Change Your Image
peter-1324
Reviews
Love on the Side (2004)
This film is a little jewel
I chose this film from Blockbuster because it said on the label "a must-see for all fans of 'Bridget Jones Diary'". My 16 year old daughter had just seen Bridget Jones' diary and said she wanted a film just like that, so I chose this. I expected the worst and, for once, I was real pleasantly surprised. This film has a very intelligent script, that does a lovely job of playing with the stereotypes. It has the usual characters found in small-town America (actually Canada, this one): lovable waitress, football star jock, sweet young teenager with lifelong crush on said jock. But then it stirs these around in unexpected ways: the outsider who comes into break the small town harmony has, shall we say, rather surprising characteristics; lovable waitress is actually deeply in love with a mortuary worker; the football jock runs a motel, and so on. There is some lovely thoughtful direction here too: one shot, of the umbrellas at a funeral, is worthy of Chabrol, and the film is cunningly punctuated by black and white shots of the changing titles at the local movie house, just slightly edging the film to the surreal (and, there is a nice joke on pork belly investments too). It is superbly acted, in a relaxed and understated way. Overall, a modest, unassuming, but veritable delight, that kept us all giggling and intrigued throughout. It is worth far more than the 5.4 it currently rates. It puts to shame many a movie made with far more money and with big name stars (eg, the tiresome Bridget Jones films). Go find it and watch it.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
truly dire
This was the worst film I have seen in years: indeed, the worst ever, if you consider how much money was spent on it. It is right up there with Heaven's Gate, or Antony and Cleopatra, in terms of how much money, intelligence and talent was expended for so bad a result. Just a few instances: Paul Bettany's naked bottom, yet again. In case we had not seen enough of this in The Knight's Tale (where at least it was deployed to great humorous effect -- as a long-time Chaucer scholar, I can tell you that the naked Chaucer was worth a thousand dull articles) we see it not just once, not twice, but -- oh, I stopped looking after a while. And just in case we had not got the message, that this was one weird monk: we saw him whipping himself and the blood dripping off his leg again, and again, and in case we had not got the message, yet again. And what sort of brilliant direction is it, that EVERY TIME some historical event is mentioned (Mary Magdalen at the cross, Constantine, etc) we got to have a full-blown flashback, done in swirly oh-this-is-the-past colours? And who wrote a script that managed to make the dull patches and longueurs in the book even duller and longer? As for the actors: Hanks and Tatou looked plain bored throughout, with a total lack of chemistry between them; McKellen provided the film's only bright moments, and that was it. Finally, I did something I have never done in films before: I did not go to sleep; I just STOPPED WATCHING. I did not see the last fifteen minutes. From the dull silence in the (packed) auditorium I think I was not alone in this reaction.