The Proposal

M: The Proposal is not going to change your life. Not great, not terrible. Just another rom-com where boy meets girl, boy and girl don't get along, but through a series of humorous events they start to appreciate and love each other, conflict develops, conflict is resolved, all past injustices are quickly forgiven, and they kiss (or more); end credits. Here, I appreciated that they didn't go beyond the kiss, although V commented on how it is simply expected and inferred that they would, but it just didn't make the screen. I liked the couple alright, they looked good together, but I didn't buy the romance. I am sorry but years of cruel treatment followed by extortion can't be so easily overcome, can it? A few overly silly parts and a bit of real predictability also hinder the movie. But, it is fairly harmless (well, one partial nude scene) and worth a few laughs. 2 1/2 stars

V: So if you had to convince an INS agent that you were actually engaged, but wanted to wait to have sex until after you were married, you'd be out of luck? They wouldn't believe the engagement was real? And the families just assume you will be sleeping together? That bugged me. Some stuff was funny. Some stuff was really silly. It's hard to believe Sandra Bullock as a really mean, bitter person. But I guess that's to her credit. It was okay. 2 stars.

Persuasion, BBC 2007

M: V and I have a little tradition of reading a Jane Austin book at the same time and, when we have finished, watching the movie, or movies, together. Persuasion is a great book, with very sharp and clever writing. We watched what I just discovered to be a 2007 tv version, 90 minutes without commercials. This version took great liberties in straying from the book. It really didn't need to. It was beautifully filmed for the most part, with a few random Blair Witch type scenes where the camera was suddenly following the action in that bouncy way, oddly out of place here. Maybe I was looking too much for variance from the book, and I am usually not such a stickler on those things, but it was distracting the way they completely changed things, and not for the better. The show was just ok. Kind of disappointed. 2 stars.

V: This was really a poor adaptation of a good book. Now, I don't think an adaptation has to strictly follow the book - see our Sense & Sensibility review (they improved on the book, and I greatly appreciated it!) The problem with this film is they ruined any suspense. What is the story? A woman finds herself meeting up again with a man she was formerly engaged to but was "persuaded" not to marry. Years have passed. We the readers/viewers want to find out 1) Does she still love him? 2) Does he still love her? 3) Will they get back together? Right? Well, they blurt the answer to #1 in the first 5 minutes. The second, they also blurt too soon. And as for the 3rd, well, of course there are impediments, but they also just blurt their way through them and keep spoiling the surprise. Will he marry so-and-so? The movie, like a bad movie friend, pats your shoulder anytime the slightest hint of the unknown arises, and tells you, "Don't worry, this is what happens . . ." I didn't care for Sir Walter, who was portrayed as caustic rather than just overly vain and foolish. Then there was this weirdness of our heroine chasing after this man -- literally chasing, in an extending running montage. Did women really do that in that place and time? And she was in high society. And then the closing scene with a "gift" that was just silly and totally unjustified by the facts of the story. I was disappointed. We've gotten our hands on another version, here's hoping it's better. I think the leading man is played by the same guy who played Col. Brandon in Sense & Sensibility. That bodes well. I'm sure it must be better than this version. 2 stars.

post-edit: nope, not col. brandon. oh well.

M: V nailed this. I absolutely agree.

Little Dorrit

M: Little Dorrit is a BBC mini-series (14 half-hour shows) that aired in 2008. We recently checked it out from the library. Based on a serial novel by Dickens, published between 1855 and 1857, this series is beautifully done and quite enjoyable. In keeping with Dickens' work, Little Dorrit contains villains that are truly villainous (one of which is annoyingly so), and heroes that are truly admirable. The villains get their comeuppance, and the heroes are rewarded.

Little Dorrit is a girl born in debtor's prison. Arthor Clennam is a wealthy man whose family has a secret he is trying to learn, but he believes it has something to do with the Dorrits, so he sets out to help them. Little Dorrit is played by Claire Foy, and Arthor Clennam is played by Mathew McFaydye, (you may know him as Mr. Darcy.) These characters where compelling, and I found myself really rooting for them. The part of Mr. Dorrit, the gentleman turned debtor turned gentleman, was played masterfully by Tom Courtenay.

Definitely worth seeing, although some of the social commentary is a bit heavy handed at time. This one eeks in at 3 1/2 stars

V: We looked forward to watching this each night. It does take a few evenings. It was well-scripted and interesting. Dickens is always good for DRAMA. Melo-drama, almost. He is a harsh critic of capitalism run amok and shows that greed and ponzi schemes were rampant in 19th century England, too. Too. Interesting that the term "class" today has a positive ring. Many scriptures ran through my mind while watching this that I could see posted at the beginning of the novel, such as "He who exalts himself shall be abased,"" . . . the last shall be first," and all that "captive made free" and "reaping what you sow" business. Well acted. Many interesting characters. Fun Dickensian tangled web stuff. Along with a few things that are spelled out for you, Hawthorne style: the Bleeding Heart Yard; The Circumlocution Office, and allusions to the House of Clennam crumbling to ruins if "the secret" ever got out. You'll have to see the movie. We enjoyed it. 3 stars

On Golden Pond

M: V and I took a break from our Halloween movie spree to watch the 1981 movie On Golden Pond. I am glad we did. I cannot say enough about this movie. Here it is, 11:15 at night, we just finished the movie, and I had to sit down and write. This movie is both heart wrenching and heart warming. Katherine Hepburn and Henry Fonda play two "old poops" (their words, not mine) spending a summer at their cabin on a lake in the woods. They learn to cope with their increasing age and the inevitability of death, while mending their relationship with their adult daughter (Jane Fonda) with the help of her 13 year old step-son to be. The wit and love between the main characters is so fun and touching. Henry Fonda gives a masterful performance, well-deserving of the many awards he received for the part. In fact, On Golden Pond was nominated for academy awards for best picture, best actor, best actress, best supporting actress, best screenplay, and best director (a total of 10 nominations). It won best actor and best actress, deservedly. Chariots of Fire edged it out for best picture. The music and filming are beautiful and add the final touch to this masterpiece. Plenty of swearing, but all done in good humor. This is an absolute must see. One of the best movies I have ever seen. 4 stars.

V: The dialogue in On Golden Pond is some of the best and most charming I can remember in a movie. It was clever and funny and, at times, really touching. The final scene is so very poignant. The acting was wonderful, the setting so beautiful - in New Hampshire - I want to go to there. It really was a pleasure to watch. The relationship of this couple who had been together for decades was so sweet and tender. Am I using "so" a lot? It was just so good. Cuddle up with your sweetheart and watch this. Rated PG. 4 stars.

Count Dracula

M: Over the past 2 nights V and I watched the 1977 BBC miniseries Count Dracula (at 2 1/2 hours it is really a mini series). The part of Dracula was played by Louis Jourdan, and he was really compelling. This movie apparently tracks very closely to the Bram Stoker novel. The show had the right amount of scariness with limited gore (which I imagine is uncommon in a Dracula movie). All and all, a good scary show.

But, and I am going to sound like an old movie hater when I say this, there were some moments of really poor effects that took me out of the moment. Also, a character of an American from Texas was played by a British guy putting on the worst accent I have ever heard, and I lived in England for 2 years and everybody I met tossed their American accent my way. Couldn't they find an actual American to play the role, I am sure there were some in England in 1977. I was even offered a job as a DJ when I was in England by a guy on the street. The BBC should have known better.

Anyway, a good scary Halloween season movie with limited gore and only a few effects that will make you giggle. Not so bad, giggles chase away the boogie man. Oh, and some of the scenes are pretty sexy and may make you blush, but the giggles will chase the blushes away too. 2 1/2 stars.

V: Yeah, some pretty lame effects here and there. For some reason, since it was done by the BBC, and since it was staying close to the book, I thought this would be less scary. But it's still pretty ooky, and scary. Have you seen Gigi? Well, that handsome leading man plays dracula. He really does have the perfect face (mouth) for it. This show gave me the creeps. I guess that's what it's supposed to do. So it succeeded. 2 1/2 stars.

Rear Mirror

M: The other night we watched Hitchock's 1954 Rear Window, staring James Stewart and Grace Kelly. I think this is the first movie I have ever watched staring the famous Grace Kelly. Checking IMDB, she was really not in many movies, and even less classics, for a person with such a famous name. V tells me it is because she married a prince. I can only assume it is because of her striking beauty. Anyway, she was pretty good in this movie. Once again, James Stewart plays a man who is loved by a woman way out of his league to whom he is generally grumpy and rude. What a life. As with all old movies, I have to grade this one on a scale of relativity. It wasn't really as suspenseful as I was expecting, actually it was a bit predictable. But, all in all, it is a decent show with great actors and probably the first movie plot involving a husband chopping up his wife to slowly remove her from the house. All and all, just a light-hearted lark. 2 1/2 stars

V: Can you believe M said "light-hearted" right after a sentence containing "a husband chopping up his wife?" Okay, that's gross. (Post-edit: I was too tired when writing this to realize that M was being sarcastic.) Thank you, Hitchcock, for giving us the hints but not showing the actual disgusting and horrible stuff. I have seen this movie before, but was glad to see it again. I thought it was great! I'm reminded of when I was a kid and liked to imagine up crazy things. It's a good thing to do when you're bored and have a broken leg. I think "predictable" is not always a bad thing in suspense movies. Follow me here . . . part of what makes something scary is that you know trouble is coming. The when and how keeps you interested. And you're sitting there wincing waiting for it to hit you. This movie is not just about the creepy guy, it's about all the people you see through the window and their relationships, particularly the male-female relationships, as Stuart's character is contemplating his own situation with Grace Kelley's character. (Has there ever been a bigger duh?) It's not over-the-top. I appreciate a movie that doesn't make those alarms ("That would never happen in this scenario!") ring in my head. Rear Window has suspense, humor, and sensitivity. I'm sticking with the "Hitchcock is a master" club on this one. 3 1/2 stars.

State of Play

V: I always look forward to seeing Russell Crowe in a movie, ever since A Beautiful Mind. He's just a really great actor. This movie didn't give him a whole lot to go on, though. State of Play must have been sponsored by the Save-the-Newspapers Club. And then there's a whole lotta whodunit and why. Except the "why" is really not there. That's what ultimately made this movie a disappointment. When it all unravels - and oh, yes, it continues to unravel, and unravel . . . - you're left thinking, "Really? Why did . . .? Why would . . .? But wouldn't . . .?" The implausibility of it is pretty heavy. But, remember, it's a good thing there was a newspaper, and not just a blog! So, it's kinda entertaining. Good cast - even Mike's fave, Ben Affleck. And there's an oddly unhilarious turn by Jason Bateman. (His roles should always be hilarious.) But the movie just becomes increasingly irrelevant. Like newspapers. 2 stars.

M: *SPOILER ALERT* Ben Affleck is the actor I love to hate. Russell Crowe, my go-to overrated actor (with the exception of Beautiful Mind and to a lesser extent Cinderella Man). But I think they were both pretty good in this show. I even liked Jason Bateman' s part, he makes me giggle (although he wasn't supposed to). State of Play has some moments that get your heart racing, so it is good there. But, in the end, the movie really loses steam and misses the boat. The whole movie we are led to believe that there is a big masterminded conspiracy afoot, which makes your mind whirl, and revs up the excitement. The twist at the end is that there was no grand conspiracy, and all the events were just the unfortunate acts of a crazy person. There was simply no reason for all the adventure. That bugged me. But I really dug the ongoing ode to newspapers. I mean, really, is there anything cooler than a movie about how great newspapers are? I heard a rumor about a newspaper article about how great movies are, but I couldn't find anyone who had read it. 2 1/2 stars.