Change Your Image
SnowBrian
Reviews
One for the Money (2012)
Fun, breezy and overall solid adaptation of Evanovich's beloved series
Was Stephanie Plum ever expected to be a true critical darling on screen? Action comedies are never intended to be Oscar candidates in the first place, and many of the issues that critics seem to be having with the film could apply to the books themselves. This series certainly isn't for everyone, but those who enjoy Evanovich's novels and the characters she creates should have no real reason to be disappointed with this film whatsoever.
Janet Evanovich herself has given the film her blessing, and has stated openly that she adored Katherine Heigl's performance and will picture her every time she writes Stephanie from now on. While her comments certainly alleviated the fears of many, a number of people were not convinced and were still furious at Heigl's casting. True, Heigl isn't exactly America's Sweetheart, and her tendency for candid abrasiveness is no doubt off putting to many, both in the industry and in the audience. I'm convinced that many of the critical attacks on her are due less to her performance than to Heigl just being who she is. While her interpretation may not be for everyone, I found her to be a great Stephanie. With surprisingly flattering brown locks and affecting a light Jersey accent (which is never overbearing nor seeming to waver too much), Heigl certainly nails the look and overall charm of the character loved by millions. Whatever qualms people may have with her over some of her past actions should be put aside considering her devotion to the project, and her very sincere effort to turn in a good performance. She succeeds at making Stephanie both plucky and edgy, and most of all a genuinely nice person who does not pass judgement (except on those who try to kill her), a person you'd like to spend time with and who would make a fun, loyal friend. Having seen the film, I'm hard pressed to think of any other actress out there today I'd rather see do the role.
The rest of the cast also comes across quite well. Sherri Shepherd shows the beginnings of a delightful Lula, Patrick Fishler is a perfectly wormy Vinnie, and Ana Reeder is marvellous as the buxom, brazen receptionist Connie Rosolli. Also funny is Debbie Reynolds as Grandma Mazur, Stephanie's grandmother who's 70 going on 20. Daniel Sunjata makes for a commanding and sexy Ranger, and Jason O'Mara (despite being as Italian as a slice of Pizza Hut pizza) makes a surprisingly convincing Joe Morelli. While the casting has been under fire by many irate fans, I implore them to set aside their personal views of the characters for the sake of the film, as each cast member presents a very viable interpretation of each of the book's characters.
The screenplay, while overall quite serviceable, could've made the film a bit better than it is had they packed a little more punch. The script manages to cover the entire scope of the novel in 100 minutes, and the film never seems to lull much and does a decent job of presenting all the important plot points. While much of Evanovich's dialogue is retained (and some of her narration in voice over by Heigl), a few lines here and there are rather weak attempts at comedy that are more likely to evoke eye-rolling than laughter, and a few plot points are skimmed over in all-too-brief lines of exposition. But the story stays focused to that told in the book, with no over-the-top Hollywood tangents thrown in for good measure. Reviewers who may have found the film dull were perhaps simply hoping for more bangs, kabooms and TnA, but I commend the film for not exaggerating an already quite established environment.
Julie Ann Robinson's direction is also quite serviceable, though not exactly awe inspiring. True, the camera setups and lighting may be more appropriate to television than a theatrical film, but there's nothing in this story that demands many flourishes or embellishments. Overall, the comedy bits and the serious bits flow nicely from one another, as they do in Janet's books, and the story is presented competently and tightly.
I certainly hope some of the additional books are made into films, as this entry firmly established the great things this cast could do with Evanovich's material. Perhaps a more film inclined director could make a little more out of some of the bigger set pieces in later entries (the funeral home burning down, anyone?), but there's no doubt that this Stephanie Plum is quite solid and could easily transition into a viable franchise.
Passion Remembered (2007)
The grass is always greener...or is it?
In this engaging and thought provoking short film, a married couple who has fallen out of happiness attempts to rekindle their romantic desires by both reuniting with former lovers, with less than desirable results.
Evgueni Mlodik's script is concise and honest, and his direction more than capable. The camera angles and editing are brisk and engaging, and the chosen music adds all the right emotion to aid the scenes. His use of showing the reflections of the actors in mirrors is a powerful representation of their characters' search for inner truth. This is particularly effective when the lead actress is shown reflected next to a picture of an attractive woman, and is consequently called a whore by her ex-lover.
The film wisely ends on an uplifting note of better days ahead, and the final shot is a wonderful and welcome tension reliever, not to mention being delightfully funny. A very worthwhile experience that would only benefit from being just a bit longer...it's good enough to want to see more!
Alien³ (1992)
Not perfect, but misunderstood and underrated
I love all four Alien films. Each are so unique and different from one another. Yes, they are all installments in the same series, but each director managed to bring something new to the series. Newcomer David Fincher had the daunting task of creating a film that was supposed to live up to the brilliant previous efforts of Ridley Scott and James Cameron.
Does he succeed? Well, in many respects, he does. This Alien film is much more like the first one than it's action packed sequel, and I'm glad the decision was made not to make an action packed rehash of "Aliens".
The biggest problem with Alien 3 is it's inability to prompt genuine suspense or fright. The scenes where the Xenomorph attacked the prisoners were mind-numbingly predictable, and the early CG effects were far less effective than the puppetry and stunt-men in costume from the previous films.
It's biggest strength is it's human apocalypse angle. This is much more fleshed out in the superior Assembly Cut, my preferred cut of the film. The dark tone and grit is wonderful, and you feel true empathy for the character of Ripley, once again brilliantly portrayed by the incomparable Sigourney Weaver.
This film is probably considered worse than it's predecessors because it wasn't what audiences were expecting, especially after the action-fest that was "Aliens". They were expecting something along those lines, not the bleak and depressing human journey presented here. But when viewed in it's own light, it stands quite strong, and is a worthy addition to the Alien Legacy.
Big Bigger Biggest (2009)
Unoriginal
Slightly clever, if totally unoriginal, concept. The young actor playing the heckled boy is decent with what he has to work with. Vick, on the other hand, is far too cartoonish and artificial. It's as if he's trying too hard to be a stereotype. The expression on his face for the entire time was utterly ridiculous. As for the big guy at the end...well...it was satisfying seeing a bad actor get his just desserts! That was the only satisfying scene, really.
There are worse ways to spend 2 minutes of your life. There are also much better ways to spend 2 minutes. Don't waste your time on this cliché-ridden dud.
The Golden Compass (2007)
Shame on New Line Cinema!!!
The "His Dark Materials" trilogy are, by far, my all time favourite novels. I absolutely adore them and the complex, emotional themes they present. Themes which big-budget Hollywood studios will seemingly never understand.
I was extremely skeptical about this film, and with good reason. The director had very little prior experience, especially for a film of this magnitude, and the producer, Debra Forte, had said things that convinced me she felt the novels were written for six-year-olds.
After seeing the final cut, some of my initial fears were put to rest. Yes, some of the overtly religious references were omitted, but the Magisterium's connection to the Church was not removed from the plot at all. Removing references to something is not the same as deleting it from the story altogether, and Weitz left in just enough information to prove that part of the story would be left intact for the sequels.
No, my final fears were stemmed from New Line Cinema, a studio which deserved to lose money on this film after what they did to it. Not only did the hack off the brilliant ending, they rearranged the final segments and hastily redid the special effects and added in some obviously dubbed lines to cover this up. What bothers me the most about this is how little respect they had for their director.
Although Weitz talks about these changes as though he approves them, I imagine the truth of the matter is that he had no other choice but to go along with them. The video-game and all tie in material feature the original order of events and allude to the original ending, proving just what a last minute change this was.
Replacing Nonso Anozie with Ian McKellen as Iorek Byrnison was another change that bothered me. Weitz actually expressed his disappointment at this decision, and I agree. McKellen is a great actor, but the only reason the studio used him was because of his name value. Having heard Nonso's voice in the video-game, I can honestly say that there is VERY LITTLE difference between their voices. New Line had so little faith in this film they felt they had to have every A-list star be in it. They were clearly the wrong studio to handle this project.
I very much hope a director's cut is eventually released, because I feel I can't fairly judge Chris Weitz based on the studio cut. Much of what he did was good, but too much of the final film focuses on forced exposition that is awkwardly inserted. The rule "Show, don't tell" seems to have been ignored during the screen writing process. It is reported that his original draft was far superior to the final shooting script, and who knows what other filmed footage was cut besides the ending sequence, so I don't wish to blame him without all the evidence first. With more creative control, Weitz could have crafted a much better film, as evidence of his potential is shown.
What irks me the most are the references to the alethiometer as a golden compass. Nowhere in the novel is it called that (since that was not Pullman's title for the piece, which was Northern Lights) and it was unnecessary for the film. It was obviously dubbed in during post-production, as the studio so overwhelmingly underestimates their audience that they feel everything must be spelled out. Trust the audience!!! We are not that stupid!!!
The final problem remains with the source material. No matter who would have tackled this film, there are elements of it that simply cannot translate well to film. Pullman's narrative is slow and only reveals information as it is needed, creating a strong sense of mystery and wonder. Much of that is explained in clunky exposition in the opening narration, of which only the first few lines would have sufficed.
All in all, a mixed bag. Let's hope the sequels get canceled so another studio can tackle them in a few decades or so, when they finally realize the world will accept a serious drama like this without dumbing it down to preschooler proportions.
Lucy & Desi: Before the Laughter (1991)
Lucy & Desi: The National Enquirer and Lifetime Television Account
This clichéd melodrama almost makes it into the "so bad it's good" category; parts of it are semi-enjoyable and others are incredibly boring, making it a mixed bag of tabloidy trash and muddled fact.
This was the first of two television biopics CBS produced about it's leading lady of comedy, Lucille Ball. CBS commissioned the film before the ink on Lucille's death certificate had dried, and launched a national casting call to find the ideal actress to play the iconic redhead. Frances Fisher was selected, along with Maurice Benard as Desi.
The film takes place on September 8, 1951, on the night of filming the premiere episode of I Love Lucy. The two protagonists frequently pause what they are doing and stare pensively into the camera, commencing a series of flashbacks that tell how they first came to meet and fall in love (and out of love), and in love again.
Considering the material she had to work with, Fisher manages to come across fairly well. In some shots, she bears an uncanny resemblance to Lucille Ball and brings forth elements of Lucille's strong personality. Ultimately, however, THIS Lucy is nothing more than a misunderstood, lonely heroine from every man-hating Lifetime drama produced. All she wants is a "fella and a couple of kids" and she gets a man who runs around on her incessantly. With a stronger, more balanced script, Fisher would have made an excellent Lucy. Hints of her potential are shown throughout this film, but the cheap material dampens any chance of her making a lasting impact.
Maurice Benard, to put it bluntly, is mostly laughable as Desi Arnaz. Though he puts on an adequate Cuban accent, his voice is high and squeaky sounding, and he conveys little of the charm that Arnaz did. Little motivation is made for his philandering other than his conviction that Cuban men are allowed to have as many girls as they want.
Co-stars Vivian Vance (Robin Pearson Rose) and William Frawley (John Wheeler) are featured briefly during the main night of the action. Rose bears a fleeting resemblance to Vance, but she does sound a good deal like her. Wheeler is featured even less, but brings little to the film or the character of William Frawley. Their feud is only hinted at, however, since Lucy and Desi are the main attraction of this affair and to stray away from them for too long deprives audiences of the "dishy" stuff.
The film's decision to focus on Lucy and Desi exclusively leaves little room for other plot elements to develop. However, due to cheesy dialogue and underwritten characters, the film's main focus falls flat. Lucy and Desi have been whittled down to caricatures of themselves, with Lucy constantly threatening divorce and screaming "YOU DON'T LOVE ME, YOU DON'T RESPECT ME! WHAT IS SO EXCLUSIVE ABOUT SLEEPING WITH YOU!", and Desi pathetically grovelling each time.
The final scene is right before filming begins, with Lucy and Desi happily embracing before a cheering audience. More trouble was in store for the Arnazes down the road, but thankfully we see none of it here. The title was, after all, "Before the Laughter", not "Before, During and After the Laughter". This ensemble fortunately decided not to cover all of the Arnaz marriage, or else audiences would have to endure two more hours of screaming, threats, and sickening TV melodrama.
Lucy (2003)
A decent and enjoyable film, though far from perfect.
Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.
The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.
As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.
Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.
Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.
Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured.
There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.
The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively.