Change Your Image
nansee
Reviews
All Around the Town (2002)
Liked It Despite The Cheesiness Factor!
FYI this movie just came out on video. I noticed it along with a few other MHC videos when I was at the video store, and since I had a rent-one-get-one-free coupon and like suspense, I decided to check it out.
First and most important, I liked it! Knowing it was a TV movie, I didn't go into it expecting `Citizen Kane.' I haven't read the book, and I'm embarrassed to say it, but I didn't figure out the ending. (Yes, I'm pretty dense, so I guess you have to take that into account.) It's definitely one of the most heinously cliché-filled movies I've ever seen, but I really don't think it matters. It's entertaining.
The story as told in the movie is of a now college-aged woman named Laurie who was kidnapped and molested when she was a little girl. She has now developed multiple personalities to cope with it, and when an English professor she is close to is killed, she's the main suspect. Her sister and a psychiatrist try to help her. The weakest part of the movie is the return of the couple who kidnapped Laurie. Maybe this part of the plot is covered better in the novel because what's here seems to have some gaps. It was still interesting, but it's one of those things where I wonder if the director had to trim the movie down and cut out the part that explained what the hell the deal was.
Other than that, I thought the acting was pretty good. I liked Andrea Roth as the older sister, and Kim Schraner as Laurie was good at doing the multiple personality thing except for several moments of probably unintentional complete out-of-control cheesiness. But I think they fit right in. The movie's biggest bonus is that the psychiatrist is played by Michael Shanks from Stargate SG-1, who I didn't realize was in the movie when I rented it (The video box gives Nastassja Kinski top billing, and she is in very few scenes.) He actually has a pretty big role in the movie, which is fine with me because as I was watching, I realized he's almost good-looking enough to make me pass out. In fact, I'm now in favor of human cloning.
So, if you like suspense/mystery, have a rent-one-get-one-free coupon, and want to give your brain a break and drool over Michael Shanks for 90 minutes, I recommend it!
Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Best Vampire Movie Since "Interview"
I went out of my way to see this movie in the theater and Willem Dafoe's performance was worth it. He was amazing. John Malkovich was good, but Dafoe was incredible. I was disappointed that he wasn't the first vampire to win an Academy Award (if there was one, please email me). I saw "Traffic." Dafoe deserved to win. I also liked that Cary Elwes who played Arthur Holmwood in Bram Stoker's Dracula was in it. And Eddie Izzard was fabulous and I love him. Great casting because he was perfect. Like a lot of people, I didn't like the ending, and the drug stuff seemed a little goofy. But I think Dafoe's performance is one that can stand alongside Max Schreck's in "Nosferatu." He was into the character. I think that this was the best vampire movie since "Interview With The Vampire," and there need to be more of them.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Carter's Hair Scared Me Most
I *finally* saw this movie. I can't believe I've never seen it (I think I was in college, likely drunk, at the time it was released), and I will say that it was worth watching. The best part of the flick for me was the Frankenstein castle. Great, great (great!) staircase. Very Bela Lugosi. And great vast, empty parlor. (Perfect for a Dracula movie.) The rest of it ... well, I'll have to say as much as Kenneth Branagh tends to annoy me, I liked his portrayal of the egotist Victor. But the deviations from the novel annoyed me because I think sticking to what Shelley wrote would have made the movie better. Plus, they seemed unnecessary! James V. Hart and Francis Ford Coppola did Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I think was better all around. Why not kill Clerval, for example? It made no sense. I kept expecting it. I may be crazy, but it seemed like there were parts cut and then pasted back together at the last minute - bad transitions - (i.e., the scene right before Victor and Elizabeth prepare to be married). And the whole thing with Helena Bonham Carter's hair ... don't get me started.
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)
Loved it
Colin Firth as Darcy Part Two made this movie for me. He was great! I have a feeling that there are a lot of people who haven't seen the BBC "Pride and Prejudice" in which he starred as Jane Austen's Darcy and who therefore don't "get it." Some of those people might think that he comes across as cardboard, inanimate, and even humorless. However, Firth makes Darcy so subtle, so just completely as much the off-center character that Austen intended that it's possible to miss how great he is. Firth is Darcy and he is perfect. He is full of humor, unseen strength, and, above all, amazing sex appeal. If you didn't see it in him the first time, watch Bridget Jones's Diary again (a great flick - Hugh Grant is totally on target), re-read Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and just look into those brown eyes of Firth's. It's all there.