Category Archives: movies

Skip’s Quips: ‘Random Harvest’ and the Art of (De)crying

~

Blog Sketch 082813Caught Random Harvest on TCM last night.

What a weeper. I mean, wow is it a weeper. Not my cup of tears, either.

Oh, I like Ronald Colman, don’t get me wrong. And Greer Garson, too. I just didn’t care for this story, which has something to do with Colman’s “Uncle” Charles getting amnesia and forgetting about how much everyone, especially Greer Garson’s Paula, loves him.

Yecch. Nausea-inducing. And this is regarded as a classic, ya know?

I’d never seen it all these years until yesterday evening. And now, I feel quite strongly that I don’t have to see it again. I’m sure I’m in the minority on this, but I feel I have to speak out. Sappy stuff. And I like crying at the movies. Just not this one.

Someone get me a tissue made of stone, please.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: I Like ‘Planet of the Apes,’ But …

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613… is there really a need for a new series of films based on the original sci-fi “what-if” movie?

Every now and then, Hollywood seems to revisit the old to put out something new … which brings up feelings of nostalgia among those who remember the old and thoughts of “what the heck is this?” among those who are too young to do so. Now I liked Rise of the Planet of the Apes when it came out a few years ago; it wasn’t a masterpiece like its 1968 progenitor, but it definitely did the trick.

I’m just not all that enthralled about the prospect of going back to the origins of this story. It’s not necessary. Plus, didn’t we already do that with the spate of flicks in the early 1970s? I mean, really. Been there, done that.

So now we have Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Oy gevalt. When will this end? When will this … OK, I’ll stop whining. It’s just that I feel this isn’t new territory. Let’s explore another sci-fi landscape. Please. We’ve trodden over this one too much already.

Skip’s Quips: I Still Like Going to the Movies

~

Blog Sketch 082813I have to admit: I’ve been staying at home a lot and watching films on TV rather than going to the theaters to see them.

That includes no-longer-first-run movies. These days, I generally wait until they hit pay-per-view to watch ’em.

But that doesn’t mean I don’t like going to the theaters. On the contrary. There’s something beautiful about viewing a film in the dark amid a host of unfamiliar people while nursing a bucket of artificially moistened popcorn and a strangely sweet diet soda. I like it. That I haven’t done it much lately is more a testament to my laziness than my desire to stay home.

That will change soon. I’m making a non-New Year’s resolution. I plan on going out to see more movies … as soon as I drop the remote.

No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop watching films on pay-per-view or the commercial channels. It just means I’ll be in the theaters more often – where movies are meant to be shown.

I may even go see a bad flick or two, just for the heck of it. Now that’s a change in philosophy if there ever was one. You gotta be dedicated to the cinema if you make a resolution like that.

Well, I am. I’m dedicated to the cinema. And I’ll be at the theaters more. I promise you.

What channel is that TV menu/guide thingy on again?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Just Say ‘Ewww’ to ‘The V.I.P.s’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Normally, I don’t care for movies with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. So I wasn’t surprised to find that The V.I.P.s, their 1963 film under Anthony Asquith’s direction, was awful. And I mean awful.

Soapy, too. In a bad way, not in an I, Claudius fun way. This was soap without a lot of bubbles. Deadly dull, unperfumed, lather-free soap.

And trashy. The tale of a group of high-end passengers who get stuck in a London airport due to fog, The V.I.P.s went from one dreary relationship to another, from Burton and Taylor’s married-couple-on-the-outs to Rod Taylor’s nice-guy businessman whose secretary, played by Maggie Smith, has fallen in love with him. I didn’t find any of these situations credible, and they just got more tedious as the film rolled along. Plus, the cinematography didn’t help, either. Strange compositions seemed to include lamps or some kind of bizarre light fixture in many shots, leading them to be jarring. And the score by the normally reliable Miklós Rózsa was awfully syrupy. Not good, Miklós. Not good.

So what are the takeaways from this? Well, I still don’t like Burton-Taylor movies. I also don’t like bad movies. And I love I, Claudius.

If you can find meaning in that, you’re a better man (or woman) than I.

Skip’s Quips: What’s Lovely and Amazing About ‘Lovely & Amazing’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s a lot of really good stuff in Nicole Holofcener’s bittersweet flick Lovely & Amazing. An introspective script. Strong subject matter. Good performances.

There are also many annoying things about the film, particularly the fact that it meanders and doesn’t seem to come to a resolution. That’s sad, because it otherwise has a lot going for it, including yet another fine turn by Catherine Keener as one of three sisters with dealing with the problems of life.

I lost interest, however, after what seemed like the eighth reel. It went on a bit too long and could’ve used more editing, as well as significant tightening.

Still, it has some interest value, and it tackles an issue that’s rarely dealt with sensitively or truthfully: how women view themselves. Kudos to the film for that – you don’t see such subject matter in the theaters often.

What will my next movie be? Let’s see …

Did They Make These Movies Yet?

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Could ‘Philomena’ Have Been Any More Upsetting?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I remember watching the trailers for Philomena and thinking that it seemed like a syrupy, sentimental movie.

We watched it last night. Boy, was it not that at all.

Pretty serious, disturbing flick, with some light touches. But the advertising for it was all wrong. This was an attack on social injustice, centering on a woman whose child was basically taken away from her for adoption in the United States … and it was based on a true story, too. It was not a “feel-good” movie.

Direction, by the reliable Stephen Frears, was expert, getting fine performances from Judi Dench (I know, as usual) and Steve Coogan. And although there was some humor, it focused on memories and the sadness of one who lost something important. I think we’ve all experienced that in some way.

Good movie. Not a “feel-good” one, though.

Skip’s Quips: Give ‘To Be or Not to Be’ a Medal

~

Blog Sketch 082813I love Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be.

Brilliant script. Terrific performances by Jack Benny, Carole Lombard, Sig Ruman and the rest of the brilliant cast. And of course perfect, sly direction by the immortal Lubitsch.

Sure it’s in questionable taste – what with a story concerning a company of Polish actors and their wartime efforts to foil a Nazi plan – and even now some of the material seems iffy. But it remains razor-sharp, as well as still topical to this day. I watched this film again last night for what may have been the 45th time, and it’s still fresh. That’s the mark of a great movie. It just doesn’t get old.

I’ve seen the remake with Mel Brooks, too, and it’s just not the same. The Lubitsch version is tops; there’s no comparison. I’m giving the medal to that one for quality.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Failing Grade for ‘At Middleton’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I want to tell you something about the movie At Middleton.

IT WAS HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!

OK, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s proceed to why this rom-com was so wretched. It had some talent in front of the camera, including Andy Garcia and Vera Farmiga as parents visiting a college with their kids and finding romance in the process. Unfortunately, the script was dreadful, creating a host of unbelievable situations in the name of character development, including a completely unrealistic scene in which the duo crashes a campus acting class and provides a clinic in method theory.

Can you say, “Ludicrous?” I can.

Another problem: Many sequences went on for far too long, with the effect that they became tedious. The conversations between the two parents were so uninteresting that they didn’t foster any definition; instead, they removed it. What we, as viewers, were left with were skeletons of characters speaking poor dialogue and becoming more and more insufferable as the film went on.

Oh, and I really dislike forced quirkiness, which was broadcast through Farmiga’s free-spirit mom. Yuck.

Much of the blame for this nonsense could be put on the direction by Adam Rodgers, who co-wrote the film, too. But the script’s issues were really insurmountable. If only it were better paced. If only the characters were credible. If only … if only …

Can I watch something good now?

Skip’s Quips: Hey, There, ‘Georgy Girl’ Still Impresses

~

Blog Sketch 082813In watching Georgy Girl last night, I was struck by how adult the subject matter was … and how tastefully it was handled.

It’s not just a Swingin’ Sixties trifle. It’s a mature film,  with poignant, realistic situations and complex erotic problems. It’s also got terrific performances, including from Charlotte Rampling, who has an unusual, remarkably upsetting scene in which she rejects her newborn baby that’s one of the disturbing highlights of the film. This portion of the movie upset me greatly when I was younger; I couldn’t fathom how a woman could hate her own child. To this day, it bothers me, and seeing it once more yesterday evening reinforced my opinion.

I’ll tell ya one thing, however: I’m not itching to see Georgy Girl again. It has a great script and crisp cinematography, as well as a catchy theme song, but it’s a bit hard to watch. Perhaps that’s because it feels so realistic; there’s powerful stuff here, despite the movie’s glossy style. Still, I’m glad I watched it, as it’s something to revisit now and then.

So. On to the next picture.