Page 25 of 25
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:06 am
by anonymous1980
V FOR VENDETTA
Cast: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, John Hurt, Stephen Fry, Tim Pigott-Smith, Rupert Graves.
Dir: James McTeigue
Not a bad way to start the 2006 movie year. A unique politcally charged thriller which is just tad too exaggerated and cartoony to be truly provocative. But it does contain some interesting ideas albeit too heavy handed and drawn out.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: B
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:01 pm
by flipp525
Mrs. Harris (2005) starring Annette Bening, Ben Kingsley, Frances Fisher, Chloë Sevigny, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Mary McDonnell, Philip Baker Hall -- ***
An HBO Films feature that recounts the saga of the Jean Harris (Annette Bening) case, the head mistress at the exclusive Madeira School in McLean, Virginia, who was convicted of killing her lover, "Scarsdate Diet" Dr. Herman (Hy) Tarnower (Ben Kingsley) on March 10, 1980. The playwright, Phyllis Nagy ("Never Land"), wrote and directed this, her first film, and presents the murder as a possibly unintentional act that occurred while Mrs. Harris was attempting suicide, in one scenario; premeditated murder in another. She doesn't take one side over the other in her recounting of the tale which is presented in flashbacks and interview-style scenes with the people who knew both parties. Bening is perfect for the part of Jean Harris, comfortably inhabiting the role of a scorned woman who teeters on the brink of jealousy, precision (she constantly corrects Hy's English and is furious over her students' propensity for littering), love, and harping desperation. Honestly, I have a hard time watching Ben Kingsley these days without thinking about how much of self-important snob he is, but he was quite decent as the Brooklyn Jewish doctor (with a monster-sized prick, I might add). Cloris Leachman is a hoot as Tarnower's sister, especially when her legs are gaping open and she's telling the audience about the success of his diet book. The screenplay was very good, especially some of the courtroom dialogue and dinner party scenes. The artistic direction of the film really captures the style of the late 1970's, early 80's, especially Hy's bedroom while the costume designer has created a believable portrait of Mrs. Harris' wardrobe. Great soundtrack choices throughout as well.
Favorite moment: On the stand in the Westchester County courtroom, Annette Bening turns when she realizes the sketch artist isn't drawing her best side. Classic.
Also the following exchange was great between Bening and Sevigny, one of her rivals for Kingsley's affections:
Jean Harris(watching Lynne paint a white Adirondack chair yellow): Does it not seem bizarre to you, Lynne, that you're painting the furniture while I'm here?
Lynne Tryforos: Bizarre? What do you mean?
Jean Harris: Well, I realize, you know, that you are just a secretary and weren't as fortunate as I in graduating magna cum laude from Smith but surely any well-read ten year old knows the meaning of the word "bizarre". (Pause). Well, let me re-phrase that: What the hell are you doing here?
I went to Camp Greenway every summer as a child in the 1980's which was held at the Maderia School, and heard about the Harris case for years so, from a personal standpoint, it was interesting to see this film. Besides the Tarnower murder, the camp had a string of odd occurences including a woman who was raped and hung from the tree in the front of the school off of Georgetown Pike as well as a Madeira student who accidentally locked herself in a dumbwaiter during a game of hide and seek and perished there. There was also a hermit who lived in the woods near the ropes course. Made for some pretty interesting summer nights around the campfire ("One night there was a murder. Actually it was right over there!")
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:27 pm
by Reza
I think what we have here is the perfect made-in-heaven marriage between Penelope and Pamela-Marie!
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:45 pm
by Penelope
You and I are on totally different planets, apparently. I loved the dinner scene in Family Stone.
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:41 pm
by Pamela-Marie
I would argue that I don't think we've had the same opinion on a film ... maybe ever!
I will easily give you the Don/Jennifer scene. I got the point of it, but it was clumsy. But I can't give you the others, especially not the weave. You call that subtle?
And even if we don't deconstruct every scene between those two into, better or worse than Crash, the scenes with her friends are insufferable. Sort of like that dinner scene in The Family Stone. I just can't take crap like that, I simply can't.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:32 pm
by Penelope
Do we watch the same movies?
Take the argument between Lathan and Baker in the grocery store--that scene was more believable and natural than any single moment in Crash. Take the moment when Baker asks about Lathan's weave--a subtly revealing moment for both characters--and compare it to the post-coital scene between Don Cheadle and Jennifer Esposito--filled as it is with dialogue that no genuine human beings would actually say to each other. Think about the scene where Baker returns to tell Lathan that he loves her--if this were Crash, Blair Underwood woulda come out of the kitchen and tried to shoot Baker.
Please.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:52 pm
by Pamela-Marie
Penelope wrote:and touches upon issues of prejudice (without the heavy-handedness of, say, um, Crash) makes it, at the very least, something refreshing.
Funny, I thought it was far worse in its' heavy-handedness than Crash. At least Crash was struggling with a way too ambitious a script and story. This was a simple film that beat us over the head until, all of the sudden, I wished my lungs would give out at that moment. It was very much like The Family Stone where it thinks it is being clever but it is so telgraphed, the attempt of subtle standing on a soapbox is IMO more unbearable than just going all out on a soapbox.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:13 am
by Penelope
Ok, I guess I'll kick off the thread with the first review, and my first 2006 release.
Something New -- ***
It's a basic romantic comedy, so it's not something original, but the fact that it's about a successful, professional black woman (Sanaa Lathan) and a white landscape architect (Simon Baker), and touches upon issues of prejudice (without the heavy-handedness of, say, um, Crash) makes it, at the very least, something refreshing. The direction (by Sanaa Hamri) is a bit spotty at times, but the script (by Kriss Turner) features some sharp dialogue, and the cast is very game, with the lovely chemistry between the two leads making the heart genuinely leap.
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:50 am
by Mister Tee
I just saw this post for the first time, Sonic, and I want to heartily second what you say. The whole idea behind the Official Review thread was to leave space for comment on films that obviously didn't rate threads of their own, but that maybe rated a few words in passing. (My possibly-faulty memory says we came up with the idea around the time of a movie like Mean Girls, about which there's clearly not a great deal to "discuss", but where we might want to alert people it's worth seeing) Reactions to major films either get lost in the crowd in Official Review, or, as you say, accidentally yield up spoilers for those who haven't got to them yet but want to see what's being said about other films.
How about this: any movie we consider important enough to copy/paste its trade reviews should be discussed under that individual thread; anything more minor is the province of the Official Review thread.
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:30 am
by Sonic Youth
I don't mean to spoil anyone's party, and I don't mean to come off like a moderator, but I've had my reservations about these official review threads for several years now. I think it's fine for most movies you don't expect getting into a heavy discussion over, films that don't merit their own thread. But other films - ones that may figure prominently in the Oscar race, or recieved great reviews, or won festival prizes, or are heavily anticipated most of the year - that are sure to be seen by the entire board, I think it's preferable to have individual threads for them. A large, ungainly, stream-of-consciousness type thread like this makes discussion of a particular film very difficult, and it makes searching for reviews impracticible.
Right now there is an ongoing discussion about Match Point in the 2005 thread. I have not seen Match Point yet, so I don't want to read this discussion in case there is a *spoiler* revealed. Even with a spoiler warning, your eyes can accidentally pass over some key words, ruining the plot twist in the film. But Match Point posts are in the review thread, and I always go there to see what else has been reviewed. Now I don't want to visit the thread at all until I've seen the movie. And when I finally see it, I know it will be difficult to put down my thoughts of the movie without discussing the ending. I'm sure everyone is trying to restrain themselves from revealing this ending. That's considerate, but that also inhibits discussion. That's what a "Match Point" thread would be for.
Otherwise, what's the point of even having a Films of 2006 forum to begin with?
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:11 am
by anonymous1980
It's a new year. Let's reserve this spot for all 2006 movies to be reviewed.