Reviews

Much of this movie is fiction, but the fact remains that Edna Gladley was a pioneer in the field of nursery care and adoption and her work to strike the description "illegitimate" from birth certificates as well as insure that these children could inherit from their adoptive parents has changed many lives for the better. Edna was born in Milwaukee; her father died when she was very young; she never had an adopted sister who was herself illegitimate. Because Edna suffered from respiratory disease she was sent to Fort Worth, Texas, when she was seven years old to live with her aunt and uncle. She and her husband Sam were married in Gainseville after which they moved to Wolfe City where they bought a mill to manufacture Gladiola brand flour. They were childless.

Edna began her work in helping impoverished and homeless children soon after moving to Wolfe City where she started a crusade to clean up the county poor farm during which she arranged to have homeless children moved to the Morris Children's Home and Aid Society in Fort Worth. She joined the Society's Board in 1910. She then made trips to settlement houses in Chicago and New York City to study their methods; when she returned she set up a day nursery for working mothers (the movie has her setting up the nursery first when in fact this happened seven or eight years after she became involved in child welfare issues).

As in the movie, Sam's business failed in 1924 whereupon they moved to Fort Worth where Edna continued her work in child welfare. In 1927 she was named superintendent of the Texas Children's Home and Aid Society. Sam died in 1935 after rebuilding his business. Edna spent the rest of her life advocating for children, concentrating on placing homeless and abandoned children with adoptive families. She also expanded the Society to provide health care for unwed mothers and an adoption service for their children. The Society later bought a maternity hospital that it named the Gladney Center.

I loved Greer Garson in this movie, she is strong, brave and gracious. I just wish the director and producers of this movie had used a script that portrayed the real life of Edna Gladney rather than resorting to the fictitious adopted sister who kills herself and inventing a non-existent son who dies in an accident to explain her motives. Edna was her own person who was genuinely involved in her life's work from her early 20s until she died in 1961 -- the movie didn't need these made-up people to explain why she became involved in child welfare issues.

Lucille Ball is a great actress but she is so wrong for this role. To her credit, I didn't feel like I was watching Lucy Ricardo but, otoh, there was a reason why Ricky wouldn't let her be in his show -- the woman cannot sing. The part of Mame should have gone to Angela Lansbury, who can (and did in the stage production). Bea Arthur is wonderful as Vera Charles and Jane Connell is a great Agnes Gooch but Bruce Davison as Patrick Dennis (Mame's nephew and the author of the book about his aunt from which the play and later this movie were taken) is insipid in a 1960's Disneyesque way.

"Mame" is a terrific play honoring a wonderful woman -- what a shame the lead role was so terribly miscast.

I'd never heard of this movie and came across it as it was starting on cable last night. I only intended to watch a few minutes of it and then go to sleep but I ended up watching the whole thing. I was particularly intrigued with Ellen Degeneres' character, a hard-boiled, seen-it-all detective with a great sense of timing and humor. I was also very impressed with the direction and editing, the movie moves at a fast, bright clip, it's quick and sexy and funny. And I liked Patricia Arquette as the conspiring wife, she plays her role with deft accuracy. Unlike the first reviewer of this movie who found the plot twists predictable, neither my husband nor I saw them coming. I thought this was a thoroughly enjoyable movie, I'm only sorry we missed seeing it on the big screen.

Very impressive battle scenes but ultimately the movie left me with the feeling that I was watching two flicks -- the first a very realistic account of war; the second an attempt by Spielberg to create a kind of "Apocalypse Now" (or "Heart of Darkness") version of World War II as the main characters stand around and talk about how surreal war is on their journey through the French countryside in search of Pvt Ryan. The beginning and ending scenes at the graveyard also struck me as silly and preachy. The D-Day landing by itself is enough of a reminder of what the world owes the men and women who fought and died in WWII without Spielberg Making Sure that We Don't Miss the Point.

This film is to movies what "The Bridges of Madison County" was to fiction. It's stupid and banal but worst of all, it's not even particularly scary. The worst part is having to sit there for 45 minutes waiting for something to happen while the main characters run around screeching at each other like insane twits. I must admit I probably would have found it more realistic had the movie taken place in a location where it is actually possible to stay lost for more than two or three days like, say, Montana or Colorado, but Burkettesville, Maryland? I can't believe you could walk around for a whole day and not run into a Tastee Freeze by lunch time.

Despite the fact that it's difficult to tell if any level of objective journalism was met in this movie, it's both entertaining and startling. The best parts of the movie are those that feature Kurt's Aunt Mary who is obviously the reason why he went into music in the first place. Courtney comes off badly but that's mostly because of the efforts to which she went to stop this flick. The scenes with her father are so chilling and awful that it would be easy to understand and forgive her for almost anything she did after she left home. It's a shame she refused to cooperate with the filmmakers who are, for the most part, sympathetic.

I kept wondering what happened to the band -- why weren't Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl interviewed for this movie? Or did Courtney get to them, too?

Veers between Camelot fairy magic and a Monty Python sketch. Wallace was 19 when he began fighting the English -- why is he played here by a 40+ year old man?

Why this movie was classified as a comedy is beyond me. It's utter banality puts it somewhere between having a root canal done and being forced to hang out at O'Hare during a 16-hour snowstorm. Liam Neeson's performance is the only reason to see it and then only if you're desperate.

This movie really needed some serious editing. It also needed to supply far more information about what goes on in treating this type of traumatized horse. At times the way the horse is treated seems almost inhumane -- it would have been far far better had Redford's character explained what he was doing and, more importantly, why. This is a serious lapse in judgment on behalf the the movie's writers, producers and director.

"Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" came out at about the same time and are based on the same novel. If you can only watch one, then "Valmont" is the one to see, the story is easier to follow plus "Valmont" stars the wonderful Annette Benning in the same role Glenn Close plays in "Dangerous Liaisons." Close is good, but Benning is a thousand times better, she is charming, elegant, mischievous, clever and marvelous to watch.