maerrie1 Reviews

Just Friends (I) (2005)

Utter rubbish, even for a rom-com

[1/10 · 28 February 2017]

With respect, I am puzzled by the positive reviews for this flick. Maybe it's just not my type of humour, but I found it lacking genuine wit and relying instead on the characters occasionally yelling and making strange noises, or acting completely out of character in some way. While I have no problem with suspension of disbelief, I do think a movie needs a reasonable premise to work with. And this is where the possible spoilers come in...

I get that the main character, Chris, might feel just as insecure as he used to in high school when faced with his former unrequited crush. But to act like the last 10 years never happened, for basically the whole movie once he gets back home, is unrealistic. In LA he's an ace in the ice hockey rink, but back home he can't even stay upright (rental skates are inferior but not THAT bad - besides why didn't he just buy himself a new pair with a sliver of his handsome music exec salary??). Also, looking at the two of them - he's the successful, hardworking person with quite a glamorous career and financially very well off, while she's living with her parents and working in a bar. Yet somehow, she's Miss Confidence Incarnate and he's still the loser? Not convincing. Besides, if he really does revert to high school geek around Jamie, he wouldn't be such a jerk so often. Speaking of jerk - I know the wannabe singing sensation is clearly a crazy narcissist, but Chris treats her like dirt. His behaviour to her is so disrespectful, dragging her around by her arm all over the place, forcing plans on her that she openly objects to, exploiting her (deranged, but still genuine) attraction to him for financial gain, letting his gross in-heat brother loose on her, and generally deriding her every chance he gets. This is SO not OK. Neither is the sub-plot in which a group of kids relentlessly tease and bully Chris and nobody ever disciplines them.

I do know it's meant to be just a bit of light entertainment, and I'm not incapable of enjoying slightly unrealistic films, but when the plot holes are big enough to fit a hundred high horses on a moral crusade through, it's not light entertainment anymore. It's giving credibility to culturally poisonous attitudes that shouldn't be implicitly propagated and normalised in film.

Passengers (I) (2016)

We should all squirm when watching this!!!

[3/10 · 20 January 2017]

I should start by saying that I think this film gets a lot of things right. It's very real, it's very beautiful, it's wonderfully acted, it's interesting and engaging. But I have a MASSIVE problem with the central premise, and I am astonished to the point of outrage that other user reviews completely ignore this glaring, morally bankrupt problem.

**SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER**

I am glad that the movie takes the time to have Jim think very carefully about whether or not to wake Aurora. I am totally on board with the emotional anguish Jim must have felt, with no human contact for over a year. I have sympathy for his situation.

BUT!!!!!!

What he did in waking Aurora was an abuse of power. He ignored her right to choice (and she had chosen to be in extended hibernation until the ship docked in Homestead). He woke her for entirely selfish (albeit understandable) reasons. When Aurora tells Gus - rightly - that Jim's actions are tantamount to murder, he basically responds, "get over it, what was the poor guy to do?" And none of us should be okay with that.

This plot device is deeply disturbing because it propagates the view that men's emotions are more important than women's. It's okay for men to abuse their power/authority if there are "extenuating circumstances"- and if there are, then the victim (woman/other man/child) just needs to shush up already. The victim's trauma is immaterial if the perpetrator was feeling upset/stressed/unhappy/whatever.

Look. I understand that Jim was suffering in his loneliness. But what happened to him was an accident; what happened to Aurora was Jim's choice, and he had no right to make that choice.

And what makes it worse is that this moral travesty is being sold to us as a love story. What exactly was Aurora going to do, stuck on a ship with only one other human being? Of course she was going to form an emotional connection with Jim. But that's not love, it's called Stockholm Syndrome. And once it developed, the manipulative, victim/abuser dynamic was established. Aurora's choice to stay awake with Jim was not a choice - it was impossible for her to regain agency by that point.

I want to like this film and I thought the actors were fabulous - Jennifer Lawrence, especially. But I'm sorry - I just can't get past the implicit message that abuse of power in relationships is ever okay. Keep your kids away from this one.

Tess of the D'Urbervilles (2008)

Solid, but not brilliant

[6/10 · 26 September 2012]

I only recently watched this when it was on TV, but have been familiar with the book for years. I was entertained enough to watch all four episodes so that's a good start.

This production has many good points, the leading among them Gemma Arterton. She is fresh, intelligent and passionate and brings just the right touch of melancholy and spiritedness to Tess. She has the right type of natural beauty so that visually she complements the emotional qualities of her portrayal quite perfectly.

In fact, most of the leading characters were well played. I especially enjoyed Hans Mathieson's Alec, the villain with heart but a twisted core.

The photographic qualities of the film are fabulous, a real luxury; but not at the expense of the story. The trials and upheavals of Tess' life are faithfully and movingly shown. I think the story works very well, about 95% of the time, as a particular tale about particular people. This is what I enjoyed about it, but Hardy's novel does more than just tell a particular tale.

For the most part, the archetypal aspects of the leads (Tess, Angel & Alec) are insufficiently hinted at. For example, I don't think it's made clear enough that Angel loves Tess because she represents an ideal of feminine purity to him - in the book he calls her things like daughter of nature and Demeter, and this is unsatisfyingly absent here. Alec's more general role as the stronger force that distorts others' lives for the sake of personal convenience or transient pleasure could also have been more thoroughly explored (but his particular villainy and perverted love are artfully and powerfully portrayed). Angel, too, is more than just a man- he stands for the middle class with uncompromising values, no compassion and unjust double standards, which lead him to see Tess' misfortune as a greater crime than his voluntary "moral holiday" in London. Tess herself is perhaps better depicted as a representation of womanhood in her time - acute and sensitive, intelligent and hard-working, yet at the mercy of forces greater than her, and made to pay for 'sins' that she is not responsible for.

Despite the above, I don't think this is a huge omission; a novel and a mini-series are two different mediums, and if the makers thought they couldn't fit all of this into their production it was as well to leave it out altogether. So overall, still worth watching.

However I also have a gripe about the last episode, where I think the writer/s really dropped the ball. After a lengthy absence in which he sends no word, Angel suddenly reappears and has done a complete about-face with respect to his feelings about Tess. What changes his mind? What happened while he was gone? This seriously undermines the credibility of everything that happens from the moment of his return, because no reason is given for his radical change of heart. I feel that the story, character development and momentum hold up very well until Angel's return- and then drop off. This is a real shame - but while disappointing it doesn't ruin the rest of the production. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.

Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (2012–2015)

Fun, classy, and pretty to look at

[7/10 · 25 May 2012]

As someone who hasn't read Kerry Greenwood's novels, I found this entertaining, light- hearted and aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps a little formulaic and not particularly creative in its plot devices, but altogether an enjoyable way to while away an hour on a Friday night. In fact, I may now read the novels after all.

However, as I haven't read them I can't really comment on the criticisms of other reviewers that the storyline was changed and that the main character suffered in her translation from print to screen. Obviously it's often difficult to leave a story unchanged because it just doesn't work in film the way it does in a book; and who knows what other (budgetary) restrictions the production was working within.

The sometimes ponderous camera work and precise, deliberate acting reminded me pleasantly of the Poirot series- although Phryne Fisher is rather racier than the little Belgian. I enjoyed the recreation of late-20s Melbourne, including the bright, interesting wardrobe of the leading lady. I got a little annoyed in some of the middle episodes that the storyline concerning Phryne's sister appeared to be dropped as it was the most intriguing thing about the early episodes, but I was satisfied by the end of the series. I also liked the development of the friendship between Phryne and Jack Robinson, and Hugh & Dot were quite cute too.

Don't sit down to this expecting something mind-altering or deeply intellectual. This is quality b-grade and proud of it; it does its thing very well indeed.

Thank God You're Here (2007)

The Original is the Best?

[3 January 2008]

It's a real shame that the US show seems to not work that well. In Australia we've had 3 seasons with possibly a 4th on the way and it just keeps getting better.

If any of you can, get yourself a copy of the original concept show because it's really amusing and such good value. Granted some of the guest stars fare worse than others, but on the whole it's a blast to watch.

I guess there could be a cultural aspect to its (comparative) failure in the US because Aussies have a pretty unique sense of humour which is sometimes not shared by other "westerners".

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

A good but not excellent film

[6/10 · 26 October 2005]

I enjoyed this film, however I still thought it was flawed. While Mathew MacFayden was an acceptable Darcy, I thought his puppy-dog look compromised the pride and aloofness that Darcy should have had, in the beginning of the film at least. MacFayden's Darcy was too amiable really. Keira Knightley was good but not excellent. I never got the feeling that Lizzie had the intellect and depth to attract someone like Darcy, which is a shame because the whole film centres on the unlikely attraction between the two - unlikely because Darcy thought that with an inferior education and upbringing, someone in Lizzie's position could never equal him.

The scenery was just gorgeous, the costumes were lovely if a little mixed (ie the older ladies were wearing late 18th century fashions & the younger ladies were dressed for the times), the Bennet girls all talked over one another as any real sisters would do, and the general quality of the actors was very fine. I found the film extremely grainy at times, which detracted from the aesthetically pleasing way it was shot. The heightened emotion in scenes such as the first proposal and Lady Catherine's unexpected visit at Longbourn was done well by changing something about the traditional story (ie the proposal happens outside in a rainstorm & Lady Catherine barges into Longbourn in the middle of the night).

I loved Bingley, his bumbling and the way he was always tongue-tied around Jane was so endearing. Unfortunately by bundling Jane off to London immediately after Bingley left the country and keeping her out of the action for the next half hour, one does not sense her heartbreak, or understand just how close she and Bingley came to losing each other forever.

The story was fast-paced, which is excusable considering how much there was to fit into two hours, and some of the scenes (the first dance, the ball and the scene with Lizzie looking at the statues at Pemberley) slowed it down too much and also took up valuable room that could have been usefully employed with more character exposition or story development.

Despite some disappointments, I really enjoyed this film. A good one to add to the DVD collection for a rainy day (once it's released of course).