Change Your Image
herrcarter-92161
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
All of Me (1984)
One of the better Steve Martin movies
This was an enjoyable Steve Martin movie and one of his better ones. He's a bit of an acquired taste, but in this one, he was allowed free rein to be bizarre and off-the-wall. The scenes of his character Roger fighting over control of his body with Lily Tomlin's character Edwina were laugh-out-loud funny at times. The premise of this movie was clever and original. The soul of a dying, misanthropic rich woman is accidentally placed in the body of her lawyer, with both sharing partial control of it. If not handled correctly, this movie could have been a disaster, but it works because of the chemistry between these two great comedians, both comedic and romantic. It also works because, even though Tomlin dies relatively early in the movie, her presence is still very much there, with the inspired mechanism of having her appear in and talk to Martin in every mirror he sees. The movie is able to make Edwina, who starts the movie as a rather unlikable character, into a sympathetic and relatable one, as we understand her backstory of how she was an invalid her whole life and had no friends as a result. The movie was mostly silly and goofy, but it was also fun and had a lot of heart. It made you care about what happened to its characters till the very end. After 40 years, it's definitely worth watching again.
The Importance of Being Earnest (2002)
Fun, classic British comedy
I remember enjoying The Importance of Being Earnest as a stage play a number of years ago. The classic Oscar Wilde play, with its wry, British humor, is still funny over 100 years after it was written. The makers of this filmed version definitely did it right. They were spot on in capturing the essence of Wilde's masterwork. The performances, particularly from Rupert Everett and the great Judi Dench, were wonderful. The absurd plot, with all the mistaken identities, was as fun and entertaining as I remember from the stage play. And the attention to detail in the movie transported you seamlessly into late 19'th century England. This was a beautiful film to watch and immerse yourself in. All around, a triumph of cinema and an awesome tribute to the great writer's greatest work.
L.A. Story (1991)
So-so comedy
This Steve Martin vehicle was just okay. Martin is a decent actor, but as a comedian, I can't say I find him that funny. I didn't laugh much at all in this movie. This was clearly supposed to be a spoof of the city of Los Angeles and its unique culture. Unless you live there, though, I'm afraid it's too much inside baseball. Yeah, we know that it's always warm in LA, making the job of a weatherman like Martin's character Harris almost unnecessary. Yeah, we know that everyone there is supposed to be superficial, as demonstrated in such scenes as the lunch with 10 people. Yeah, we know there are freeway shootings (or they were apparently a big thing in the 90's, when this movie was made). But none of these LA-isms seem to really hit comedic pay dirt.
The romance in this story between Martin's character Harris and Victoria Tennant's character Sara was not that engaging. I wasn't feeling a lot of chemistry, which is odd, considering that Martin and Tenant were married to each other at the time. They did get divorced about 3 years after this movie was made, so maybe they were on the downward spiral of their marriage, or something. The story seemed kind of stupid, where both Martin and Tennant, supposedly so much in love, were enthusiastically having sex with other partners in hotel rooms next to each other. Then, we're just supposed to believe that they are magically going to get together after that? Sarah Jessica Parker, to be fair, was pretty good as Martin's temporary squeeze SanDeE. She had ditzy down to a science in this role. The only real genuine emotion I felt in this whole movie was when Martin was describing all the weather phenomena he would muster, if it were in his power, to keep Sara's plane from taking off and going back to London, as he was apparently that much in love with her. But nothing else in the movie really led me to believe that those beautifully-expressed feelings were truly real.
Other than an extended spoof of the city of LA and a weak attempt at a romance, I wasn't sure what the point of this movie even was. If it had been more funny, I might have been able to tolerate its vapidity. But frankly, it just left me feeling kind of bored.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Sweeping classic
I'm in my 60's now, and it's been decades since I watched Gone With the Wind as a young man. I recently watched it again with my family. What can I say? It's clearly a monumental piece of filmmaking, with the lavish sets, sweeping vistas and beautiful, brilliant colors. It's an awesome achievement, and not just for 1939, but for anytime, really. It's a story full of passion, set against the backdrop of one of the more fascinating, tempestuous era's in our nation's history. It's clearly a classic, A movie that is in a class by itself.
That being said, I watched this movie with my 16-year-old daughter, and this was her take on it. She thought it was way too long. She thought Scarlett O'Hara was one of the most mean, unlikable characters ever to grace a movie screen. She thought the movie was unnecessarily sad and tragic, with virtually everyone, even saintly Melanie, dying before it was over. She thought the ending was idiotic, with Rhett and Scarlett having lived in a toxic marriage for years, and then, as Scarlett finally realizes that she loves Rhett and is willing to make a go of their marriage, he just up and leaves her. She thought the depictions of slaves happily serving their masters were borderline racist. Basically, she felt like she wasted 4 hours of her life. Honestly, I can't really say that she's wrong.
Yes, this is an iconic movie. But I didn't really like any of the characters in it. Scarlett is a selfish, scheming, manipulative shrew of a woman, who seems incapable of loving anyone but herself. Even her supposed love of Ashley is all about her. She only wants him because he is the one thing that she can't have. Rhett is an amoral, arrogant, brutish sort of a man. Melanie is noble and good, but is so angelic that she doesn't seem human. Ashley is basically a spineless wimp. I kept asking myself why I should care about any of these characters.
To be fair, Scarlett does have the good quality of determination and she does work hard to save her whole family and Melanie and Ashley. I suppose we shouldn't judge her too harshly, because she was forced by circumstances to do what she did, and she ends up sad and unhappy in the end. Clearly, life has punished her for her many sins. Rhett is not without his good qualities either. He helped out Scarlett and, later, Ashley, when they were in dire straits. And he was a loving, doting father to his little girl. These are complex characters, and not all bad, to be sure.
There was a lot of 1930's era content to this film that didn't age well into 2024. That whole scene where a drunken Rhett threatens to crush Scarlett's skull, then angrily carries her upstairs for what, you can only assume, is a session of marital rape, is profoundly creepy. And having her smiling and happy about it the next morning is even more creepy. Then you have the total lack of any negative aspects of slavery being displayed, and the black people in the show being dumbed-down caricatures or unrealistic, docile, happy servants. Seems pretty racist to us today. To be fair, the character of Mammy was someone who was wise and commanded respect from everyone, despite her skin color. You really need to take this movie as a product of its times and not dwell on issues like these too much.
So, this movie remains a classic in my mind, and I give its producers kudos for even attempting such a grandiose project. I'm not sure you could even do it today. It would be prohibitively expensive and nobody would sit through a 4 hour movie. I wasn't a fan of the characters in this movie, but I think, in a way, you have to see them more as archetypes of various characters in the pre- and post-Civil-War South. I'm sure it will be a few more years before I sit through this movie again, if I ever do. But I feel safe to say that this is one of the indispensable products of American cinema, which everyone should watch at least once in their lives.
If You're Gone (2019)
What was the point?
This Christian movie was a big disappointment. I'm a Christian, so I do appreciate clean, faith-based movies. I also realize that Christian movies are mostly low-budget, so I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I was struggling during the whole movie to figure out what the point was. Why was I even spending nearly 2 hours of my time on this film?
I did like Masey McClain's performance as Lillian. You really felt her pain, fear and anguish as she tried to find her missing boyfriend, hoping, against hope, that he was still alive. The other performances in the movie were mostly duds. Oscar Mansky as vanished boyfriend Brad was particularly bad. I also think he was horribly miscast. He was supposed to be this former bad boy who had reformed. He needed to be a lot more edgy, but he mostly came across as a boy scout. There also wasn't a lot of chemistry between Brad and Lillian. I really wasn't feeling the love, even when he made the big confession that he loved her.
But my biggest problem with this movie was that, as a Christian movie, it lacked a really compelling Christian message. It talked about how Lillian had saved Brad from continuing down a bad path, and how her Christian friend group had accepted him. But you didn't ever see the effects of new-found Christian faith on his life. And his horrible past life didn't even seem that bad. So, he and his friends broke into people's houses and ate some of their food. Not very earth-shattering. The detective hinted at a serious rap sheet in his past, but gave no specifics. The story needed him to be a kid who had been into drugs, done some serious crimes and spent time in juvenile hall. If this was supposed to be a tale about his redemption, it was pretty weak.
Was this story mainly about Lillian dealing with loss? If that was the point, they should have found Brad's dead body, or they should have found him back with druggie friends, stoned out or something. But, no. They come up with this stupid, unbelievable ending, where he goes back to live with and support his dying bio mom. And so, he was never in any real danger. He was just a jerk, who never even thought to contact Lillian, his adoptive family or anyone, letting them at least know he was okay. Even worse was Brad's brother Chris. He participated in searches for Brad and even sought out and befriended Lillian, when the whole time, he knew exactly where Brad was and could have told them anytime. Why was he even in the story? You got the impression that he might eventually step in as Lillian's new boyfriend when Brad ended up dead or whatever. But no. And at the end, she didn't end up with Chris, or with Brad. And, after so much anguish and searching, and now finding Brad alive and still in love with her, she just rejected him! Sure, he should've told her where he was. But he was helping his dying mom. That's at least a somewhat noble excuse. How could she not get back together with the guy? If she had said, "Sorry, I don't love you any more", or "Sorry, I've moved on", that would be one thing. But she just left without explanation, mouthing a weak "I forgive you" out of his earshot. If forgiveness was the message here, that was handled extraordinarily badly as well.
So, this movie was a big miss for me. Weak production values. Weak acting. Weak screenplay. Those are a given with most Christian movies. But a faith-based movie not even delivering a coherent, impactful Christian message, heavy-handed or otherwise? That's pretty unforgiveable. Have the movie be about redemption. Have it be about grace. Have it be about forgiveness. Have it be about something, anything meaningful, for crying out loud! That's all we Christians expect from your movie.
The Love Letter (1998)
Romantic fantasy
I love romances and I love fantasy and time travel movies, so this one was right up my alley. This Hallmark film, from a time when Hallmark wasn't quite so formulaic and cheesy, was one of the most romantic movies I've seen lately. It's kind of the same vibe as The Lake House or Hallmark's own The Edge of the Garden. I enjoyed the feel of this movie. The performances from leads Campbell Scott and Jennifer Jason Leigh were great. Very emotional and heartfelt. And I'd say this was the best chemistry between a romantic couple that were never actually together through the whole movie since Sleepless in Seattle. It was a beautiful movie, with some great shots of New England and the lovely old mansion house where Elizabeth Whitcomb lived.
It wasn't a perfect movie, of course. I really wish they hadn't had our hero Scott engaged to someone else. It turned him into a liar and a cheater for most of the movie and was really unnecessary to the plot. The other thing I wish was that Scott and Elizabeth hadn't fallen in love so quickly. They should've taken some time for the relationship to develop slowly through their letters before they realized they were in love. Also, there needed to be some conflict in Elizabeth's heart, where she realized that she loved both Colonel Caleb Denby in her time, and Scott Corrigan, her pen pal from the future. Also, the way they resolved the time barrier between them seemed a little muddled. So, she was in love with Caleb in 1863, but he looked just like Scott from 1998, and Scott met a girl in 1998 who looked exactly like Elizabeth from 1863. This was never explained. Was some reincarnation going on here? If so, how did they get not only the same souls, but the same bodies? Or, was Caleb just a manifestation of Scott's subconscious while he was in a coma, somehow able to project his actual person across a gap of over 100 years? If so, how did he exist after Scott woke up? The plot holes here seem rather huge.
If it had been me writing the story, I would've written it this way. Scott, Civil war buff that he is, had been studying the life of Colonel Caleb Denby, an actual historical character who died at Gettysburg. While he's in a coma, he assumes the identity of Caleb and woos Elizabeth Whitcomb. Scott dies from is biking injury, completing the cross-temporal transition of his soul to Caleb's body. He retains the memories of both Scott and Caleb. With Scott's knowledge of modern medicine, he helps Caleb/himself live instead of dying. Then, he and Elizabeth can be together. He eventually tells Elizabeth who he is, and she realizes that it was Scott, not Caleb, that she had been in love with all along. The audience sees Caleb looking like Scott, but a subtle glance of Caleb in the mirror reveals another actor's face, indicating that Scott really had entered into the body of another man that did not look like him. Scott also sends one more letter through the desk to his mom and fiancee, letting them know what happened to him. They are comforted in their grief over his death, knowing that he had gone on to live a happier life in another time with someone he truly loved. A better storyline than the one that made it to film? Maybe. At least it's a bit more logical.
In spite of a few flaws, I found this film to be warm and engaging and definitely worth the time of anyone who is a true romantic at heart. It's streaming for free on Pluto and Plex. Check it out.
Just One of the Guys (1985)
80's nostalgia and not much more
Reading some reviews for this movie, I thought it might be one of those lost gems -- an obscure, older movie that was great, but underappreciated at the time. Not so much. It was mostly a stupid attempt at a teen sex movie with bad dialog and subpar acting. Not to mention a lot of attempted jokes that broached the boundaries of taste, but were not that funny.
Some have tried to characterize this as a social commentary on the blatant sexism that was rampant in the 1980's. Not really. I lived through the 80's, and it would have been just as ridiculous and unbelievable back then that our heroine Terri would have been denied a spot in the reporting contest because she was a girl as it would today. No, this was just a silly plot device to explain why Terri would try to masquerade as a high-school boy. And the scene where the perv teacher was talking to his fellow teacher in lustful terms about Terri -- that would've been just as inappropriate back then as it would be now.
To be fair, they did a pretty good job at making beautiful Joyce Hyser look like a fairly convincing boy. Better than most such movies. She really did resemble a young Ralph Macchio from The Karate Kid. And they did come up with a few good scenes that demonstrated how hard it would be for a girl to keep up the ruse of being a boy, such as the locker room scenes in gym class. But if the point was to show how being a boy gave her a lot of advantages that she didn't have as a girl, it did a poor job. If she was writing this breakthrough article about her experiences of pretending to be a high-school boy, it needed to be something along the lines of Black Like Me, where a white man pretended to be a black man and experienced racism first-hand. This movie didn't show that Terri had learned anything very profound from her experience as a boy. You didn't even get to read or hear any lines from her article.
The supposed romance between Terri and her friend Rick was also a miss. You needed scenes where they were obviously attracted to each other, leading Rick to question whether he was gay or something. Or at least, you needed them to connect on some level, such as shared taste in literature, music, etc. The whole basis of their friendship seemed to be that she was trying to help him be less of a nerd and get confidence to ask a girl to the prom. Why would those two even be attracted to each other? Plus, he never came across to me as that nerdy, and his transformation from nerd to cool guy seemed too abrupt and over-the-top.
I also couldn't stand the horny, younger brother. His constant obsession with sex wasn't funny. It was actually kind of creepy. Seriously, what teenage boy actually plasters his walls with Playboy centerfolds, and what parents would allow this? Plus, he was a good-looking kid who easily could've gotten a girl. The running joke of his failure to score with girls was not even credible. The other characters in this movie, such as the bully Greg or the predatory girl Sandy were just exaggerated stereotypes. Not much attempt to make characters with any kind of depth.
I mostly enjoyed this movie for the nostalgia value. Otherwise, it was pretty much a miss for me. Bad comedy, bad writing, bad acting and an unbelievable romance. Basically a waste of 90 minutes of my life.
Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)
Classic movie - could've been better
Peggy Sue Got Married is an interesting movie that's difficult to categorize. It's not really a love story, not in the classic sense. It's not really science fiction either, though it's ostensibly a story about time travel. I remember I liked it as a young man when it first came out back in the 80's. Now, decades later, and as a much older man, I have a different perspective. I still liked it, somewhat, but I also think it sort of missed the mark, and could have been so much better than it was.
First, the good. This film did a flawless job of transporting you back to 1960, so that you felt like you were really there. If you had been a teenager in the early 60's and had watched this in the 80's, I'm sure it would've really clicked for you. And the premise is irresistible. Who among us hasn't wondered how it would be if we could go back to an earlier time in our lives, but armed with all the knowledge and years of experience that we have now? Just watching Peggy Sue put some of those smug, teenage jerks in their place with a well-placed, witty line or two was almost worth watching the whole movie. Kathleen Turner gave a wonderful, heartfelt, emotional performance here. She literally carried the whole movie almost entirely on her narrow shoulders.
I think there was a rather profound, meaningful movie trying to break out here, but it never quite made it. It seemed to flail around, but never really go anywhere, or make a real point. There was a point that was made, though not very clearly. If I could be so bold, I would like to clarify that point here. The point was that Peggy Sue, like most of us, had an idea how her life should have turned out, based on the fact that she was deeply in love as a teenager with Charlie the guy she would eventually marry. In the intervening years, her marriage went south, and she was filled with regrets, and wondered how it all went wrong, and, if she could go back, would it be possible to have a better outcome, or even choose a different path entirely? Well, she got that opportunity, being transported back in time to her pivotal teenage years. After pushing away her future husband, believing he was an irreconcilable jerk, and toying with other options, such as the edgy, beat poet Michael, she eventually saw that she did love Charlie, and he demonstrated to her how much he loved her. She awoke in the future with a different perspective on her marriage, and Charlie, imperfect though he was, was back at her side, repentant and willing to give their marriage another go, and she realized that this is really what she wanted. The point is, that, yes, our lives might not turn out as perfect as we imagined they would as young people, but it's pointless to dwell on might-have-beens, and the best thing is to make the best of the lives and relationships we have, imperfect as they may be. Any other course would likely not turn out as good anyway, and even if it did, it would mean giving up the good parts of the lives we've lived (which, in Peggy Sue's case, meant her kids, as well as the husband who, though flawed, she still deeply loved).
I think the problem is that Peggy Sue landed back in 1960 with no apparent goal. She was more of a time-traveling tourist, experiencing events of that era of her life, but with no real purpose. What they should have done is had her almost immediately decide that, now that she was in the past, she would actively work to change things for what she though was the better. She should've dumped Charlie right away. She should've gone for Michael, the beatnik, right away. Then, eventually, she should've come to the epiphany that she really wanted Charlie and her old life back, eventually returning to the present, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, realizing that there's no place like home.
A couple of other things dragged this movie down for me. One was Nicholas Cage's performance. I hated his weird, fake, nasal voice, and he just came across as a dweeb. Apparently, according to Kathleen Turner, he did this on purpose, going explicitly against the direction of his uncle, director Francis Ford Coppola. Well, Mr. Coppola, nepotism only goes so far. Mr. Cage should've been fired and replaced with a better actor, or he should've been forced to play the part as something other than a goofy caricature. The other thing I didn't like was how unrealistic it seemed that Kathleen Turner was a teenager in the past, and a 40-something in the present. She wasn't the age to play either convincingly. Maybe it was implied that we saw her in 1960 as the middle-aged Peggy, but that her friends and family saw her as the teenage Peggy, but that needed to be made explicit, maybe by showing her looking in a mirror at a teen look-alike actress or something.
So, I thought the movie had a good message, or at least the potential of a good message, but that message needed to be made much clearer than it was. That, and a better actor/performance for the part of Charlie, would've turned this from a decent film into a truly great one.
So I Married an Axe Murderer (1993)
Different Mike Myers movie
This early 90's offering was a bit different than most of Mike Myers' movies. Oh, it was definitely goofy and had its bizarre moments, but compared to the characters of Wayne Campbell and Austin Powers, the character of Charlie McKenzie in this movie was relatively a straight man. Maybe that's why they also had Myers play the cantankerous Scottish father, to give him a chance to be his usual off-the-wall self for a bit of the film.
I'd never seen this movie, but I realized after watching it that friends of mine in the 90's had often been quoting lines from it without my realizing it. I think this must be somewhat of a cult classic, even though it was one of Myers' more under-the-radar works. I wouldn't go so far as to call this film an underappreciated great work of cinematic art. But it's enjoyable enough. There are some genuinely funny parts, particularly with Myers' Scottish family and his detective friend. There are also moments where attempted jokes fell flat as a pancake, such as when a towel-clad Myers hugs his girlfriend Harriet's friend and loses his towel. For some reason, they felt the need to drag out that unfunny scene to a couple of minutes. Same with the scene where Myers' friend mouth kisses his mom. Myers can be a comedic genius at times, but his comedy is very uneven.
The love story in this one was fun and sweet and I felt like Myers and his co-star Nancy Travis had good chemistry. You don't think of Myers as a romantic lead, but he pulled it off pretty well here, with his funny, off-the-wall wit. I do wish they had developed the relationship more, though, before going straight to sex. There was some mystery in the whole plotline about Harriet being an a killer of husbands. It definitely kept you engaged, wondering how it would turn out, though you kind of knew that there would be some other explanation, rather than Harriet being a triple murderess. My wife guessed that the real killer was Harriet's sister Rose, so I guess it wasn't that big a surprise.
So, what can you say about this movie? It's certainly not one of Myers' more inspired works. But it's still entertaining and enjoyable and offbeat enough to keep Myers fans happy. Definitely worthy of a watch, some 30+ years later.
Shallow Hal (2001)
Different rom-com with a message
This was a fun, goofy, different kind of rom-com with a great message about not judging people on physical appearances. The basic premise is a unique and interesting one. How would it be if you saw everyone with inner beauty as attractive, even if they were not so physically attractive? But beyond that, this is a story with likeable, relatable characters and a slow-burn romance that is fun and enjoyable to watch.
Jack Black gave a great performance as Hal. This could have been a very unlikeable character, but Black imbued him with enough humor and heart that you sympathized with him, even though he was pretty superficial. And, of course, his character arc, from someone who solely looked on outward appearances to someone who was able to look past them, was good. Gwyneth Paltrow was great too, as she always is. I also enjoyed Jason Alexander as Hal's friend Mauricio. He's always consistently funny.
This movie delivered a good message, though, at times, it was borderline offensive with the fat jokes (which my slightly overweight wife really didn't appreciate). This is a Farrelly Brothers' movie, after all, and they're not exactly known for their good taste, but I think they definitely struck the right tone with this one. In addition to the comedy, which was laugh-out-loud funny at times, it also had some very touching, emotional scenes, such as when Hal, with hypnotic rose-colored glasses removed, was able to see what the little girl in the pediatric burn unit really looked like.
This wasn't a perfect movie, by any means, but for what it was, an amusing rom-com with a timeless message about not judging a book by its cover, it more than got the job done. Twenty plus years later, it's still a fun, entertaining, feel-good movie that also causes you to think a little bit.
Mother of the Bride (2024)
Decent rom-com
This Netflix rom-com was decent enough. Certainly not the best I've ever seen, but passable entertainment. It certainly doesn't deserve the 4.8 rating it currently has on IMDb, nor the abysmal user reviews. Lighten up, people, it's not that bad!
This movie is like Father of the Bride, in that the story of the couple getting married is secondary to the main plot line, but unlike that movie, Mother of the Bride also had a romance of its own, with the parents of the happy couple being the romance that we really care about. Other reviewers complain about lack of chemistry between the marrying couple, which may be a valid point, but, again, they are not really the focus of this movie. The parents are. I thought that Brooke Shields and Benjamin Bratt gave decent performances, and they definitely looked great for their age. The relationship between mother and daughter was developed well. There was lots of annoying, controlling behavior on the part of the mom, and lots of bratty, childish behavior on the part of the daughter, but the love between the two of them finally shone through. I also liked Brooke's friend, played by Rachael Harris. She was sarcastic and funny and the perfect foil for Brooke's tightly-wound character. The scenery in Pukhet, Thailand, was lovely, of course. I did find it funny, though, that the supposedly secluded, romantic beach location that they chose was one of the most famous, iconic beaches that graces countless travel posters of Thailand.
Is this a perfect movie? Obviously not. The comedy part of this rom-com was amusing at best, but never laugh-out-loud funny. The various bits of slapstick humor mostly fell flat. Many parts of the film were flat-out unbelievable, such as Chad Michael-Murray's character going for Brooke, a woman nearly 20 years his senior, or the stupid scene where they all strip to go skinny dipping. Also, the horrific, black bridesmaid dresses would never have been taken seriously by anyone. The relationship between Brooke and Benjamin's characters was pretty good. I thought they had some chemistry, though slightly awkward was a better description of their relationship through most of the movie. I think it might have worked better if, when their vehicle broke down in the middle of nowhere, that they had faced some real danger together that made them re-bond with each other. I also think they should've come up with a better reason for him to leave her all those years before. "I didn't want to hold you back" seems to be an excuse used in rom-coms lately, but it's stupid and they need to come up with a better one.
In the end, the movie provided the happy ending we were waiting for and expecting. Brooke's daughter finally loses her obsession with the product-placing, media-driven aspect of her wedding and tells off the annoying wedding planner. The happy couple get married. The obligatory misunderstanding that threatened to split Brooke and Benjamin apart a second time was quickly revealed to be a silly non-issue. And Benjamin proposes to Brooke and she accepts amid cheers from everyone in the wedding party. A bit cheesy? Of course, but ultimately satisfying. If you're looking for 90 minutes of mostly light, escapist entertainment, this is definitely your movie.
Love in Tahiti (2023)
Slow, plodding love story
I've watched many a film from Candlelight Entertainment, which produced this film. I guess I have a soft spot in my heart for them, because they are from Utah and so am I. But I can't pretend that their movies are very good, because most of them aren't. Love in Tahiti was no exception.
The cinematography, to be fair, is quite good in this one, and they certainly display gorgeous French Polynesia in all its incredible splendor. Otherwise, the movie was basically a waste of 90 minutes of my life. The actors in this film are B-grade actors at best. The guy who played Travis, the fiancee of the lead girl Brielle's sister Piper, was especially bad. I hated his man bun, by the way. I'm sure this low-budget flick procured the best actors they could afford, but the difference between them and an A-list actor is obvious for anyone to see.
Then there's the writing. It's just boring. Nothing much happens. The two leads sail around, looking for a ring, but there is no real urgency to finding it. We're not even sure that Marcus wants to find it and reunite with his ex-fiancee. They try to stir up some drama with the dad being disapproving of Piper and Travis' engagement, but there's no real anger or passion there. Even the slow-burn romance between Brielle and Marcus is kind of a snoozer. Not much chemistry or fire there. And when their boat is stranded in the ocean, giving the script an opportunity for some excitement, it turns into a big, fat nothingburger. They don't even have a confrontation between Marcus and his ex-fiancee Monica. That, at least, could have been a little interesting. Did they just run out of budget to hire an actress to play her, except in photos?
Watching this movie was like relaxing in your back porch swing on a beautiful, summer day. It's sweet. It's pleasant. But nothing much happens. I wish our friends at Candlelight, whose bread and butter is romance, would learn to produce romance movies that are really compelling. This romance movie was just a big yawn.
Roxanne (1987)
Amusing Retelling of Cyrano Story
This movie from Steve Martin was a pleasant enough reimagining of the classic Cyrano de Bergerac story. I like Steve Martin okay, but I wouldn't say he's my favorite comedian. For me, he's mildly amusing but never laugh-out-loud funny. This movie seemed very intent on including modern versions of a lot of scenes from the original, such as the swordfight at the beginning (ie tennis racquet/golf club fight) and the bar scene where he comes up with multiple nose-related insults. They kind of worked, but honestly, they seemed a little forced.
The relationship between Charlie and Roxanne was sweet and charming. Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah gave great performances. Steve Martin was a bit old for Daryl Hannah, and looked it, with his white hair, but it was his movie, so I guess you couldn't have cast someone else in the role of Charlie. The scene where Chris is talking to Roxanne with a hunting cap and being fed lines from Charlie didn't work too well, in my opinion. It wasn't believable at all. But I guess you just have to go with that silliness and not think about it too much. The characters in this movie were definitely likeable. I also enjoyed the bumbling, small-town fire department, who provided a lot of comic relief.
This movie wasn't out to win any academy awards, but it was a fun, feel-good movie that provided a couple of hours of solid entertainment. I'm also glad that it didn't follow the original, where Cyrano doesn't get the girl and where he dies after having someone drop a heavy piece of wood on his head. Having Charlie and Roxanne end up together and having dim bulb Chris run away with the equally dim bartender was a much more satisfying ending. All in all, a good classic 80's movie that's worth checking out again.
The Christmas Contract (2018)
Formulaic but likeable Christmas romance
This Christmas romance movie is as formulaic as they come. You have the girl in the high-power, big-city job, coming back to her charming, small hometown for Christmas. You have the wonderful, warm family members and hometown friends. You have a Christmas pageant. The only thing you don't have is the requisite snowman building and snowball fight scenes, because this movie takes place in snowless Louisiana. Oh, and, of course, you have the fake boyfriend, who we all know will become a real boyfriend before the closing credits.
This movie, with its checklist of romantic moments for main character Jack's ghostwritten book, almost seems like a tongue-in-cheek parody of rom-com tropes at times. This movie never strayed far from the reservation, except that it didn't attempt to get our big city girl to forgo city life and return to her rural, Southern roots. I've never been that big a fan of the fake boyfriend plot, because, try as they might, they can never make it seem realistic or plausible, because it isn't. Stuff like that never happens in real life. This movie had no right to make me like it, but the fact is that I did like it a lot.
Cliched plotline aside, this movie worked because you had warm, genuine performances, not just from the leads, but from all the supporting cast. It worked because the dialog was mostly well-written and natural. It worked because the relationships were believable. You really felt the love between our heroine Jolie and her family and friends. And you had some genuine chemistry between Jolie and Jack. You really liked them as a couple, and you wanted them to get together. And, of course, you had the other main character, beautiful Lafayette, Louisiana. They showcased that charming, Southern town in all its glory.
Oh, there were little things that could have been better. I wish they had at least attempted to have the characters talk with Southern accents. Only one or two did. I also wish they had provided a reason why Jack had flaked on their date when Jolie's friend tried to set them up months earlier. Or, maybe they could have gone on that date, but it could have been the date from hell, leading them to their initial reluctance to be together. And they could've done the setup for the fake boyfriend scenario better. As I mentioned before, it really didn't come across as believable. Oh, and one more thing. Her ex-boyfriend Foster seemed like too much of a dweeb. He should've been better looking and there should've been at least the credible possibility that she might want to get back together with him after he broke up with his girlfriend Amy.
All in all, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. It wasn't out to win any awards for the most original Christmas romance out there, but it left you with a good, warm feeling at the end of it, which is why you watch a movie like this in the first place.
Click (2006)
A little different Sandler movie with a moral
This movie is a bit of a departure for Adam Sandler from his usual formula. The first half is more vintage Sandler, with the juvenile, tasteless jokes and gags that we're all familiar with. The second half is more of a drama and morality tale. Honestly, the second half is much better than the first.
Sandler, though crude and gross, can be laugh-out-loud funny sometimes. Not this time. His jokes just weren't clicking for me. A prime example was the gag with the dog humping the toy duck. It wasn't funny the first time, but they turn it into a running joke, repeating it with various dogs. Couldn't some focus group or test audience have filtered out this cringy non-joke before it made it into the movie? Or how about Sandler's running feud with the obnoxious neighbor kid? That might have actually been a little funny if the neighbor had been a grown man instead of a little boy. But having Sandler run over a kid's toy robot dog, or getting the kid in trouble with his mom by making her believe he was smoking marijuana? Not only wasn't it funny, it made Sandler seem like a first-class jerk.
Sandler was in real danger in the first half of being irredeemably unlikable, with his dismissive attitude toward his wife and kids. Fortunately, he pulled it out in the second half. He proved that he can do drama pretty well. The scenes, where he suffers real regret about how much of his life he has missed by skipping over it with the universal remote and how much of a jerk he has been are truly touching at times. None of this is very original, of course. This film owes a lot to Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, etc. But no matter how cliche, we all instinctively love a story like this, where a man, seeing how horrible he has been through miraculous, fantastic means, is able to change his ways. It's a feel-good message that never gets old, and Sandler executes this part of the movie very well. The main message of the movie, that family should come first before anything including career, is simple and timeworn, but it's still very true.
Besides Sandler, the other supporting actors in this movie were great. I especially loved Henry Winkler as Sandler's father. Why didn't they give him more screen time? I also liked Kate Beckinsale as his wife. At first, I thought she would be the typical trophy girl, love interest that Sandler usually has in his movies, but she showed some real depth, especially in the last scenes of the movie. Christopher Walken as the angel Morty was, well, Christopher Walken. He was the perfect weird, kind of creepy type of actor to play this role.
All in all, this was a decent movie. Not my favorite Sandler movie, by any means, but definitely a welcome change of pace. This movie demonstrates that Sandler can play a character with more depth than the typical goofball loser that you see in a lot of his movies. Definitely worth a watch.
Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)
Empty, soulless Star Wars wannabe
I've long been a science fiction fan, and I'm old enough to have watched and been enthralled by the first Star Wars movie back in 1977 when it first came out in theaters. Somehow, in the intervening almost 50 years, science fiction films have advanced light years when it comes to special effects and production values, but they've lost their soul. This movie is no exception.
From the first few minutes, I realized that this was mostly going to be a copy of Star Wars. Looking at some reviews, I also realized after the fact that it was a ripoff of The Seven Samurai. Not saying that you can't have great, compelling films that borrow heavily from other classic sources. But even though this movie was largely based on Star Wars, one of my all-time favorite movies, it just didn't click for me. It was an intense, dark and depressing movie, devoid of humor. Star Wars had an exciting, engaging plot and plenty of intense, gripping scenes. But it also had moments of levity. You had amusing banter between the main characters. You had cute robots providing regular comic relief. You also had a real feeling of camaraderie between the main characters. You had none of that in Rebel Moon. The one robot character, arguably the most likable character in the whole movie, was barely an afterthought. There was not even an attempt at humor. There was no chemistry between the heroes, even between the supposed romantic couple, Kora and Gunnar. The villains weren't even interesting. Oh, they succeeded in making them extremely hateable, Nazi-like figures. The attempted rape scene demonstrated just how bad they were, but it was gratuitous and over-the-top and didn't need to be there. A good villain needs to be not only bad, they need to have some personality. These villains were just thugs. Even Admiral Noble, the supposed uber villain, just seemed kind of flat and lifeless.
The heroes in this story seemed like cardboard cutouts. There was no real character development. We did get quite a bit of backstory for Kora, to be fair, but I never really felt connected to her character. She mostly came across as a cold, emotionless, killing machine. I must also say that I'm not a big fan of the tough, badass superhero being a woman. Call me a boomer, call me sexist, but for me, it just doesn't work as well for the hero in a testosterone-fueled space epic to be a woman. I'd say that a majority of the (I'm assuming) mostly male audience for this movie, if they weren't afraid of being branded as misogynists, would agree with me.
Most of all, it didn't seem like this movie really went anywhere. Maybe that's unfair, because it was only part one of a two-movie saga (with more, apparently to come, God help us). But to me, it felt more like a series of pieced-together scenes, stolen from other movies, that the creators thought would look cool. Let's have the Star-Wars-like bar scene, with assorted aliens and a bar fight. Let's have a guy who looks good shirtless riding a wild, birdlike creature, like in How to Train Your Dragon. Let's have an Asian swordwoman fight a giant spider, a-la Harry Potter. But what's the point of all of it?
I guess this movie was entertaining enough. The effects were excellent, and it definitely kept you on the edge of your seat. But I just felt empty and unsatisfied at the end of it. With a two-part story like this, the most telling indicator of whether or not it was any good is, do I want to watch part 2 after seeing part 1? In this case, I must say, I'm in no hurry to go watch the second movie, and I likely never will.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
A different kind of love story
This movie is a fresh take on a tried-and-true cinematic favorite: the love story. Is it a little bizarre? Yes. Is it confusing to watch? Definitely. But it's also a brilliant movie with some amazing insights into what love and relationships are all about. It mixes a little science fiction and fantasy with pure, raw, human emotion. Initially, you're not even sure you're going to like this movie, but it sucks you in and makes you care about its rather imperfect characters. But more than that, it makes you think about your own past relationships, both good and bad, in a new light.
Most of us have had at least one relationship like Joel and Clementine in the movie. A relationship that started out so right, but ended so wrong. How many of us would be tempted, if the opportunity were presented to us, to just erase that person from our minds? But would we really want to forget everything about that person, including all the good times? Our relationships, both the good and bad parts, ultimately make us who we are. At first, this movie might seem to be cynical about the concept of true love, but in the end, it's unabashedly romantic. Joel and Clementine truly do love each other, in spite of the fact that they are polar opposites, and in spite of the fights and the other crap that eventually come up. People so often deceive themselves into thinking that, if only they find their "soul mate", everything will always go smoothly and there will be no friction in the relationship. Real relationships aren't like that. You have good days and bad days, and if you're really committed to that person, you work through the bad days. You focus on the good in your partner and the relationship and overlook the bad. I wonder how many divorces would be prevented if couples were able to take a journey similar to Joel Barish, revisiting in their minds some of the good times in their relationship?
The performances in this movie were incredible. Jim Carrey, who you mostly see as an annoying, over-the-top, comedic goofball, gave a wonderful, understated, dramatic performance here as Joel. You totally see him as the shy, introverted, unlikely lover, so unlike his typical on-screen persona. Kate Winslet also plays against type as the offbeat, quirky, impulsive Clementine. Classy British actress Winslet was able to make us totally believe she was this weird, somewhat vulgar American girl, a testament to her acting abilities. I can't imagine anyone playing these roles better, even actors like, say, Ethan Hawke and Wynona Ryder, who you might better imagine playing those characters. The supporting actors, such as Kirsten Dunst, Tom Wilkinson and Elijah Wood, were also great. Even though their characters weren't necessarily likable, they were believable.
My one complaint was this movie's gratuitous use of the F-bomb. Was this to ensure an R rating for this movie? Otherwise, there was really no content in this movie above PG-13. There's no reason they couldn't have toned down the language a bit to give this movie a PG-13 rating and made it more accessible to a wider audience.
Although the mood of this film is mostly dour and depressing, with grey, overcast skies throughout, it was ultimately a positive, upbeat, hopeful movie. In the end, even though Joel and Clementine know how badly the replay of their romance could turn out, they are still willing to give it a go. You never find out whether things went better the second time around, but you believe and hope that they will. Love, with all its potential heartaches and pitfalls, is still worth it at the end of the day. This is an entertaining movie, but also a deeply profound movie that will stay with you long after you finish watching it. I'm glad I gave it a chance.
Sense & Sensibility (2008)
Perfect adaptation of Austen's classic
This BBC production of the beloved Jane Austen novel was wonderful. Even better than the very worthy 1995 film. I've been reading the book and this miniseries, as well as any film production could, captures the essence of the novel, even staying true to most of the dialog from the book.
The actors seemed perfect for their roles and they gave very realistic and heartfelt performances. Marianne was as passionate and impetuous as you imagined her to be from the book. Elinor was a perfect portrait of restrained prudence, combined with carefully-concealed, deep emotions, just under the surface. The more whimsical characters such as Lord Middleton and Mrs. Jennings were fun and enjoyable. The villains, such as Fanny Dashwood, Mrs. Ferrars and Willoughby, were sufficiently hateable, without being caricatures. And the leading men, Colonel Brandon, with his reserved, understated virtue and Edward, with his warm, affable, unaffected charm, were suitors that even Miss Austen would heartily approve of. It was also fun to see a couple of familiar faces among the British cast, such as Dan Stevens as Edward, who we remember from Beauty and the Beast and Downton Abbey, and Mark Williams, who we remember as Mr. Weasly from the Harry Potter series.
The BBC, as always, made this period piece seem very authentic, from the costumes, to the scenery, to the lavish, Regency-era mansions. You truly feel like you are being transported into this era. I especially liked how they largely had the weather in coastal Devonshire be mostly cloudy and rainy. Anyone who has actually visited England knows that this is the usual weather there, not the atypical sunny weather that you see in many productions filmed in the UK. And, of course, the weather perfectly mirrored the mostly depressed moods of the characters in the story.
All in all, an entertaining, engaging production that maintained the spirit of Jane Austen's classic, while bringing it to life and making it accessible for modern audiences. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Happy Gilmore (1996)
Fun, goofy movie
I've seen a lot of movies from Adam Sandler's prodigious catalog of offerings, but somehow, I missed Happy Gilmore. I recently watched it with my wife on Netflix. What can you say about a movie like this? It's vintage Sandler. Packed with juvenile, slapstick humor that's, nevertheless, laugh-out-loud funny at times. Laced with profanity and off-color jokes and gags that push the boundaries of good taste. Filled with goofy, exaggerated characters, with Sandler himself being the chief, loveable, loser goofball himself. It's a formula that's worked for him time and time again and this movie is no exception.
I wouldn't say I liked this one as much as many Sandler films I've seen. Other movies, such as 50 First Dates, The Wedding Singer and Blended had better relationship and character development. But Happy Gilmore was harmless fun, and it definitely made you laugh. To be fair, the relationships between Happy and his grandma and his golf coach Chubbs were pretty good. The romance between him and publicist Virginia felt a little underdeveloped and forced, but it was fine too.
This movie wasn't out to win any academy awards, but for what it was, a silly, feel-good comedy that made you laugh, it was great. I was definitely entertained for a couple of hours, and at the end of the day, that's all you really want in a movie.
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Interesting movie, frustratingly real
I'm the rare man who actually likes rom-coms. But this is not really a rom-com. Yeah, there's romance in it, kind of, but no real happy ending and only minimal comedy. I will give the movie kudos for being real. Achingly so. Frustratingly so. As a now happily married guy who went through several relationships like the Tom/Summer relationship in this movie, I was wincing in empathy for Tom throughout the whole film. This is a romance from a guy's perspective, and not in a good way. Any woman out there who thinks love and romance are just the domain of the female gender doesn't comprehend just how deeply men can fall in love and how horribly soul-crushing it can be for them when they get their hearts broken. The movie's great strength was that it felt real and genuine, and I suppose that's because the story was based on one of the co-writer's real-life failed relationships.
There were times when I wanted to throw something at the screen at both Summer and Tom. I mostly hated Summer's character. She was clearly attracted to Tom and I thought they had a lot of chemistry together. Yet, she continually kept insisting that she didn't want a relationship with him, and that they were only friends. Yet, you don't treat a "friend" the way she treated him. You don't hang out with them all the time. You don't kiss them and hold hands with them. You don't have sex with them on a regular basis, for crying out loud. It felt like she was stringing him along the whole time. The worst was when she acted friendly to him after they had broken up, hanging out with him and dancing romantically at their friend's wedding, then inviting him to her party, when the whole time she was dating and almost engaged to someone else. She knew how he felt about her, yet she was more than willing to treat him as her plaything and (let's be honest) her sex toy. Seeing her brought up major PTSD for me, thinking about girls in my single past who treated me the very same way.
Then there was Tom. Most of the movie, he was a simp. For those not up on Gen-Z lingo, that's a guy who is in love with a girl who doesn't return his affections and turns himself into a doormat for her. If Summer was the cold, heartless user, then Tom was her enabler, with his spineless, groveling devotion to her. From that first time that he let her define their relationship as "just friends", he sealed his doom. Instead of clinging onto her, happy to lick up whatever crumbs she felt willing to toss him from her table, he should've been out there dating other girls besides her. He should've made it clear that, if she wasn't willing to step up and admit she was in a relationship with him, he would find someone who would be. It's very telling that, after the one instance that he actually stood up to her, called her out on her crap, walked out the door, and resisted the temptation to call her, she actually broke down, came knocking at his door and said she was sorry. He needed to learn the lesson that you can't win over a girl by being a spineless wimp for her, because no girl wants that. It angered me to see him behave that way, because that's the way I also behaved so much of the time when I was single. The movie seemed to imply that their relationship didn't work out because they weren't right for each other, but that's BS. They could've been fine for each other, if he had played things differently. Or, he could've moved on from her quickly before investing so much of his heart, and he could've emerged with his self-respect intact and better able to win the next girl. The reason, I think. That I was so angry with these characters is because they were so typical of my own past.
I wasn't a big fan of how the movie jumped about so haphazardly between various stages of Tom and Summer's relationship. Some might call this imaginative and clever, but I just found it annoying and confusing. Maybe your real observant viewer would be able to follow everything, but your average person, like me, will just end up a little lost by the non-linear timeline. Better to have the whole movie be mostly a linear flashback of the relationship, in my opinion.
I gave this movie a fairly high rating, not because I particularly enjoyed the characters or the story. I much prefer happy endings. And don't say this movie had a happy ending, with that stupid, tacked-on bit at the end with that new girl named Autumn. The reason I rated it highly was because it was so true to life, and, as one who stood in Tom's shoes on more than one occasion, I can attest to that fact. It was mostly a sad movie, but you can't fault it for being silly or unrealistic. This is as gut-wrenchingly real a movie about love and relationships as you will ever get.
How to Pick Your Second Husband First (2018)
Cute idea, bad execution
The idea for this movie sounded kind of cute and fun. A marriage counselor and author of marriage books faces trouble in her own marriage, but fixes her relationship by using dog training techniques on her husband. So far, so good. But the screen writing was pretty bad, and the concept never came together well. I wanted to like this movie. The actors were pretty good and tried hard. But they could only do so much with the material they were given.
The biggest problem with this movie was that Jillian, the main character, was so unlikable. She was extremely controlling and petty. So, her husband Justin showed up to her big event slightly underdressed. Big deal. He wanted to take her on a romantic vacation to Paris, and she acts like it's the worst thing in the world. And she refused to communicate with him. How did this lady get to be a marriage therapist, let alone a best-selling author on marriage? She was so arrogant, acting like her way was the only way, and that even applied to how she treated her dog. And then, when Justin finally came home from his trip, she flat out lied to his face, making him believe that Henry was a guy instead of her dog in order to make him jealous! Justin may have been a little clueless as a husband, but he wasn't a bad guy. I'd say he was kind of a saint to put up with her for so long.
The plot of this movie was really weird and didn't flow smoothly. So, he decided to just go on the romantic trip to Europe by himself? Who does that? It just seemed really weird. This was supposed to be a romantic movie about how Jillian "trained" her husband with dog training techniques, but that part only came toward the end of the movie. Most of the movie, they weren't even together. He was in Europe and she was having all this drama at home. How can you do a romance where your couple aren't even together for most of the movie? She didn't even call him while he was gone. Only after much prodding from her friend, did she even send him a lame, tentative text or two. Heck, the two of them don't even say "I love you", even in the final scene where they kiss. How do you have a romance where the lovers don't even say, "I love you'? I think this screenwriter really doesn't like writing romance and/or is just not good at it, so she tried to write a romance movie with as little romance as possible. It just doesn't work.
Oh, and don't get me started on Jillian's mom. What a horrible, cynical person! Her daughter's marriage is in trouble, and all she can do is make snide remarks about how bad men are and how they are not to be trusted. So your whole soul is full of bitterness because your own marriage failed. Why spread that toxic hatred to your own daughter? And then, inexplicably, she becomes nice and supportive at the end. Why did the story even need this character, and if it did, why did she have to be so bad?
To be fair, the movie did have a good message or two. I really liked the message that, while Jillian thought she was training her husband, she was actually the one being trained. She was the real problem and she was the one who needed to change. She needed to be nicer to him, respond to his needs more, and basically just accept him and love him for who he was, like you would a dog.
If I had written this screenplay, here's how it would have gone. Justin takes a job as a rock-climbing guide in Europe. He invites Jillian to go, pitching it as a romantic trip, but in reality, he just wants a trial separation from her, because he can't deal with her constant negativity toward him. She says she can't go because of work, and he angrily leaves to go on the trip alone. She soon realizes she misses him, and deeply senses how hypocritical she is, giving advice to others about marriage when her own is in serious trouble. In her loneliness, she takes on Henry the dog, and, after fits and starts, successfully trains him. She desperately wants her husband back, but he seems disinclined to want to come home. She begs him to come home to give it one last chance, and he begrudgingly agrees, expecting it not to work out. On advice from her friend, she starts using the dog training techniques on him. He is skeptical and resistant at first, but she eventually wins him over and their marriage appears to be saved. Then, he finds out she was "training" him, and he leaves her again in a huff. She feels guilty that she had been manipulating him, but her friend helps her come to the epiphany that she was the one who was really being trained, not Justin. As he is leaving to fly back to Europe for good, she makes the grand gesture of rushing to the airport to meet him. She bares her soul and tells him that she loves him, and would do anything to make their marriage work. And she agrees to stop trying to change him and promises to accept him for who he is. He confesses he still loves her, and they both get on the plane together, this time for the romantic vacation that he had promised. And she writes her new book while relaxing in the sun with Justin on the French Riviera. Wouldn't that have been a better plot?
I kind of feel bad picking this movie apart, and I wish I could recommend it more highly, but I can't. You may find this movie mildly diverting for 90 minutes, but most likely, you will watch it and end up just as frustrated as I was.
Blended (2014)
Fun, feel-good, Adam Sandler movie
Adam Sandler is definitely a genius at making feel-good, somewhat raunchy comedies. I'd say this was one of his better ones. As an aging comedian and film maker, it seems he was trying to make Blended a little more substantive than some of his earlier work. You still had the classic Sandlerisms, of course. The over-the-top slapstick, such as Drew Barrymore spitting out French Onion soup at the restaurant. The juvenile, off-color jokes and gags, such as the rhinos humping, or Adam finding Drew in the porno mag section of the drugstore. You knew, of course, when Drew's friend was dating a guy named Dick that this would eventually come around to a stupid penis joke. But, if you can get past the silly and crude content, there's a lot to enjoy about this movie.
There were definitely plenty of laugh out loud funny parts in this movie. Crude or not, you judge an Adam Sandler comedy based on whether or not it made you laugh, and this one did. But beyond that, you have characters in this movie that are mostly realistic and well developed. Sandler, far from playing the goofball, as in many of his movies, plays a pretty normal, decent guy and a loving single dad. Sure, he has his rough edges, but he's likable and relatable. In fact, the first scenes when he was on a date with Drew and was such an over-the-top jerk seemed way out of character for him. I wish they'd toned these down, or made his actions into nervous faux pas instead of intentional jerkiness. Drew's character was great too. She was a no-nonsense, mama-bear, single mother, and definitely a control freak in need of loosening up, but she was also warm and sympathetic. She was something of a straight guy to Sandler's comedian, but she had her moments where she was funny too. The two of them definitely had chemistry, as in their previous movies together. I liked the developing relationships they had with the kids too, probably as much or more than the romantic relationship. The romance was good, but probably could have been developed a little more. The plot of the movie was sweet and engaging and mostly believable.
The movie wasn't without its rough spots. For example, I really didn't get why Sandler wanted his girls, especially his oldest daughter Hillary, to be tomboys. Yeah, I guess he was really into sports, and, as a single dad, didn't know how to relate to girls on any other level. The quirks of the kids were sometimes a bit much to take, such as Sandler's daughter Espn (even the stupid name is weird) and her delusion that her dead mom is still in the room with her, and Drew's son's pornographic obsession with his babysitter. Also, the ex-husband was portrayed as way too much of a jerk. It might have been more interesting if he really was trying to be a good dad and he and Drew really were trying to patch things up at some point. As much as many a divorced person might try to portray their ex as the Devil, most ex-spouses are not inherently bad people. The rough patches were, thankfully, relatively minor.
The cinematography of Africa and the beautiful resort was spectacular. It made me want to go there on vacation myself. All in all, this was a fun, sweet movie with characters that you liked and became invested in and relationships that pulled at your heartstrings and made you shed an occasional tear. The satisfying, happy ending was great. Would that all blended families could work out as well as this one.
Unfrosted (2024)
Silly, throwaway fluff
This movie was 90 minutes of pure silliness. You know from the first ten minutes that you can't take it seriously. It's kind of like a Tim Burton movie, but with more humor and pop culture references. The world of the 1963 cereal wars (not even sure if that was a thing) was recreated in amazing detail. Of course, it wasn't really historically accurate, but it wasn't supposed to be. It's a spoof and you have to take it as such. I'm a Boomer, and so I got most of the pop culture references, but I'm pretty sure most would be lost on younger generations. That's what happens, I guess, when you have a comedian, Jerry Seinfeld, who is 70 years old, making a movie about a decade that is 60 years removed from us.
This movie was like a non-stop barrage of often bizarre jokes and gags, and honestly, though a few of them were funny, most kind of missed the mark. A great example is when Mr. Schwinn actually died while testing the Pop Tarts prototype, and at his funeral, his coffin was buried with cereal and milk as his widow incredulously looked on. You got the feeling that Mr. Seinfeld and company were sitting around a room trying to come up with the most crazy cereal-related gag imaginable, and they came up with this monstrosity. Sorry, how is the pointless death of an innocent, benign character supposed to be funny? This reminds me of movies like Airplane or The Naked Gun, where they throw as much comedic spaghetti as possible up on the ceiling and see how much of it sticks. This movie didn't do it nearly as well as those movies, though.
This movie was definitely an assault on your senses. I wouldn't say that it wasn't entertaining and fun, in its own ridiculous, insane sort of way. But with comedic talent like Jerry Seinfeld, Melissa McCarthy and Amy Schumer, some of the best in the business, you expect better. I think a lot of the problem was that Jerry Seinfeld both wrote, directed, produced and starred in this film. With that much involvement from one person, there aren't a lot of checks and balances to make sure the project doesn't veer off into La La Land. It wasn't a bad movie, per se. But it was basically throwaway fluff. If you go into it with that attitude, you'll probably like it well enough.
Oklahoma! (1999)
Better than 1955 movie
My mom was a huge fan of Rogers and Hammerstein musicals, so I grew up watching them. Oklahoma wasn't exactly our favorite R&H show, but it definitely has its charm. I always thought that this was more like a New Yorker's stereotypical perception of what country folk from early 1900's Oklahoma were like, rather than a realistic portrayal of them, including the outrageously exaggerated accents. But if you just overlook that and let the story suck you in, it's pretty enjoyable. Musically, Messrs. Rogers and Hammerstein never disappoint. The dance numbers were also quite entertaining, and an improvement on the original. The romance between the overconfident Curly and the standoffish Laurey is perfect and keeps you engaged through the whole movie. The supporting characters, especially Aunt Eller, Ado Annie, Will and Ali the peddler provide welcome humor to the story.
It's kind of amazing that a 55-year-old (at the time) Broadway show would prove to be such a hit on the London stage. But I'd say that Hugh Jackman and the crew definitely hit a home run here. The cast were mostly British (plus Aussie Jackman), yet they played their Oklahoman characters so convincingly, overexaggerated accents and all. There's something magical about a stage production that you can't really capture in a film and they definitely caught that when they filmed this production, originally for PBS. Remakes ae hardly ever better than the original, but I can say without reservation that this production exceeded the movie in almost every respect. I enjoyed this trip down memory lane, and appreciated the chance to see a young Hugh Jackman and the rest of this wonderful cast breathe new life into this timeless musical.
Romance with a Twist (2024)
Hallmark romance misses the mark
This was a pretty standard Hallmark romance. About what you'd expect from a Hallmark romance and not much more. Somehow, it just missed the mark for me. The two stars were decent. Definitely eye candy. Jocelyn Hudson was actually quite good, Cute, but very down-to-earth and relatable. I wasn't feeling a lot of chemistry between the two of them, though. When the chemistry is lacking, I think that's usually code for bad screenwriting.
Not that the writing in this movie was awful. It was just okay. Clearly, they were going for enemies-to-lovers, but somehow, it didn't quite work. He was way too much of a jerk at the beginning. Sure, he mellowed out and was much nicer later, but your initial dislike of him was hard to shake. And she was way too meek, submissive and unconfident around him and in general. If you're going for enemies-to-lovers, she has to be a lot more spunky and able to give it right back to him. And, above all, you need witty banter between the two of them. Their interactions, especially after they started to like each other, seemed really awkward. Awkward does not make for a satisfying rom-com. It just reminds you of bad experiences that you might have had in your own past dating life, and it makes you cringe.
The rest of the story, with the arts festival and the training to do the silks performance, was only mildly engaging. I never really felt the sense of urgency. You had little doubt that the two silks performers would pull it out in the end and deliver a stellar performance. You knew the festival would be a raging success. And nothing really bad would have happened if it hadn't been, other than a few bruised egos and the sister of the male lead losing her gig as festival planner. To be fair, the silks performance was good, and it seemed that all or most of it was done by the stars themselves. The impromptu dancing from Jocelyn Hudson was also good.
All in all, a nice movie, a passable romance, but hardly an engaging or memorable movie. Basically just another throw-away Hallmark romance.