Silver Screen in a Red Envelope: A Diary of Time Wasted

 I can't believe this movie worked. It shouldn't have worked. It doesn't have much star appeal, any unique plot elements, or real surprises. Rottentomatoes.com hated it. I loved it. The scenes in Ireland captured a sort of comfortable European-ness. Although really witty dialogue is obviously out of fashion, the writers of this script managed some truly lively conversations and memorable moments without doing any uncomfortable calisthenics. I think my love for this film stems from the just-off moral tightrope the characters walk. Anna (Amy Adams) never cheats on Jeremy (Adam Scott). Declan (a scrumptious Matthew Goode) never hits on her. Jeremy seems to be an innocent victim of circumstance (eventually! Amy and Matthew did a WONDERFUL job pretending to be truly spiteful to each-other), until Anna discovers Jeremy's true character, and realizes why she has fallen in love with someone else. It made sense. I think I was won completely over when both characters were f...

Gerard Depardieu handled his part brilliantly until the final scenes. His deep-set eyes and expressive shoulders carried the manly poet character clearly. Unfortunately, his death scene/scenes felt protracted and almost comical. They remained true to the nature of his final injury, though. He certainly seemed almost completely delirious. I feel certain from the tone and overall plot that this story is mean to be a tragedy, or at least a tragic farce. I felt that had Cyrano's character been better written (better translated? I was, after all, stuck reading the subtitles due to the almost *ahem* decade since I last studied French), the romantic potential would have been almost boundless. I feel about Cyrano much as recent writers feel about Count Dracula. The romantic potential is simply unfulfilled. This version of the film had extremely disappointing English subtitles, as if someone who didn't speak a word of French or Spanish used a computer program to translate. The word...

Other than Roger Ebert and the New York Times, this movie is a beloved cult classic. Last night, a Sunday, I finally had little else to do but torture my little teenage sister as she attempted some last-minute homework for her least-beloved teacher. I decided a little nostalgia was in order. I had forgotten how often this film made me laugh. The expressions Bud Cort (as Harold) makes to the camera sent me into paroxysms. The anti-war jokes, the auto theft, the priest's marital advice. . . riotous. This time around, I noticed a peculiar visual balance, and not just when Harold imitated his psychiatrist. The scenes, when not asymmetrical head-shots and close-ups, were often balanced symmetrically between either opposing symbols (order and chaos, death and life, horror and humor, etc), or contained a symmetrical object that symbolized some kind of bridge between two oppositions. This fits brilliantly with the films odd-couple themes and extreme images. I used to hesitate to recomm...

Everybody loves this movie. I found it a little slow the second time around, but the language and themes were all very refreshing. The script was obviously written back in the era when it was acceptable to be witty, even if it didn't sound completely natural. Think anything by Neil Simon. Personally, I like a little unnatural dialogue, as long as it's unnatural for a good reason. It's dialogue that sounds stilted for no apparent reason that bothers me, and this movie didn't have much of that, so I approve. I could see this movie being quite risque back in the day. As a matter of fact, my mother refuses to watch it, stating that if it she hadn't seen it in 1969 when it came out, she probably had a darn good reason. And she did. Speaking moralistically, this movie is quite troubling, although no standards of decency (with the exception of some truly alarming mini-skirts) seem much crossed. The swearing is at a minimum, extra- and pre-marital sex is alluded to only, ...

This television adaptation of Tennessee Williams's classic play suffered from all the unfortunate side effects of theater productions. That is to say, I suffer from all the side effects of my impatient age. I got bored. Or I would have, if I hadn't been playing tetris the whole time. I really don't blame the movie, though. Visually, the camera angles changed regularly, the colors had subtle fluxuations, and the themes and characterization were complex and engaging. I admire the acting very much. Poor Kathryn Hepburn had to play a seriously grating character, but she did it brilliantly. Sam Waterston fully realized the depth of his role. Joanna Miles, who didn't have much to work with in the way of dialogue, seemed to do just fine, too. It seemed, though, a role designed for the over-actor. Even so, Miles did well enough. I had never seen or read the play before I saw this production, but I wasn't disappointed. Although I found the ending unpleasantly ambiguous, ...

When Alfred Hitchcock set out to direct a comedy, I'm not sure how much success he was expecting, but The Trouble With Harry has some undeniably hilarious moments. The script has some very clever moments, although quite a few of the jokes would fall flat for current, jaded audiences. For instance, a punchline about a double-bed just doesn't have the punch it once did. The movie overall revolves around a corpse, making for a somewhat morbid experience, although all of the characters involved with said corpse seem unusually jaded, leaving only the villain, the deputy Calvin Wiggs, to express sincere shock at the presence of death. This juxtaposition of truth from the villain appears in several movies I've seen lately, and I'm beginning to wonder if there's a name for it, or if it serves some kind of purpose. During the movie, one doesn't identify with the villain. One fears him for the sake of the heroes. But to look back and realize that one identified more w...

The title of this film sounds unfortunately a bit too much like The Dead Poet's Society , and has a similar theme and setting. Ultimately, I think this similarity is a detriment to The Emperor's Club , because although there are certainly similarities, the major differences and highlighted themes tell their own story. The featured teacher is classics professor Hundert who deals with a particularly unruly student with his own set of issues all during a time when he faces obscurity, administrative pressures, and forbidden love. Where professor Keating tried to push the boys out of their conservative shells with his liberalistic literature, Hundert rather attempts to instill in his boys a sense of morality, and values of honesty, integrity, and the rewards of hard work. Although he isn't always the best example of these things, I find most of his major life choices admirable, and that Hundert makes a plausible and acceptable role model. Unfortunately, Hundert makes the inte...