Change Your Image
maggie_wondercat
Reviews
Romeo + Juliet (1996)
A Bingeable Movie From The Pre-Binge Days
The only way this review has spoilers is if you live under a rock. But the button is there so I clicked it. You're welcome.
Romeo & Juliet is the play read in every Junior High/High School in America. So much of the language within the play itself has bonded to English colloquialisms and idioms that English would have a gaping void where "star-crossed lovers" would be. It is not, however, Shakespeare's best story (see Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, need I go on?), but it has and violence and enough angst to make the most emo of teens put on a polo and khakis and ask the protagonists to grow up and get a life.
Baz Luhrmann has absolutely no problem putting his name in lights first and the movie second. This is 120 minutes of Baz Luhrmann doing that thing that Baz Luhrmann does best: pander. This movie was not meant for adults to roll eyes at. This was meant for the teens of '96 to swoon over their beloved Leo and secretly hate Claire Danes. This movie launched a thousand feathered wing attachments for the last two decades dragged out every Halloween.
If it did have one positive byproduct, it is that teenagers picked up a book to relive the glorious balcony and tragic death scenes.
To the grit of the movie, modernization brings trouble. A sassy Mercutio - Harold Perrineau did his best with this - is delightful, but not when the pacing and the rhythm of the poetry is sacrificed for it. DiCaprio was in his acting infancy during this film and was sullen as cardboard. Paul Rudd was delightfully dopey but Paris' best lines, his raison d'être, were completely cut. Claire Daines has ugly weeps. Seriously ugly weeps. The kind of ugly weeps from when you skinned your knee when you were three and had no idea how to process that information.
There is a spectacular supporting cast. Paul Sorvino as Capulet, Brian Dennehy as Montague, the formidable Diane Venora as Lady Capulet, the hugely underrated M. Emmet Walsh as the apothecary. And gosh darned Peter Postlethwaite, the priest who knows the true identity of Kaiser Soze. Miriam Margolyes as The Nurse, a mainstay of British comedy and acting with a portfolio that should have shamed the other actors sharing a screen with her, except Peter Postelthwaite. John Leguizamo who obviously owed somebody a favor and showed up to this movie. A tremendous amount of talent passing on and off the screen. And it's entirely wasted because Baz Luhrmann had to make a "cool" movie.
If 15 year old me were writing this, it would be in big loopy letters with hearts over the "i"'s pining for my beloved Romeo. 36 year old me says spare me the special effects, ham fisted metaphors(ooh, you know this is where the movie becomes really dark because the sky becomes really dark!), insufferable editing, and give me Paul Rudd. He seems like the adult in the room who's got his life together. I don't think he owned a gun. He probably had a great credit score, job security, and a 401k. Aside from the whole marrying a 14 year old, because that's gross, he seemed like an ok guy. Someone put Paris on a registry please.
However, this movie will sit on my guilty pleasure shelf to remind of the days when all that mattered were hair, makeup, clothes, and zits. Because, despite its flaws, it actually is fun to watch. If you forget that the great bards prose and poetry are being munched and chewed and accept it for the 90's period piece that it is. You can laugh along at the funny moments, recollect at the " my parents just don't understand" moments, and sigh at the romantic moments. We were all teenagers once. While that doesn't make this movie good, it redeems it from being unwatchable.
In summary, Romeo + Juliet was basically a great soundtrack your boyfriend had at his house when you went over to do what teenagers did before Netflix and chill. It screams "love me, love me". And the rest, to paraphrase another play, is angsty silence.
Prank Encounters (2019)
The only person getting pranked/punk'd/tricked/experimented is the viewer
It's hard not to like Gaten Matarazzo. He has an earnestness of character and a youthful charm that is appealing to any viewer. And that's the draw here. You get to see your favorite kid from Stranger Things. But star power is not enough to make this show even remotely enjoyable.
The premise of two random people picked to fill a one night job being thrust into a paranormal/horror situation has been done to death - no pun intended. However, this show fails spectacularly on every other level as well. From the poor concepts to the terrible and obvious makeup(see the doctor in episode two whose bald cap is clearly coming away from his scalp), it leaves the viewer wondering " exactly who is being fooled here?" There are moments when the people being duped look like they're either not believing what they're seeing or that they're going to burst out laughing. And it's not because they think what they're seeing is real or they're laughing nervously. The sheer absurdity of the stories and situations - compiled, it would seem, with minimal research despite an abundance of material from which to draw - are enough to make anyone call shenanigans(see episode one where teddy ruxbin on steroids runs around a house pushing people off of balconies.) Additionally, shots of Gaten talking to the crew in the trailer and him running out of the trailer to surprise his victims are so recycled the digital files might get corrupted if they continue to use them.
The real heroes here are Matt Silfen and Ryan Wise who had to piece together hours of mind numbing footage and cram it into a half hour of barely watchable tv.
I'm not here to denigrate folks who enjoy this sort of tv. We all have guilty pleasures. (I love Star Wars: Rebels and I'll binge watch the out of it, fight me.) This show smacks too much of the over mighty Netflix making a cash grab off of the stars name - yeah, I know he got paid, too - and of the company trying to branch out into reality tv. One would think Netflix would have kicked in extra money for better special effects.
There are so many flaws in this show that it is hard to see past them. Every negative review I've read includes the word cringe for a very good reason. The episodes are so bad they almost inflict real pain on the viewer. The only person in the room at this point getting pranked is you.
If you took the time to read this, then you have been spared the time watching the series. Give it a pass.
Medici (2016)
All that glitters
Oh look, Guido Caprino is galloping across the countryside on the same horse on what appears to be a different day though the scenery and the weather are all suspiciously similar. That is what I found myself saying by episode four. I had lost count of these instances while watching Medici: Masters of Florence. Warning: a few vague spoilers ahead The show opens using the ancient device of flashbacks to tell the story of how Cosimo De' Medici learned the arts of politicking, deception, and supply chain management from his now dead father, artfully played by Dustin Hoffman who left his occasional dampness at home and brought his most refined Shylock with him. The problem is that this particular storytelling device is so clumsily introduced it is distracting instead of absorbing. This continues from episode to episode with varying degrees of success and relevance. I appreciate the writing of Nicholas Meyer who brought us The Prince of Egypt and Star Trek IV - "the one with the whales" but there is little fluidity to be found here. The real art of the show lies in its cinematography, costuming, and locale. Even the CGI is magnificent and it is clear that is where the budget went. A host of cultivated actors fill out the cast and do their best with a script that requires you believe that the 1400's were really fraught with hygiene, good teeth, and a Florence that has a population of 12 people - and those 12 move to Rome when it too needs a population. The wink and nod at Game of Thrones in episode two might make a few fans laugh or gawk at the screen for a moment but that moment then leads to a reminder that we are watching a TV show and not immersed in the rich history of one of the renaissance's finest, most ingenious, most insidious families that impacted the rule of kingdoms far flung and for generations to come. I will not nit pick at historical accuracy. These shows invariably reshape the story to make a point or to move the plot along and this is storytelling, not a history class. If you are taking these shows as gospel, then you are doing it wrong. If you are taking it as inspiration to learn more, you are doing it right. The best performances come from the often purse-lipped but quietly determined Annabel Scholey as Contessina "You can't rob Peter to pay...Peter", David Bamber who always is supremely cast as the complication - see BBC's Pride & Prejudice and try not to shift uncomfortably at his Mr. Collins - portraying Pope Eugenius IV, and Frances Barber as the glorious and devious Piccarda whose role leaves a lasting mark throughout the first season. Brian Cox embraces his supporting role as Guadagni with such subtlety that, although a big name, his presence adds depth rather than detracts from his scenes. Unfortunately, Lex Shrapnel, a standout in K-19 The Widowmaker, doesn't quite know what to do with his hands or his character. His gestures are stiff and awkward, sometimes dramatically holding a pose for a photographer that isn't there which works on stage but is jarring on screen. And, instead of demonstrating the internal struggle of a once good man twisted with his desire for revenge, he goes for all out deluded and irredeemable. Bad guys need to be just likable enough that their impetus, their struggle is something that can garner, even subconsciously, the audience's empathy - unless they're inexplicably and completely mad with evil. Shrapnel's Albizzi is sometimes smug, sometimes self-righteous, and quickly loses credibility. Warning: super-vague spoiler ahead: Richard Madden does what he can with a character that only seems to develop off-screen. Bad things happen "around" Cosimo not "because of" Cosimo. He doesn't appear to learn anything until much much later from his father's often blunt and brutal lessons and, in fact, doesn't seem to merit them anything more than a sad sideways glance and a shrug in the moment. His transformation is happenstance. His behavior toward Contessina is supposed to be explained in the flashbacks but slides back and forth from hot to cold in a manner that defies explanation. A sudden and completely forced change of character comes about mid season upon Cosimo's return home that leaves the viewer wondering just what the heck happened on that stretch of road between Venice and Florence because it sure didn't happen in the city of canals. By the end of the season, it seems like all the actors know where they need to be in their performances but Mr. Madden continues to bear the appearance of a young man in the clothes of an adult, both in form and in role. Whether this is the result of weak writing or weak directing or a combination, I'm unsure. Perhaps in season two he will have found his sea legs. Ultimately, the show is watchable and, in many places, very enjoyable. One cannot escape, however, the feeling that the viewer is being fed little pieces of digestible candy for story. There's an almost patronizing simplicity to the writing that removes the "vanishing point" and generates a two-dimensional result. Great actors can do a lot with very little and the very good actors here satisfy more than enough. Now let's watch Guido Caprino gallop across the same countryside on the same sunny day for the nineteenth time. That horse never gets tired.