman as fat with bad skin and big noses,they also portrayed "Beautiful" women as being mega-bitches with a whip. As if we women (and men) don't have enough to feel self conscious about.
I mean think about it. Jack Black, while being a very funny guy and good actor, just isn't "conventionally" Hollywood attractive. But he loved Rosemary. Which is great, however they would never think about putting let's say, Brad Pitt in as playing Hal and have him running off with an obese woman in the end. So therefore Obese women can only get someone like Jack Black to love them???
The other stereotype that irritated the crap out of me was that, not only was Rosemary obese, but she was also a glutton. As if ALL big women eat 5 course meals every time we sit at the table. Anyways, just a big peeve there.
The point is, that everyone knows that movies and Hollywood set this impossible standard on how women and men should look and everyone here admits it's wrong, yet people still feel they have to alter themselves to be something that they are not. I feel that this movie, while trying to mean well...exacerbates this concept and causes hurt feelings.
A valiant effort of the F-Bros part, but it just didn't cut the mustard with me. Sorry
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Reinventing Disney
I have been reading all of the negative comments on this movie, and it just baffles me how people can't really see the big picture here (no pun intended) Though Disney has enchanted us in the past with sickly sweet renditions of timeless fairytales in the past, I think that it's a good thing that Disney embark on creating a more dark and looming satire.
Now although I am a huge advocate of Disney it's no mystery that they have turned storylines around on mostly all of their movies. I dont think I have seen one of their animated features, that was derived from a story that they didn't change the plot around on. And though most of us know that Sleeping Beauty's original story didn't include 3 good fairies, nor did Beauty and the Beast feature singing Dishware or Gueston (sp), but we still loved those movies regardless, and that it because they were well done. So in saying all of that, why should this one be any different. It didn't follow the Hunchback's novel completely but it doesn't mean that it was horrible. On the contrary, I admire Disney for trying to reninvent themselves by attempting this challenge.
Of course there are alot of things in the book that MUST be taken out of the movie in order for the movie to remain children-friendly. Let's face it the story of the Hunchback is definately one of the darkest, and the combination of religion,lust,and racism which is major concept in the book, needs to be toned down. It is even painful to me, a young adult to stomach alot of what is portrayed in the original Hunchback. I know that children couldn't possibly understand what the real lessons of the book were trying to portray.
However, I believe that Disney reformed this story as to not really narrate the book as I think it was made to prove a point, and to educate children on the cruelty of society in general.
The second time i saw this film, i had rented it and watched it with a three year old girl that I was nannying at the time. Her mother wanted her to see it but I was reluctent to subject the little girl to the darkness of the message. Regardless of everything, I do think this film is more of a FAMILY film, than a CHILDREN'S film. If children are going to see this, then they need a parent to watch it with them. Through out the entire movie the little girl reacted the exact same way that I am sure Disney wanted her to. She would constantly ask me questions like. "Why do people make fun of Quazi, he is a nice guy", and "That Frollo man is so mean to people". Regardless of the inacuracies to the book, the little girl was learning a lesson. Don't judge a book by it's cover, and be kind to your fellow man.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I thought it to be very well done, and the music was outstanding. "The Bells of Notre Dame" give me a chill everytime I hear it sung, and there was a good blend of humor, and drama. Disney, once again hits the nail on the head, and it's one that I am going to be adding to my Christmas list in the future.
Enough said!
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
Lighthearted...
And yet I still will never understand why people take a lighthearted romantic comedy that is meantto be a no-brainer, and twist it into a bunch of negative contortions as if the movie were meant to be the next Sundance Film Festival Winner. (Although I really dont know how many awards this film has won)
Yes this movie wasn't the best movie that I have ever seen, but it was amusing in the way that it was lighthearted and warm, and wasn't jam packed with violence, or sex, or drugs, or anything else 99% of all movies today are based on. It's really sad when people have to critisize it so harshly. So it was the worst money you ever spent...big deal. So you hated it within the first 15 minutes...again...big deal. Walk to the box office and get a refund for pity's sake, no one forced you to sit through it. Sheesh!
Anyhoo, At the risk of getting all worked up I just wanted to express that this movie was formidable. The acting isn't that spectacular but the story line it good, and makes you come out with a smile on your face. Well on mine at least. Take it for what it is. A light-hearted romantic comedy and everything will be fine.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
It's okay Drew I still think you're Swell!!!
Normally I am always up for a laid back, silly, and predictable comedy/action flick. The first Charlie's Angels movie was alot of fun, and regardless of it's less than Oscar worthy performances it was a no brainer. Not to mention that I was glad they were making a sequel to it. You can imagine my dissapointment however when I pushed play and actually saw this sequel.
Now the errors here I believe, arent really the acting. You can't have a tear jerking oscar clip when 75% of the movie is physicality. I normally adore Cameron, Lucy, and above all Drew, so I wasn't displeased with their characters, or anything of that sort. Even Demi did a pretty bang up job. All of this wouldn't have set the movie back if i could have just understood the plot. From the moment Charlie began explaining the Angel's next mission, I was completely confused. The flow of the movie was very choppy and it seemed at though they were just a bunch of scenes thrown together in some sort of assemblance, but not for plot's sake.
Not only that, but once the impossibly unbelievable stunts began there was really no need for the mission in the plot to exsist. Instead they tried to break the record of "How many revealing disguises can we get the Angel's into in this movie.".
The special effects were good however they abused the kinds of moves that you would see in the Matrix and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Effects that we way cool when they were first used in these movies, however are just over done now, and therefore I felt like the Angel's were being portrayed as super human instead of just 3 women who know martial arts, and can really kick butt.
Despite my dissapointment in the movie, it's always a pleasure to see Drew onscreen. I have been a big admirer of her in her better films. i.e. Ever After, and Never Been Kissed. I won't hold this one against her. She will forever be a swell gal!
Of Mice and Men (1992)
A Smart Adaptation
Being a huge movie buff, when it comes to these adaptation-from-a- novel movies, I normally do things backwards. I watch the movie before reading the book. Far too many times have I gone to see a movie with someone and I loved the film and they hated it because it wasn't just like the book. So I saw this with my folks when I was 12 years old, because my parents had read the book. Not only was I hooked and fascinated by the movie, but it was also the first movie that I ever cried at. My parents loved it, I loved it and ever since then I have read the book, bought the book, and received the book on tape read by Gary Sinise himself for Christmas.
Looking at all the negative reviews from people that think that this movie wasn't faithful to the story just baffles me. Gary Sinise, who acted and directed this, did an excellent job at portraying each character in the book both physically, and dramatically. It was the little details in the film that I found fascinating. After reading the book there was even a description of what George's character looked like, which depicted Sinise perfectly.
I know the controversy as well on whether or not John Malcovich had portrayed Lenny correctly. Some feel that he looked and acted too mentally retarded for the role. But as I see it. If Lenny, the character was just merely a slow man, then why was he such a burden to George? Why was his tremendous strength such a danger? If he was just a regular ol'guy that wasn't too bright, then these things wouldn't have been such a problem. Portraying Lenny as a child trapped in an ox of a man's body makes sense, and therefore I thought Malcovich did a wonderful job. He is always over the top in every movie that he is in.
Combined with the landscaping, and cinematography this movie is a pleasure to watch. It makes you laugh one minute, and then ripes your heart out the next. The inner turmoil that George faces between himself and the rest of the world is finely played, and I would recommend this movie to anyone, especially the people that have read the book. =o)
White Christmas (1954)
Simply a Wonderful Film!!!
*********MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*****
White Christmas; a classic movie to many, though a bit misunderstood by those who don't necessarily care for it. So what is it about White Christmas that gets our hearts pitty pattering for the Christmas season to unravel itself? Besides the fact that it has a wonderful score, wonderful actors/actresses/dancers etc, and positive message, it's hard to understand how anyone could dislike a movie such as this.
Though White Christmas is in fact one of my favorite Holiday movies, I have heard others say they didn't like it on grounds of it not being a "Christmas" movie, or that it has no Christmas worthy message. To all this I beg to differ. White Christmas has more to do with Christmas or the holidays than one would think. I mean, what really is the true meaning of Christmas anyways? Besides being a Christian holiday, it's also the season of giving. For doing things for one another for the sake of humanity, and that's exactly what this movie portrays.
Alright so the real only Christmas thing about the movie is the beginning and the end, but think of the basic principle that serves as a catalyst up to the final tear jerking moment of the film.
So let's rewind. Bob Wallace (Bing Crosby) and Phil Davis (Danny Kaye) are two soldiers serving under General Thomas F. Waverly (Dean Jagger) who is retiring from the army near the end of WW2. Under lucky circumstances Phil saves Bob's life during an unexpected air-raid leaving Bob obliged to make it up to Phil, who's one kooky idea is to team up with Bob in show business. The result being that they both become the infamous "Wallace and Davis" stage act.
Along the way they meet The Hayne Sisters, who are the sisters of a fellow army buddy of theirs, and also just making a name for themselves as a performing sister act too. Phil wants Bob to settle down, so he tries to pair up Betty (Rosemary Clooney)and Bob, whom are both head strong, responsible and stubborn, while he finds himself getting whisked away by Judy (Vera-Ellen) Betty's younger, more impulsive sister.
All of this happens within the first 45 minutes of this movie, but the story really doesnt go into effect until they all four decide to go to Vermont together where the Hayne sisters are to perform at an Inn that is in fear of going out of business. Ironically enough the Inn belongs to General Waiverly, who was Wallace and Davis's role model and mentor during WW2. From that moment on Phil and Bob decide to put their fame to good use, and help the ol' General out by sending for their stage show and crew, to use the inn as a rehearsal center. They rebuild the place, build a killer stage with an ochestra, throw the Hayne Sisters into their act, and bring on a ton of publicity for the General's Inn. See...the big reason the Inn is going under is because the unseasonably warm weather is keeping the snow away, and that's where the money is supossedly. Everything seems to be going rosey, or so everyone thinks, until the General, who's getting anxious again decides to go back into the army, only to be turned down because of his age. Or so the movie lets on to believe.
Danny and Bing decide to give a pitch on television to all the men who served under the General during the war in hopes that they would come out to Vermont on Christmas Eve to pay their respects to the General to let him know how much he meant to them.
And as the finale of the movie appears up on screen, those last tearjerking 10 minutes. You see the General get the best gift he ever could get.
Of course there are moments that are so cheesy that they ooze velveeta all over the place, but all in all it does show you what this movie is about. The rewards for doing things for other, and giving them experiences that they will never forget.
I guess I enjoy this movie so much because it comes from a time when things were simpler. Both of my Grandmother's love Bing Crosby so it's nice to sit down and watch a movie that isn't coated in sex and scandals or violence. Where real entertainment was with music and singing and dancing. The music, and colors, and morals portrayed are a kind of dying art. And regardless of whether this movie IS as Christmasy people want it or dont want it to be, it should just be watched as a whole. A simply wonderful film.
Joan of Arc (1999)
An Insult to Joan the Maid
Granted I understand that some people who saw this movie had never studied the life of Joan Of Arc. But if people came to see this movie in hopes of being more educated on the life of this treasured saint, then this is the WRONG movie for them to see! This movie, in my opinion trashed every inch of Joan's character.
Now see I have grown up loving the story of Joan of Arc, so I take stuff like this personally. We all have seen movies of legendary heros such as Braveheart, The Patriot and Rob Roy...and people come out of those movies feeling patriotic because the men in the film were portrayed truly as heros...they were heros. This movie, although advertising Joan's story as a historical epic was completely deceiving. The writer made Joan look like a complete lunatic, and after sitting through 3/4s of it I was just begging for them to burn her at the stake to just get it over with. Not that I was glad that they burned the real Joan of Arc. It was the reason that Joan's character in this movie was so wacko and skittish, you just wanted to put her out of her misery. Of course, I don't blame Milla J. for acting accordingly. I think she is a moderately creditable actress, and plays this part well. She plays it well as a catalyst from the writing. The writing here is the problem as well as the over all vision. She plays "Joan the lunatic" well. So it's not her fault that Joan was protrayed this way. However, if I had been in the film I would have challenged the writing a bit.
I normally am not the type of person to seem so critical about a movie...but I just felt that this movie was an insult to the real Joan of Arc. Historically, and period-wise the film was accurate. But the portrayl of Joan of Arc (Who was a true hero) was completely deceiving!
Corky Romano (2001)
A funny no brainer, enjoyed it as such!
Okay so what really grates on my nerves are the people that judge movies like this as if they were Siskel and Ebert making their picks for the upcoming Oscars. First, might I bring to everyone's attention that this is a screwball comedy. Not meant to be taken seriously as a Sundance Film Festival entree or anything similar. Critiquing artistic/dramatic/or even serious romantic comedies of course should be taken seriously. But what I have seen of the comments already made on this movie, they were analyzed with the analogy of a Whitney Houston fan giving Avril Lavigne's album bad marks because they didn't think she sang as well as Whitney. That's the point here...it's comparing Apples and Oranges. They are two different catagories here so let's analyze Corky Romano for what it's worth. A simple screwball comedy.
So it's a given that not everyone is going to enjoy Corky Romano because some people don't care for the style of humor that it portrays. I myself, am more of a cynical, black comedy kind of person, but I love Chris Kattan. He is the key element here, and you watch the movie souly for the purpose of a good laugh at Chris Kattan's expense. Now the movie isn't great, but Christ Kattan IS...so i enjoyed it. It's supposed to be goofy and stupid so therefore it was a no brainer. I recommend this to anyone who is into that Duece Bigalow/Night at the Roxbury kind of humor. Dennis Leary fans heed this movie...it's too sugarcoated for that kind of darkness.
Just treat it as a no brainer, and the rest is gravy. =o)
Superstar (1999)
Awesome!
Yet again we have some people (<cough> Sam Rag) who try to take a simple, no brainer comedy and try to critique it as if he were Siskel trying to find the next winner for the Oscars. Again...THIS IS A COMEDY...why pick it apart and try to surface it's faults? It appeals to some and not to others because everyone's humor is different.
I personally loved this movie. I too am a SNL fanatic and thought that it was thouroughly entertaining, and Molly Shannon just cracks me up. I simply love the character! This movie was awesome!
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
A work of comic genius.
This movie was simply comic work of genius. Unlike alot of corny teenage "Let's skip school" movies, Ferris Beuller's Day Off isn't full of Velveeta. And even though this movie was made in the 1980's I know that Ferris would still be the most popular boy in school at the present time!
I remember renting this movie for the first time when I was 8 years old. Well my parents rented it rather, and they almost peed themselves from laughing. I of course thought that it was funny but wasnt able to appreciate the subtle comic quirks that it possessed. The thing that I love the most about this movie was the random humor. Though Hugh's had alot of humor in Sixteen Candles, the humor was more bubblegum than anything else. Ferris' humor is a little more edgy and sarcastic...call it quirky if you will but shows for a more mature sense of humor.
Things like Ben Stein as the history teacher announcing someone's name over and over until they acknowledged their presence for the attendance that day. "Bueller, Bueller, Bueller". Or how Ferris made a floppy disk of sick/vomiting noises that he would play over the phone to his friends at school. Even the "Save Ferris" posted on the Water Tower was a riot. It was the little things that made this film so great. Along with a great cast, this film is going to remain a real 1980's cult classic!