If you're worried that because JoBeth Williams and Meg Ryan are featured in this tale of personal discovery that it's going to degenerate into some sappy romantic comedy, take heart. In this film Ryan portrays, Sarah Hardwicke, a mother of two girls. She discovers that she has breast cancer. She already knows that she has a husband who cheats on her, a teenage daughter who hates her for no apparent reason and that her life is beginning to add up to nothing.
Into this quiet Michigan town arrives young Carter Webb, played by Adam Brody. Carter has been devastated by the break up of his long relationship with a young Hollywood starlet and his failure to write the screenplay he has long wanted to write. He moves into the house across the street from Sarah to take care of his Grandmother, played brilliantly by Olympia Dukakis. Grandma thinks she's dying and Carter in a vain attempt to run from all of his perceived problems in Los Angeles, volunteers to take care of her.
When Josh meets Sarah it's the innocent but tried and true method of dog leads girl to man. They end up getting to know each other by walking the Hardwicke family dog. Eventually, they share their stories with each other and form an almost conspiritol bond of caring and concern.
Sarah, attempting to deny her less than chaste feelings for Carter tries to foist him off on her oldest daughter, Lucy, played by Kristen Stewart. Lucy, in her turn, falls for Carters innocent charm and confides in him whats going on in the family, from her perspective.
Sarah's cancer treatments and Carter's invlovement with Lucy bring many of the issues to the surface. His grandmothers death forces events to a climax. What we learn is that living a life of denial and regret brings us nothing by disappointment and grief. By facing the life we have and living it to it's fullest is far better than just taking the punches. Josh, Sarah, and Lucy all find their next direction in lives not fully lived and benefitted from loving and caring for each other.
When I sat down to watch this film the first couple of scenes gave me that creepy feeling that I was going to have to sit through one of those contrived and silly romantic comedies that mock and redicule the possability of the older woman and the younger man falling in love. I was fooled. This film is much more dramatic and worthwile than that scenario would allow. It was refreshing to see the young talent of Stewart and Brody blooming and the revival of Meg Ryan from a role of depth and charcter with larger scope than some of her recent roles.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Perfect Stranger, He Said
Don't blame Halle Berry if you hear that this movie fails on so many levels that it's a wonder it ever got shown. Well, come to think of it you might blame Halle for not watching the company she keeps since she won her Oscar for "Monsters Ball". It's as if she was trying to show us that she can out Bruce Willis Bruce Willis in attempting to waste more talent in a lifetime by making as many big budget action thriller nonsense as she can. Did I mention Bruce Willis was in this film also?
Actually for what they were used for you could have put up cardboard cutouts of them and had the co-stars and extras work around them. The script for this vehicle was lacking in many area's but good dialogue stood out as the most glaring gap in good film making. The story of a the disrespected top reporter who turns a personal tragedy into a crusade for justice is just so thin and unbelievable that even the stunning Miss Berry and the witty Mr. Willis can't get us to suspend disbelief long enough to get into the story.
The who dun it is contrived, but I will admit you will not see the last twist coming. Mostly the mystery ending is so well hidden because it isn't at all foreshadowed and is not believable in any sense.
She and I agree that "Eye's Wide Shut" is probably the worst film we ever saw. This one isn't that bad, however I wouldn't recommend anyone going to see this film.
(There is a she as in the "she said" title of this blog and she will write pretty soon, I'm sure.)
Actually for what they were used for you could have put up cardboard cutouts of them and had the co-stars and extras work around them. The script for this vehicle was lacking in many area's but good dialogue stood out as the most glaring gap in good film making. The story of a the disrespected top reporter who turns a personal tragedy into a crusade for justice is just so thin and unbelievable that even the stunning Miss Berry and the witty Mr. Willis can't get us to suspend disbelief long enough to get into the story.
The who dun it is contrived, but I will admit you will not see the last twist coming. Mostly the mystery ending is so well hidden because it isn't at all foreshadowed and is not believable in any sense.
She and I agree that "Eye's Wide Shut" is probably the worst film we ever saw. This one isn't that bad, however I wouldn't recommend anyone going to see this film.
(There is a she as in the "she said" title of this blog and she will write pretty soon, I'm sure.)
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The Hoax, He said
For Lassie Hallstrom to take on the film "The Hoax", the allure had to be wrapped in the promise of a doing a period film. Hallstrom, who does these things very well, captures the mood and feel of the early 1970's so well that you could imagine you were watching Alfred Molina and Richard Gere made up to look older in a film that was actually shot in 1972.
The story is simple and the outcome is remembered by most of us that lived through it at the time. It's a time when Life magazine was one of the most powerful news and information outlets. It was the time when the post Nixon era was birthing itself behind the scenes as plans to burglarize the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel were formulating. It was a time when free love and drugs were more a part of the main stream culture than they had been, but liquor and cigarettes were still the drug of choice.
Clifford Irving, portrayed by Richard Gere, is a talented but struggling writer with many problems. His marriage is in danger because his wife discovered he was having an affair. His career is not going well because his last book was rejected and his previous book did not sell well.
In total desperation, he tells his editor that he has the exclusive rights to interview and write the biography of the reclusive industrialist and millionaire eccentric, Howard Hughes. He and his research assistant, played brilliantly by Alfred Molina, create the aura of authenticity that sways a sceptical but greedy editorial and publishing staff into giving Irving over a million dollars for the right to publish the book. Irving is counting on Hughes staying silent on the subterfuge because he has litigation problems with his TWA stockholders, A public appearance to refute Clifford's claim would be a disaster for the industrial wizard.
At this point in the story, we are led to believe, Irving has begun lying to his wife in a desperate attempt to save his marriage and that lying to his editors to save his career is the next step in inevitable journey to self destruction. However, my guess is that Irving was always cutting corners. He simply was to good a liar to be a recent practitioner.
The conflict is built around greed. First there is Irving's greed and need for money and success. But there is also the greed of the publishers in their suspension of disbelief in order to capitalize on the public's fascination with Howard Hughes.
Where this film get off track is when we see scenes that happen only in the mind of Clifford Irving. We are led to believe that the pressure of all of this deception has Irving imagining visits by CA types and involvement with Hughes operatives that eventually lead to his downfall. We are led to believe his exposure and eventual downfall is not because he has perpetrated and enormous fraud, hoax is to kind of a word, but because Howard Hughes is through using him in order to get back at ... . Well, I let you find that out if you bother to see this film.
Hallstrom, the director, got the sense of place he needed to portray this interesting side note to history. Gere and Molina's performances were spot on and wonderful to experience. But the script got very mushy toward the end. It was as if the truth of this story wasn't enough and had to be embellished, when in reality it didn't.
The story is simple and the outcome is remembered by most of us that lived through it at the time. It's a time when Life magazine was one of the most powerful news and information outlets. It was the time when the post Nixon era was birthing itself behind the scenes as plans to burglarize the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel were formulating. It was a time when free love and drugs were more a part of the main stream culture than they had been, but liquor and cigarettes were still the drug of choice.
Clifford Irving, portrayed by Richard Gere, is a talented but struggling writer with many problems. His marriage is in danger because his wife discovered he was having an affair. His career is not going well because his last book was rejected and his previous book did not sell well.
In total desperation, he tells his editor that he has the exclusive rights to interview and write the biography of the reclusive industrialist and millionaire eccentric, Howard Hughes. He and his research assistant, played brilliantly by Alfred Molina, create the aura of authenticity that sways a sceptical but greedy editorial and publishing staff into giving Irving over a million dollars for the right to publish the book. Irving is counting on Hughes staying silent on the subterfuge because he has litigation problems with his TWA stockholders, A public appearance to refute Clifford's claim would be a disaster for the industrial wizard.
At this point in the story, we are led to believe, Irving has begun lying to his wife in a desperate attempt to save his marriage and that lying to his editors to save his career is the next step in inevitable journey to self destruction. However, my guess is that Irving was always cutting corners. He simply was to good a liar to be a recent practitioner.
The conflict is built around greed. First there is Irving's greed and need for money and success. But there is also the greed of the publishers in their suspension of disbelief in order to capitalize on the public's fascination with Howard Hughes.
Where this film get off track is when we see scenes that happen only in the mind of Clifford Irving. We are led to believe that the pressure of all of this deception has Irving imagining visits by CA types and involvement with Hughes operatives that eventually lead to his downfall. We are led to believe his exposure and eventual downfall is not because he has perpetrated and enormous fraud, hoax is to kind of a word, but because Howard Hughes is through using him in order to get back at ... . Well, I let you find that out if you bother to see this film.
Hallstrom, the director, got the sense of place he needed to portray this interesting side note to history. Gere and Molina's performances were spot on and wonderful to experience. But the script got very mushy toward the end. It was as if the truth of this story wasn't enough and had to be embellished, when in reality it didn't.
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Namesake, He Said
What is unusual about this coming of age tale is that it is the saga of three people coming of age. We are introduced to a young Ashoke Ganguli, who has a "road to Damascus" revelation on a annual train trip to visit his grandfather. A fellow passenger tries to tell the young man to see the world, when his inclination is to stay in India. The train has an accident and our young friend barely survives. The next time we see him, he has returned to India from his teaching position in the United States to meet the wife his parents have chosen for him.
Our second traveler on the road to life change is Ashoke's bride to be, Ashima. This young women takes a chance on a the young man she has meet only once, because, we are led to believe, because she liked the feeling of trying on his shoes. She took a walk in his shoes on the sly just before she met him. In addition to the obvious symbolism of this gesture, she likes the idea of going on an adventure in America.
Their successful transplantation into American society and marriage leads to the introduction of the third member of the story, their son Gogol. They name their son Gogol because his father had been reading the work of Nicoly Gogol when he was involved in the train accident.
The interwoven tale is full of the cliches of life. Ashima's difficulty in making the transition from Indian society to America, Ashoke's problems in dealing with his wife's insecurity, and Gogol's typical youth rebellion issues including the racial pressures. But aside from facing the typical challenges of life, this trio has to deal with being in a society that does not always understand nor does it want to understand the traditions and differences of Indian Americans
While the story tends to focus on Gogol, it shows the us changes taking place in all of their lives. This a wonderful saga of a family in American and it could be, with a change in the customs and mores, the story of almost any immigrant family that raises their children in a foreign country.
In one scene, Gogol is a guest at a party for his Anglo girl friend. A guest is asking him questions about India. While it is humorous because, as he points out, he was born in New Jersey, it's also interesting that he has no answers to her questions, because he doesn't know much about his father and mother's country.
I loved this film. It was thoughtfully and graciously filmed, yet didn't pull back from the pain that life can bring all of us. It exposed us to two cultures that most of us know nothing about, those being India and Indians living in America. The story takes soft twists and turns, but eventually leads us to the place where the lessons have been leaned and we see the future and it is good.
Our second traveler on the road to life change is Ashoke's bride to be, Ashima. This young women takes a chance on a the young man she has meet only once, because, we are led to believe, because she liked the feeling of trying on his shoes. She took a walk in his shoes on the sly just before she met him. In addition to the obvious symbolism of this gesture, she likes the idea of going on an adventure in America.
Their successful transplantation into American society and marriage leads to the introduction of the third member of the story, their son Gogol. They name their son Gogol because his father had been reading the work of Nicoly Gogol when he was involved in the train accident.
The interwoven tale is full of the cliches of life. Ashima's difficulty in making the transition from Indian society to America, Ashoke's problems in dealing with his wife's insecurity, and Gogol's typical youth rebellion issues including the racial pressures. But aside from facing the typical challenges of life, this trio has to deal with being in a society that does not always understand nor does it want to understand the traditions and differences of Indian Americans
While the story tends to focus on Gogol, it shows the us changes taking place in all of their lives. This a wonderful saga of a family in American and it could be, with a change in the customs and mores, the story of almost any immigrant family that raises their children in a foreign country.
In one scene, Gogol is a guest at a party for his Anglo girl friend. A guest is asking him questions about India. While it is humorous because, as he points out, he was born in New Jersey, it's also interesting that he has no answers to her questions, because he doesn't know much about his father and mother's country.
I loved this film. It was thoughtfully and graciously filmed, yet didn't pull back from the pain that life can bring all of us. It exposed us to two cultures that most of us know nothing about, those being India and Indians living in America. The story takes soft twists and turns, but eventually leads us to the place where the lessons have been leaned and we see the future and it is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)