Movie Stats:
Released 2013 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Woody Allen
Stars - Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Bobby Cannavale
Plot Summary:
After her life falls apart, wealthy socialite Jasmine (Blanchett) tries to adjust to living in a lower financial caste. Hawkins co-stars as Jasmine’s lower-class sister, Ginger, and Cannavale as Ginger’s boyfriend, Chili.
Warnings:
Blue language; attempted sexual assault; violence; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
All these San Franciscans sure talk and sound an awful lot like New Yorkers. You can definitely tell that Woody Allen wrote this script.
Normally I’m a fan of open endings but I found this one unsatisfactory.
Some of the conversations are a bit repetitive. While it’s true-to-life, in film it gets tiresome.
Good Stuff:
I really liked the topic, and it’s not one that we see portrayed often in film: how difficult it can be to “come down” in circumstances. That’s actually something that’s been on my mind since so many people committed suicide during the real estate crash 10 years ago.
It does a good job of putting many of its characters (specifically Jasmine and Chili, but also Augie, Ginger’s ex-husband, played by Andrew Dice Clay*) on the thin edge of likability. For example, while I didn’t particularly care for Jasmine, I admired that she actually tried to get her life back together, instead of just relying on her sister’s kindness.
Loved the soundtrack.
About the Performance:
Blanchett is fantastic. Jasmine really isn’t very likable. She’s cold and snobbish and basically useless. However, she is relatable. Most of us have hit a point in our lives when we simply find it difficult to cope. Blanchett takes that small piece of what we can relate to and runs with it. As much as Jasmine exasperates you, you can’t help but to root for her. Blanchett earned a well-deserved Oscar for this. Also, I want to note that while I spent the whole film thinking that Hawkins’s American accent was shaky at best, I didn’t even notice that Blanchett was doing an accent until I looked her up & was reminded that she’s Australian.
Other performances of Blanchett’s I’ve reviewed: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
The Verdict:
I have to admit, once I realized this was an Allen film, I was very skeptical. I loathe his “schtick” and tend to find his films exhausting. However, I was pleasantly surprised. I think it helps that Allen himself isn’t in it. Also, that it’s short. If it had gone on any longer, I might have gotten annoyed. It’s an interesting topic, portrayed in a sensitive manner, elevated by Blanchett’s performance. It’s not a film I would watch repeatedly, but I think it’s really solid.
I give it 4 stars.
*I didn’t recognize him at all. When I was writing this review, I was floored to discover he played Augie.
Friday, January 26, 2018
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Woodland Enchantress Cross Stitch, Progress Report 7
Time for the quarterly update on my cross stitch project!
Here's a reminder of what it will look like when I'm done:
Here's a reminder of what it will look like when I'm done:
Here's what it looked like during my last update in October 2017:
And here's what it looks like now:
This represents 26.50 hours of work spread out over 14 days, my most ever! One of my goals this year is to work more on this project. So far so good!
Monday, January 22, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #20 - Shirley MacLaine: "What a Way to Go!" (1964)
Movie Stats:
Released 1964 (USA)
American, in English (some French, mostly non-translated)
Director - J. Lee Thompson
Stars - Shirley MacLaine, Dick Van Dyke, Paul Newman, Robert Mitchum, Gene Kelly
Plot Summary:
Upon the death of her latest husband, 4-time widow Louisa May Foster (MacLaine) tells her tale of woe to a psychiatrist. Van Dyke co-stars as Edgar Hopper, Louisa’s first husband; Newman as Larry Flint, her second husband; Mitchum as Rod Anderson, Jr., her third husband; and Kelly as Pinky Benson, her fourth husband.
Warnings:
Implied sexy times; minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s very campy.
Little too long/formulaic.
Good Stuff:
It’s actually quite witty and funny. I particularly enjoyed each of the “our lives were like x kind of movie” scenes. They’re clever.
Newman is an absolute scream as a pretentious artist.
I like how it turned the “women are only after money” trope on its head.
Loved MacLaine’s costuming (by the incomparable Edith Head).
About the Performance:
MacLaine is a favorite of mine. There are few films of hers I’ve seen where I didn’t appreciate her performance. I think she’s hilarious in this. Many of her reactions are over-the-top, particularly in scenes where she has to cry, but they’re meant to be. You’re supposed to find this film ridiculous. In addition to flexing her comedy chops, she’s also very charming and she’s an absolute knockout. Her legs - wow!
Other performances of MacLaine’s I’ve reviewed: Terms of Endearment; The Apartment; Around the World in Eighty Days.
The Verdict:
So I was going to watch the film “Being There,” but the DVD’s availability on Netflix was low, and after it was skipped over several times, I realized I was just going to have to pick something else. I didn’t feel too sad about it because that film seemed like it was more of a vehicle for Peter Sellers anyway. After seeing what was available to me across a few different streaming platforms, I chose this film because it sounded funny & because there were so many great actors in it. I ended up really enjoying it. It’s so sweet and charming, with an edge of biting wit & an underlying sadness that gives it a bit of poignancy. I don’t have much to say about it that’s seriously negative. It made me laugh out loud more than once. Louisa is very relatable; I really wanted her to find her happy ending. This film gave me warm fuzzies.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Released 1964 (USA)
American, in English (some French, mostly non-translated)
Director - J. Lee Thompson
Stars - Shirley MacLaine, Dick Van Dyke, Paul Newman, Robert Mitchum, Gene Kelly
Plot Summary:
Upon the death of her latest husband, 4-time widow Louisa May Foster (MacLaine) tells her tale of woe to a psychiatrist. Van Dyke co-stars as Edgar Hopper, Louisa’s first husband; Newman as Larry Flint, her second husband; Mitchum as Rod Anderson, Jr., her third husband; and Kelly as Pinky Benson, her fourth husband.
Warnings:
Implied sexy times; minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s very campy.
Little too long/formulaic.
Good Stuff:
It’s actually quite witty and funny. I particularly enjoyed each of the “our lives were like x kind of movie” scenes. They’re clever.
Newman is an absolute scream as a pretentious artist.
I like how it turned the “women are only after money” trope on its head.
Loved MacLaine’s costuming (by the incomparable Edith Head).
About the Performance:
MacLaine is a favorite of mine. There are few films of hers I’ve seen where I didn’t appreciate her performance. I think she’s hilarious in this. Many of her reactions are over-the-top, particularly in scenes where she has to cry, but they’re meant to be. You’re supposed to find this film ridiculous. In addition to flexing her comedy chops, she’s also very charming and she’s an absolute knockout. Her legs - wow!
Other performances of MacLaine’s I’ve reviewed: Terms of Endearment; The Apartment; Around the World in Eighty Days.
The Verdict:
So I was going to watch the film “Being There,” but the DVD’s availability on Netflix was low, and after it was skipped over several times, I realized I was just going to have to pick something else. I didn’t feel too sad about it because that film seemed like it was more of a vehicle for Peter Sellers anyway. After seeing what was available to me across a few different streaming platforms, I chose this film because it sounded funny & because there were so many great actors in it. I ended up really enjoying it. It’s so sweet and charming, with an edge of biting wit & an underlying sadness that gives it a bit of poignancy. I don’t have much to say about it that’s seriously negative. It made me laugh out loud more than once. Louisa is very relatable; I really wanted her to find her happy ending. This film gave me warm fuzzies.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Friday, January 19, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #21 - Julie Andrews: "Thoroughly Modern Millie" (1967)
Movie Stats:
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English (multiple other languages, used in minor ways, non-translated)
Director - George Roy Hill
Stars - Julie Andrews, James Fox, Mary Tyler Moore, Carol Channing
Plot Summary:
In the 1920s, small town girl Millie Dillmount (Andrews) arrives in NYC, determined to live life on her own terms. Oh, and there’s a side plot involving white slavery. Fox co-stars as Jimmy Smith, Millie’s friend/love interest; Moore as Dorothy Brown, Millie’s new BFF; and Channing as Muzzy Van Hossmere, an eccentric millionaire they befriend.
Warnings:
Implied sexy times; minor violence; one scene with a painting that depicts nude female breasts.
Bad Stuff:
It’s really pretty racist.
There’s a lot of the over-the-top, goofy humor that was prominent in the 1960s (think of the campiness of the Batman TV show of that era), which I don’t really care for.
I don’t think it has a great message. Millie’s “modern woman” plan is to get a job with a handsome, wealthy boss and marry him? That seems rather devious and manipulative. Also, [SPOILER] It’s okay she falls in love with a seemingly poor, unambitious man because it turns out that he was rich and lying to her all along. Yay! [SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
It has some genuinely funny moments. I especially enjoyed the running gag of Millie unwittingly foiling the wannabe kidnappers.
I really enjoyed the characters of Jimmy and Trevor Graydon (John Gavin). Trevor in particular provided a lot of unexpected “straight man” humor.
I liked the costuming.
About the Performance:
What’s not to like about Julie Andrews? She’s incredibly talented: beautiful, a great dancer, lovely singing voice, excellent comedic timing. I didn’t particularly care for this film, or the character of Millie, but Andrews did a good job with it.
Other performances of Andrews’s I’ve reviewed: The Sound of Music.
The Verdict:
I was supposed to review “Mary Poppins,” for which Andrews won the Oscar, but I’ve never liked that film & didn’t feel like watching it again. I wanted to review “Victor Victoria,” but they didn’t have it on Netflix, so I chose this film instead. Two years ago, I saw part of a stage production of this story; we left at intermission in part because the racism in it made us uncomfortable. I thought it wasn’t quite as bad in the film, although definitely the deeper it gets into the white slavery storyline, the more apparent the racism is. In addition to that, I found the campiness irritating. It’s meant to be lighthearted, fun, and humorous, and that does frequently come across, but it definitely isn’t my favorite movie ever.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English (multiple other languages, used in minor ways, non-translated)
Director - George Roy Hill
Stars - Julie Andrews, James Fox, Mary Tyler Moore, Carol Channing
Plot Summary:
In the 1920s, small town girl Millie Dillmount (Andrews) arrives in NYC, determined to live life on her own terms. Oh, and there’s a side plot involving white slavery. Fox co-stars as Jimmy Smith, Millie’s friend/love interest; Moore as Dorothy Brown, Millie’s new BFF; and Channing as Muzzy Van Hossmere, an eccentric millionaire they befriend.
Warnings:
Implied sexy times; minor violence; one scene with a painting that depicts nude female breasts.
Bad Stuff:
It’s really pretty racist.
There’s a lot of the over-the-top, goofy humor that was prominent in the 1960s (think of the campiness of the Batman TV show of that era), which I don’t really care for.
I don’t think it has a great message. Millie’s “modern woman” plan is to get a job with a handsome, wealthy boss and marry him? That seems rather devious and manipulative. Also, [SPOILER] It’s okay she falls in love with a seemingly poor, unambitious man because it turns out that he was rich and lying to her all along. Yay! [SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
It has some genuinely funny moments. I especially enjoyed the running gag of Millie unwittingly foiling the wannabe kidnappers.
I really enjoyed the characters of Jimmy and Trevor Graydon (John Gavin). Trevor in particular provided a lot of unexpected “straight man” humor.
I liked the costuming.
About the Performance:
What’s not to like about Julie Andrews? She’s incredibly talented: beautiful, a great dancer, lovely singing voice, excellent comedic timing. I didn’t particularly care for this film, or the character of Millie, but Andrews did a good job with it.
Other performances of Andrews’s I’ve reviewed: The Sound of Music.
The Verdict:
I was supposed to review “Mary Poppins,” for which Andrews won the Oscar, but I’ve never liked that film & didn’t feel like watching it again. I wanted to review “Victor Victoria,” but they didn’t have it on Netflix, so I chose this film instead. Two years ago, I saw part of a stage production of this story; we left at intermission in part because the racism in it made us uncomfortable. I thought it wasn’t quite as bad in the film, although definitely the deeper it gets into the white slavery storyline, the more apparent the racism is. In addition to that, I found the campiness irritating. It’s meant to be lighthearted, fun, and humorous, and that does frequently come across, but it definitely isn’t my favorite movie ever.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Up with Geography: Egypt
Country Name:
Egypt
Capital:
Cairo
Continent:
Africa
Maps:
Neighbors:
Israel, Sudan, Libya
Water Borders:
Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, Gulf of Suez
Total Area:
387,048 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Cairo, Alexandria, Giza, Shubra El-Kheima, Port Said
Famous Geographical Point:
Lake Nasser
Famous Person:
Omar Sharif, actor
Book Set In/About:
Beer in the Snooker Club by Waguih Ghali
Set in turbulent, post-colonial 1950s Cairo, an intellectual young man struggles to find himself while caught between Egyptian & English influences.
Movie Set In/About:
"Al-mummia (The Mummy)" (1969), directed by Chadi Abdel Salam
Based on a true story, an Egyptian tribe with little means for income steals artifacts to sell on the black market, setting off an investigation.
Headline of the Day:
"Anwar Sadat's Nephew Backs out of Egypt Presidential Election" in The Telegraph.
Egypt
Capital:
Cairo
Continent:
Africa
Maps:
 |
| African continent. Egypt outlined in dark ink. |
 |
| A close-up of Egypt & its neighbors. |
Neighbors:
Israel, Sudan, Libya
Water Borders:
Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, Gulf of Suez
Total Area:
387,048 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Cairo, Alexandria, Giza, Shubra El-Kheima, Port Said
Famous Geographical Point:
Lake Nasser
Famous Person:
Omar Sharif, actor
Book Set In/About:
Beer in the Snooker Club by Waguih Ghali
Set in turbulent, post-colonial 1950s Cairo, an intellectual young man struggles to find himself while caught between Egyptian & English influences.
Movie Set In/About:
"Al-mummia (The Mummy)" (1969), directed by Chadi Abdel Salam
Based on a true story, an Egyptian tribe with little means for income steals artifacts to sell on the black market, setting off an investigation.
Headline of the Day:
"Anwar Sadat's Nephew Backs out of Egypt Presidential Election" in The Telegraph.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #22 - Lauren Bacall: "To Have and Have Not" (1944)
Movie Stats:
Released 1944 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - Howard Hawks
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan
Plot Summary:
On Vichy-controlled Martinique during WWII, American fishing boat captain Harry Morgan (Bogart) gets swept up in a plot to transport a French resistance leader. Bacall co-stars as Marie “Slim” Browning, an American lounge singer who’s Harry’s love interest, and Brennan as Eddie, Harry’s drunkard BFF.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
It’s dull. Nothing terribly thrilling happens. It’s mostly fast talking and bluster.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Bogey, but he did pretty much play the same guy in everything. In this he’s sort of a cross between Charlie Allnutt (The African Queen) and Rick Blaine (Casablanca).
I’m getting kind of sick of films where people meet & immediately fall in love (or become BFFs). I realize that, in terms of filmmaking, it’s cost effective, but it’s not realistic. How am I supposed to believe that Harry and Slim care about each other this deeply when they only just met? And how am I supposed to root for them? I cared more about Harry’s relationship with Eddie, because it was deeper & more meaningful.
Good Stuff:
Harry’s friendship with Eddie. They really cared about one another. I always appreciate it when male friendships are portrayed this way in film.
This is Bogey and Bacall’s first film together, and with the chemistry that crackles between them, you’ll understand why it wasn’t their last.
Bacall’s costuming is pretty great.
About the Performance:
I won’t claim to be terribly familiar with Bacall’s work. The only other films of hers I’ve seen are The Big Sleep and, apparently, Misery, but I saw that film so long ago I don’t remember her character. I would say that her character here is very similar to her character in The Big Sleep: cool, charming and aloof. So I wasn’t exactly impressed. However, there’s no denying that she was striking. She had a sultry voice, she commands the screen, and she had phenomenal chemistry with Bogart. Was she a great actress in the way that, say, Shirley MacLaine is? I would say no, but I can definitely see why she’s considered iconic.
Other performances of Bacall’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It was okay. I thought the story was a bit simplistic, which meant that it didn’t end up being terribly exciting. The subject matter is a bit too close to Casablanca; the performances of the leads too similar to their other performances. I just wasn’t wowed. It’s one of those films that I’m not bothered to have seen, but I’ll never watch it again and someday soon I’ll forget all about it.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1944 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - Howard Hawks
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan
Plot Summary:
On Vichy-controlled Martinique during WWII, American fishing boat captain Harry Morgan (Bogart) gets swept up in a plot to transport a French resistance leader. Bacall co-stars as Marie “Slim” Browning, an American lounge singer who’s Harry’s love interest, and Brennan as Eddie, Harry’s drunkard BFF.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
It’s dull. Nothing terribly thrilling happens. It’s mostly fast talking and bluster.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Bogey, but he did pretty much play the same guy in everything. In this he’s sort of a cross between Charlie Allnutt (The African Queen) and Rick Blaine (Casablanca).
I’m getting kind of sick of films where people meet & immediately fall in love (or become BFFs). I realize that, in terms of filmmaking, it’s cost effective, but it’s not realistic. How am I supposed to believe that Harry and Slim care about each other this deeply when they only just met? And how am I supposed to root for them? I cared more about Harry’s relationship with Eddie, because it was deeper & more meaningful.
Good Stuff:
Harry’s friendship with Eddie. They really cared about one another. I always appreciate it when male friendships are portrayed this way in film.
This is Bogey and Bacall’s first film together, and with the chemistry that crackles between them, you’ll understand why it wasn’t their last.
Bacall’s costuming is pretty great.
About the Performance:
I won’t claim to be terribly familiar with Bacall’s work. The only other films of hers I’ve seen are The Big Sleep and, apparently, Misery, but I saw that film so long ago I don’t remember her character. I would say that her character here is very similar to her character in The Big Sleep: cool, charming and aloof. So I wasn’t exactly impressed. However, there’s no denying that she was striking. She had a sultry voice, she commands the screen, and she had phenomenal chemistry with Bogart. Was she a great actress in the way that, say, Shirley MacLaine is? I would say no, but I can definitely see why she’s considered iconic.
Other performances of Bacall’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It was okay. I thought the story was a bit simplistic, which meant that it didn’t end up being terribly exciting. The subject matter is a bit too close to Casablanca; the performances of the leads too similar to their other performances. I just wasn’t wowed. It’s one of those films that I’m not bothered to have seen, but I’ll never watch it again and someday soon I’ll forget all about it.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #23 - Sophia Loren: "Two Women" (1960)
Movie Stats:
Released 1960 (Italy)
Italian & French, in Italian (some German; I watched with English subtitles)
Director - Vittorio de Sica
Stars - Sophia Loren, Eleonora Brown, Jean-Paul Belmondo
Plot Summary:
In WWII Italy, shop owner Cesira (Loren) tries to protect herself & her daughter Rosetta (Brown) from the horrors of war by leaving Rome for the countryside. However, she finds that horror follows them. Belmondo co-stars as Michele, Cesira’s friend/sort-of love interest.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; brief female nudity (breast only); heavily implied consensual sex; on-screen, semi-graphic rape.
Bad Stuff:
It’s pretty dull. The pace is slow.
I found it difficult to relate to Cesira. I mean, I understood that her prime motivator was protection of her daughter, but other than that it was hard to gauge what she was thinking and feeling.
I think it’s weird that Rosetta is said to have a heart condition in the opening scene, and yet it was never mentioned again.
Good Stuff:
I thought the themes it explored were intriguing, such as: 1. The naivety/childishness of thinking that one can simply ignore war & not be touched by it and 2. The various forms of danger & harassment women face from men.
Cesira’s reaction to the bad thing that happens toward the end of the film felt very authentic. It made sense to me that a woman of her time period & education level would behave that way, and I admired the film for portraying like that.
I liked that Cesira was a strong, independent woman.
About the Performance:
I thought Loren was good when the scene required a heavy emotion such as fear, grief, or shame. When it required softer or more subtle emotion, she seemed flat. I had no idea what she was thinking. The best example of this is her early scene with Giovanni (Raf Vallone), which played out very differently than I expected because she had no visible or verbal emotional reaction to him until the end of the scene. It was frustrating. I feel like she simultaneously impressed me and disappointed me.
Other performances of Loren’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It was just okay to me. There’s nothing I can point out that made it terrible, but I can’t say that watching this film was either entertaining or really all that interesting either. It took me forever to write this review because I was completely stumped about what I should say.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1960 (Italy)
Italian & French, in Italian (some German; I watched with English subtitles)
Director - Vittorio de Sica
Stars - Sophia Loren, Eleonora Brown, Jean-Paul Belmondo
Plot Summary:
In WWII Italy, shop owner Cesira (Loren) tries to protect herself & her daughter Rosetta (Brown) from the horrors of war by leaving Rome for the countryside. However, she finds that horror follows them. Belmondo co-stars as Michele, Cesira’s friend/sort-of love interest.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; brief female nudity (breast only); heavily implied consensual sex; on-screen, semi-graphic rape.
Bad Stuff:
It’s pretty dull. The pace is slow.
I found it difficult to relate to Cesira. I mean, I understood that her prime motivator was protection of her daughter, but other than that it was hard to gauge what she was thinking and feeling.
I think it’s weird that Rosetta is said to have a heart condition in the opening scene, and yet it was never mentioned again.
Good Stuff:
I thought the themes it explored were intriguing, such as: 1. The naivety/childishness of thinking that one can simply ignore war & not be touched by it and 2. The various forms of danger & harassment women face from men.
Cesira’s reaction to the bad thing that happens toward the end of the film felt very authentic. It made sense to me that a woman of her time period & education level would behave that way, and I admired the film for portraying like that.
I liked that Cesira was a strong, independent woman.
About the Performance:
I thought Loren was good when the scene required a heavy emotion such as fear, grief, or shame. When it required softer or more subtle emotion, she seemed flat. I had no idea what she was thinking. The best example of this is her early scene with Giovanni (Raf Vallone), which played out very differently than I expected because she had no visible or verbal emotional reaction to him until the end of the scene. It was frustrating. I feel like she simultaneously impressed me and disappointed me.
Other performances of Loren’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It was just okay to me. There’s nothing I can point out that made it terrible, but I can’t say that watching this film was either entertaining or really all that interesting either. It took me forever to write this review because I was completely stumped about what I should say.
I give it 3 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)