profhound Reviews

The Partridge Family (1970–1974)

Great First Season

[15 June 2005]

This was a fun family show and was at its best in the first season. It was refreshing to see a family sitcom without the treacle of The Brady Bunch. Unfortunately, like many sitcoms, it ran for more seasons than it should have. (Ricky Segal, arrgh! What were they thinking??)

I would like to respectfully correct the review posted here by Siobhan from Chicago: Barry Gibb did not write "Dirty Work" -- it was written by the two members of Steely Dan, Donald Fagen and Walter Becker. Matter of fact, as far as I know, it never appeared on a Partridge Family album. David Cassidy recorded it in 1979, and it was released on a 1991 compilation, "Best of David Cassidy."

Once Upon a Time in the Midlands (2002)

Very disappointing

[2/10 · 4 April 2005]

I'm a huge fan of British films and was so looking forward to Once Upon a Time in the Midlands when I first read about it. It sounded like a sure thing: fun storyline, fabulous cast (Ricky Tomlinson, Kathy Burke, Rhys Ifans, Shirley Henderson Robert Carlyle), all actors I love. There are a few good moments with Tomlinson and Burke, as well as Jimmy's bumbling Glaswegian gang. The standout actor is Finn Atkins, who plays Henderson's daughter. Also worth noting is the soundtrack, which, alas, is apparently unavailable for purchase.

And somehow, all of these promising components resulted in something I would've thought an impossibility: a British comedy that lacks charm. Try as I might, I could not care about any of the characters. Henderson's Shirley is whiny and childish, and we're not given nearly enough information on why she's torn between her two equally-immature suitors. Her current boyfriend, Dek (Ifans) is a sweet sad sack, a milquetoast who had me bouncing between wanting to turn away from his relentless pathos to wondering why on earth he's still interested in Shirley after she turns down his marriage proposal on TV, lies to him about where she's going so she can see Jimmy, lets Jimmy move into her house, etc.

Jimmy is depressingly hopeless, with none of the entertaining qualities that keep you watching Robert Carlyle's usual dodgy-boy portrayals (e.g., Jo Jo, Begbie, Gaz). There's nothing like that here, not even a hint of the boyish charm that often reels naive or insecure women into relationships with guys like this. He's the consummate unlovable loser who refuses to grow up. He's not particularly dangerous, he has no depth. Like the rest of the characters in OUTM, I never feel I'm given a reason to care about what happens to him. It is to Carlyle's immense credit that he insisted they remove a rape scene from the script. (A rape scene, can you imagine?? This movie was depressing enough without adding that.) Jimmy may be a lot of things, but he never strikes me as a rapist.

Finally -- aside from the soundtrack, barren streets and a few long shots -- why oh why didn't the writers expand more on the "spaghetti western" theme? What fun they could've had with that. My disappointment with OUTM may sound a little strident. I guess I feel the impatience of a parent with a gifted child who's not doing his best; with all that potential, I expected more.

Bruno (2000)

Totally unbelievable, but too much pathos for fantasy

[13 September 2004]

What were all of these fine stars thinking when they agreed to be involved with this chaos? I truly mean no offense to those of you here who love this film, but good grief! As has been mentioned, it was too ambiguous about what it was trying to say (if anything). The writers really needed to decide on the story they wanted to tell. Was this supposed to be about a kid responding to a religious epiphany, or a kid experiencing a gender identity crisis? The script insists that it's the former, so let's assume for the sake of argument that's the case. (See "Ma Vie en Rose" for a definitive film on the latter.)

If we're to believe that Bruno's choices come from a vision he had rather than confusion regarding gender or other issues, the film should have depicted him trying to imitate angels and religious figures by dressing in robes, not Cher's castoffs. (That could've been just as interesting, maybe more so -- I'm sure the Catholic school would've found Bruno's imitations of the Pope or Jesus just as shocking.) I find it impossible to believe that a boy that age would calmly discuss his La Cage aux Folles wardrobe as his way to open people's eyes to the beauty of Heaven, that he's not afraid of dying at the hands of people who would want to kill him for appearing in public this way, ad nauseam. (The conversation about all this between Bruno and grandmother MacLaine was absurd.)

If Bruno's motivations had been based on confusion, I would be the first to defend his right to wear dresses and appear feminine. This makes all the difference, and this is what I find offensive about this story passing itself off as a testament to tolerance. Unless there's a darn good reason for it, who in their right mind would let their nine-year-old boy run around looking like that? We're not talking about boys imitating Roman warriors, the Pope, Dalai Lama, and other historic figures Bruno cites in his argument to nun Kathy Bates (delivered with far too much confidence for a little boy coming from a screwed-up broken home, genius be damned). We're talking about a boy (who keeps insisting he doesn't want to be a girl, yeahrightsure) wearing decidedly feminine dresses, sequins and tiaras, MAKEUP and WIGS. AAHHGGHH!! These ensembles, fetching though they may be, have nothing to do with visions of angels or holy vestments. The kid is a mini drag queen, and the adults are wrong to encourage him in such outrageous public display, especially at school. Age nine is far too young to understand the implications of such things. The film gives the impression that anyone who has trouble with Bruno's actions is intolerant, homophobic, etc. What nonsense. Another reviewer said there are plenty of straight men who dress up in women's clothing. The key word is MEN.

I will say that the film looks very nice and some of the performances are fine. Alex Linz does a great job, but his dialogue is badly written; it simply doesn't ring true of a child. I'm simply not convinced that, having been through all Bruno supposedly has been through in his short life, he would be so self-assured.

Big Animal (2000)

Beautiful film ... I wish I hadn't seen it ...

[15 June 2004]

SPOILERS AHEAD. The cinematography of The Big Animal is stunning, and the charm of the majestic camel and Zygmunt and Marysia -- the sweet couple who care for him -- is immense. (Scenes of the camel having dinner with the couple, and humming along as Zygmunt practices clarinet are standouts.) It's rare to see someone star and direct simultaneously with such grace (Jerzy Stuhr). I also believe we can never have too many lessons about individuality, social conformity, tolerance, and so on. Having said that, I must say that this was arguably the biggest misrepresentation of a film by its critics since Muriel's Wedding. (I remember that movie being touted as a comedy, and I thought it was anything but.) I read reviews for The Big Animal with descriptions such as "hilarious," "delightful," "family movie." Are they kidding? Granted, we see no violence; as a matter of fact, we don't know exactly what happens to the camel, which is probably just as well. There are sufficient indications that it's not good. What I found as depressing as the camel's fate is the fact that an entire town -- save one little girl -- could so viciously turn against two of its longtime upstanding citizens over something so minor. A camel wanders into their lives, they love the camel, they simply want to keep it and let it enjoy life without exploitation. Apparently, in this village, that's too much to ask.

Having read other imdb comments, I'm intrigued by how differently I responded to some scenes. Someone here wrote about not being able to stop laughing at a scene in which the townspeople gather outside the couple's house, silent and grim-faced, one holding a sign that says "OUT." I found this scene terribly upsetting. The intolerance of the community is despicable. Once they finally take matters into their own hands (without taking responsibility, all done in cowardice during the night), they turn around and say boorish things to Zygmunt like, "It's for the best, let's let bygones be bygones." If I were faced with such cruelty from my so-called neighbors, I would pack my bags and tell them all where to go.

I understand that this story is a fable, filled with symbolism and metaphor, and as such is essentially over the top. It's best not to consider it in terms of strict realism. But I cried for ten minutes after this film ended, for the couple's plight as well as the camel's. Their reward for being kind, decent people is to discover they don't have a single friend in their own community. Though the final scene is gentle and beautiful, it wasn't enough; I left the theater filled with despair. The Big Animal is a beautiful, quality film, full of important life lessons. I just wish the lessons could've been learned by the people in the story who needed to learn them -- and offered to us, the audience, with a degree of hope in the end.

The Ring (2002)

OK, but no Ringu

[29 March 2004]

Some great scary scenes, and some respectable acting. But now that I've see Ringu, I wonder, why did they make this film? They copied certain aspects of it so closely that it seemed like a "why bother" remake. But what mystifies me is the things they changed from the original that they SHOULD HAVE copied. The story in the U.S. version is so convoluted, and some of it simply doesn't make sense. I walked out of the theater a bit trembly from the effective shock scenes ... then I started thinking, "Hey, wait a minute... what about ... and how did ... ??" All these questions popped into my head later, little things that just didn't add up. Soon after that, I rented Ringu, which was so beautifully done -- slick, streamlined story, tight acting and editing, great suspense build. It left me wondering why the U.S. filmmakers went to so much trouble to screw up a simple story that made a lot more sense, when they were determined to copy to a "T" so many other aspects. Oh, and KUDOS to the earlier poster who bemoaned the fact that the U.S. version didn't mention the original in the credits; for shame! Suffice to say, the shocks that made me jump in The Ring didn't stick with me, while the suspense and poignancy of the original still comes to mind.

Lassie (1954–1974)

Beautiful show

[4 November 2003]

I, too, have to chime in with the folks who prefer "Jeff's Collie" to the other incarnations of "Lassie". Tommy Rettig, rest his soul, was superb, as were Jan Clayton and George Cleveland (and the wonderful boy who played Porky, sorry, I've forgotten his name). Perfect family entertainment -- and a brilliant vehicle for teaching young and old alike the all-important lessons in empathy and do unto others. What better way to learn how to look beyond appearances and taking things at face value, than taking the time to understand what a dog is feeling or trying to tell us? Sometimes the storylines were amazing, considering the time. I saw a rerun last week that dealt with the evils of people who engage in pit bull dogfights! I feel very fortunate to have grown up with Lassie.

BTW, thanks to the poster who remembers the book "Lassie and the Secret of the Summer" -- I LOVED that book!

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (2002)

In a word: Refreshing

[9 June 2003]

Lovely film! SPOILERS ahead ...

Major kudos to whoever decided that the horses wouldn't sing or talk. OK, there may be some inconsistencies with the anthropomorphizing, and maybe the animation isn't stellar compared to some things out there. But how refreshing to see a simple, sweet story about a beautiful animal with loads of heart, in his quest for freedom no matter what. How refreshing to see an animated feature with none of the following: scatological humor, mean-spiritedness, adult-oriented jokes, cynicism, and inane techno-pop music. (Lush orchestration throughout, like classic 30s and 40s Disney features. I would've liked songs by Calexico instead of Bryan Adams, but his work was suitable.) I'm sorry for all those jittery viewers who couldn't relax and enjoy the slower pace and simplicity of this charming film. I also enjoyed the rather surprising twist of the Custer-type allowing Spirit to escape.

I have no problem with the portrayal of the white men as the bad guys. It's a shame that truth isn't spelled out more clearly in history books; I was many years out of school when I learned of the inexcusable genocide of the Native Americans and their way of life. (All the more shameful considering that the whites came to America to escape oppression.) There are good and bad members of all races and creeds, and we've endured decades of Hollywood whitewashing (pardon the expression) and rewriting of history at the Native Americans' expense. Why not do a complete turnaround in the other direction for a change?