surangaf Reviews

The Americans: Darkroom (2017) Season 5, Episode 10

best episode so far of a good season

[9/10 · 6 June 2017]

do not be misled by the low rating and "yawn" of the other review posted up to now. in fact i am reviewing the episode partly because of that review. i fail to understand how anyone who has seen the previous 4 seasons, and other episodes of this season, can find this episode and season boring.

this specific episode has at least two directly contrasted, beautifully crafted and acted, scenes, with great emotional impact, that would, in addition, make any intelligent person think about lots of things, both in and out of the series.

this TV show is great precisely because of its willingness to develop and explore complex characterizations and motivations. it also explores values that guide people and societies. nobody is perfect or simple. there are multiple motives for actions within each character. different characters may engage in same or similar actions, due to very different or similar motives, even though they may or may not have much in common. from the first, series took its time to do all that, instead of rushing things.

show demands a lot from viewers. it explains some things, hints at others, and for others it lets viewers completely on their own. it is willing to let viewers feel uncomfortable and uneasy. it certainly won't give easy solutions, or in some cases any solution at all.

there was and are some enjoyable action sequences, though less after the first two seasons. but anyone sticking with the series would know by now that action sequences are only a secondary pleasure here.

in reply to other review, i would say paige was there from the first, and her far from perfect, whining self, is part of the fabric of this series, and she is more integral to its unique tone,than any of the rather interchangeable spying missions.

Edward the King (1975)

Historically inaccurate, one dimensional, propagandist, whitewash of an unsympathetic character

[2/10 · 20 August 2016]

I was not going to write review, thinking that deserved obscurity of this series now, in spite of its alleged popularity at the time of broadcast, should be enough of a response from posterity. Unfortunately, given the lack of historical knowledge among westerners, as exemplified in the reviews already posted (one of theme even praising the non existent historically accuracy, made me change my mind.

This is series is historically inaccurate throughout. This results from an propagandist desire to paint a picture of the main character in direct contrast to what is known about him through historical sources. In reality he was stupid, incompetent, uncultured, racist, intolerant, and extravagant. This series either ignore or deny some of those qualities. Those that have to be admitted are justified or excused. For example it can't deny he was an adulterous wastrel, but it repeatedly and implausibly claims that was because his mother did not give him any responsibilities.

In order to whitewash his irretrievably unsympathetic character, other characters must be slandered. So this series attacks Queen Victoria (who was vile enough in reality) in every possible way, using an absurdly overacting actress. Prime Ministers, husbands and family members of his mistresses, Kaiser, and lots more, are slandered using crudest methods.

In reality, this king had almost no effect on historical events, but he is portrayed as shaping events in vital ways. He was willing and knowing representative of one of the most brutish, oppressive, and exploitative, regimes ever to exist on earth; The British Empire. Comparable evil regimes of same scale did not appear on earth until middle of 20th century. Both imperial Russia and Germany as they existed from 1870s to World War 1, while bad, were not even on the same league when it comes to atrocities perpetrated by them. But this character is allowed to lecture others as if he was heading what is now called a 'liberal democracy'. While exaggerated aggression of Germany take a considerable part of screen time, hardly any mention of many bloody conquests, or resistance and independence struggles (and their brutal suppression) in 'colonies' are mentioned. Boer war, a struggle between two groups of colonizers, in which British were clearly the aggressor, is mentioned, but in a one sided way. Irish are laughed at using stereotypes.

To those who are not idiotic or ignorant, this series is nothing but crudely made propaganda of the worst kind.

The Americans: A Little Night Music (2014) Season 2, Episode 4

a good episode

[9/10 · 29 February 2016]

I write this mainly because only other review of this episode here, up to now, seem to be gratuitously wrong headed in its criticism.

While it is true that this series has the usual unbelievable plot elements that plague spy stories, TV series, and movies (time and place compression, with way too much violence and excitement, when in real world spying is a tedious boring job with not much violent action), what makes it special here is the way all of that is put together and presented, interesting and complex characters, and their interaction, especially as a family.

Secondly, other reviewer is wrong on specific points he/she makes.

For instance, children do not question about the car because they use other cars in addition to their family car. Viewer would have noticed this if he/she saw the Pilot episode when they used the family car to hide the captured defector and used a different car meanwhile, giving a false explanation to children.

In another example, while there is no doubt she is trying to manipulate the sailer (based on his character as briefed to her), an attentive viewer would have noticed that Elisabeth's rape account is not all fake (she was raped in the exact same way by a different person, see Pilot) and she is affected by what she recounts. That may explain her half success in the effort, than her 'magical' abilities.

In judging a series like this, one must take the genre at their own terms and then examine what the creators are doing with them. They are doing great in this series.

Poirot: Curtain: Poirot's Last Case (2013) Season 13, Episode 5

little grey cells get confused and irrational

[2/10 · 2 February 2016]

One has to be a brainless fan of Cristie and Poirot(in either the books or series who are somewhat different) to enjoy this episode.

Episode is a faithful adaptation of the book in main story points, skillfully fitted to character of Poirot, with his blinkered morality, as developed in later 'darker' episodes of the series.

From moral point of view, lousy logic used by Poirot to justify his murdering, and absolving of other murderers who have freely chosen to commit crimes, testify to either severe deterioration of his much referenced 'little grey cells', or Cristie's ironic revenge after developing a strong dislike for her character's smug pseudo rationality. Adapters did point to rather hypocritical moral compass of Poirot in several of the later episodes, such as 'The Clocks'. However they never seem to have the courage to carry it through to the end in any of them, and always dropped the ball before exposing the absurdity of Poirot's moral pontificating. They succeeded better when there is a distance between Poirot and characters going through a murder induced moral crisis, as in 'The Murder on the Orient Express'.

Here too adapters fail to challenge Poirot's irrational murder. Nor do they leave the story at the superficial moral level Cristie displays in books. Unlike her, they raise the moral issues explicitly and seriously, but instead of confronting them in their complexity, they let Poirot getaway with absurdity.

By the way, adapters in later part of series tried to imply that Poirot's blinkered morality is due to his pious Catholicism. However some of his moral positions do not fit with the Catholic teachings. If he is confused it due to his brain being confused.

Actors were good in the episode, but unlike in almost all episodes in series, up to but not including final season, production design was bad.

Poirot: The Labours of Hercules (2013) Season 13, Episode 4

A good episode, improves originals

[9/10 · 2 February 2016]

Almost all Cristie's stories, and this series based on them, are unbelievable. Don't expect realism from her.

What makes some of her stories 'classic', and highly entertaining, are complex challenging murder(or other criminal) plots(however absurdly impracticable), interesting characters, and more rarely, poignant drama and tragedy.

While this episodes is not faithful to the several original stories it is based on, it actually improves on them for most part. Most importantly, it is in the spirit of the best Cristie stories and best episodes of this series. As such it is highly entertaining.

Poirot's blinkered moral posture, was an important factor in more 'darker' latter episodes of this series. In contrast, Poirot is morally indifferent for most part in books and early episodes. However, while they were successful in confronting him with complex moral issues in some episodes (eg 'Murder on the Orient Express'), they let the ball drop in some others. It was especially disappointing when they raised complex moral issues but then refused to let Poirot confront them on screen (eg 'The Clocks). This episode does not disappoint on that score. Among others I liked the fact that principal criminal was explicit in condemning some of Poirot's moral blindnesses, in addition his failings as a detective.

Unfortunate lowering of quality of production design in the final season is quite obvious in this episode. This is a pity since from the start of series, to season before this, production design of this series was highly praiseworthy, almost without exception.

Poirot: Dead Man's Folly (2013) Season 13, Episode 3

Another impersonation plot by Cristie

[2/10 · 2 February 2016]

Another unbelievably stupid impersonation plot by Cristie, faithfully adapted for most part. It is one thing for her to run out of ideas, but only fans with their brains removed will not spot the many many holes in the whole story, and the absurd rehashing of all of the worst Cristie clichés.

Challenging complex murder plots (however absurd and impracticable), or interesting characters, or poignant drama and tragedy, that redeem the best Cristie stories and makes them 'classics', and highly entertaining, are all lacking in this one.

Even non regular viewers should be able to realize, before half way through, at least one person who was falsely pretending to be another. The changing of ending, which seems to imply that Poirot actively encouraged a murder suicide, is unnecessary, and against the spirit of books, where he is rather morally indifferent, and rest of the TV series (especially in later 'darker' ones), where he is shown to be piously Catholic and highly moralistic.

Some of the other episodes in final season display a certain falling off in high quality of production design that this series was known for (and justly praised for), but by restricting locations that particular new failing seems have been averted in this episode. That is the only good thing i can say about it. Unfortunately.

Poirot: Elephants Can Remember (2013) Season 13, Episode 1

a failure in all fronts

[2/10 · 25 January 2016]

Another failure in the series. Adopters make a bad story worse because they stick to Cristie's spirit.

Instead trying deny and ignore the holes and faults, if fans pay attention, they will see that in the episode Poirot and Oliver in fact discover almost nothing, as usual.

Whole of the 'solution' for early murders, though pronounced by Poirot, comes from the mouth of Zelie Rouxelle, with no supporting evidence.

But what does Zelie say? She actively conspired to murder Dorothea, after she has concealed another murder and actively taken part in an impersonation (that improbable Cristie cliché is here too). She also suppresses evidence by packing victim's child off to a lonely fate in another culture regardless of her feelings. Since General is dead, this abuse of child only benefits Zelie, and possibly Celia. These actions, indicate Zelie to be a monster. Where is Poirot's/Oliver's psychology? Now what if Zelie was lying? What if she and General murdered the wife and forced the impersonation on sick woman? Then decided to kill her too (and commit suicide in case of General) when she demanded her daughter be brought to house as price of cooperation? That is as good an explanation as what comes from Zelie's mouth.

Remember also the odd fact that she is in correspondence, 'as a friend' she insists, with the man who as a teenager had an obsession with her. But this correspondence, and her whereabouts, are actively concealed by both, from his fiancée, who has as much, non obsession, childhood links with her as him, and has sought their renewal.

After all that, Poirot completely trusts and empathizes with this admitted criminal, but pontificates with, and aggressively show contempt for, victim's abused child seeking revenge? Moral blinkers anyone? In this, adopters were certainly in line with Cristie's highly blinkered spirit.

Now let us consider the new murder, an addition by adopters. Poirot indeed discovers that secretary is not who she is, but he does not really break her alibi. No evidence for drugging the doctor is produced (or even mentioned until this is referred to at the end, in a classic mystery story 'cheat'). And why should she try to recklessly kill Desmond? How does she find about him and his connection to her family (remember he has no medical records with doctor)? If she is willing to take huge risks to kill Desmond, why doesn't she try to kill Celia, who she knows about, with much less risk, earlier? Seems psychologically and factually inconsistent. Of course structuring story as it is presented, allows for a cheap melodramatic throwing over the balcony and rescue thrill.

One of the best things about this series from start was the art direction, but this episode spoils that too, by use of obvious fake backgrounds in Paris and overcliffe scenes.

Poirot: Hallowe'en Party (2010) Season 12, Episode 2

absurdly stupid mystery and solution

[2/10 · 17 January 2016]

Another stinker. And it stinks because of the original story, and not due to any faults of adaptation. If anything, adaptation improves by more disciplined editing of loose ends, though not by much. Adaptation certainly makes it a bit scary (and entertaining) using commonplace horror movie tricks.

Basic storyline, as revealed at end, is extremely stupid. Cristie obviously liked convoluted contrived plots, but this is plain silly. To take the most obvious absurdity, why would murderers be in a clumsy hurry to kill in the middle of a party, in order to cover up a vague indefinite story that was not believed, when they wait and try other means with other witnesses/collaborators for days and months?

As usual Poirot pontificates at end, but fails to reveal any new evidence, he has discovered that would result in a conviction. Miranda's testimony about disposal of a buried body (which is withheld by her for no apparent reason even after her friend's death) and her own attempted murder, would certainly convict Garfield. But even Garfield's testimony (who is kept alive, unlike in novel, by adapters probably for this very purpose) would not be enough to convict Rowena Drake. All she and lawyers, have to do is to transfer all the charges Poirot/prosecution make against her to Miranda's mother. Given he was a lover of Miranda's mother, with possible interest to cover her, his testimony implicating Drake becomes worthless. After all, on one side there is only the quip (as Poirot quotes) that she "doth protest too much", on the other, there is a love child. Other evidence, if one can call it such, such as drenching of her dress, will not amount to anything in court.

Poirot: Three Act Tragedy (2010) Season 12, Episode 1

Agatha Christie resorts to impersonation, again

[2/10 · 17 January 2016]

Oh well! Another impersonation plot by Agatha Christie. This utterly unbelievable plot device seems to have been her fall-back option when she ran out of ideas. And she seems to have run out ideas pretty often, given how frequently she use it. In fact, if a story by her has actors as characters, almost without exception there is sure to be some impersonation plot (though device is resorted to even without actors as characters). In contrast, I doubt if there ever were more than handful of real murders that involved impersonation, out of hundreds of thousands committed.

Regular viewers and readers, familiar with Christie and the marked camera avoidance of butler's features, would have guessed the murderer very early. I for one, was hoping Christie, or adapters, would have twisted the plot to make someone else the murderer given his obviousness, making his impersonation just part of a practical joke gone wrong. No luck.

Poirot does some real investigations here and does find solid evidence, in contrast most other episodes.

One note: It was in fact legally possible, in UK, to divorce insane persons since 1920s. The plot of 2 movies named 'A Bill of Divorcement'(silent one in 1922 and Katharine Hepburn's debut movie in 1932), and their source play, were explicitly based on the that possibility.

Poirot: Appointment with Death (2008) Season 11, Episode 4

Awful book adapted into a ridiculous episode.

[2/10 · 16 January 2016]

Problem with all the objections, made in reviews here, about the the changes made in adapting this episode is that, elaborate improbable murder plots and Poirot 'solving' them with not much evidence to back him, or convict anyone, are usually the norm with both original Christie stories, and episodes in this series, with some exceptions.

The entertainment lies in surrounding story, characters, acting, humor (especially in earlier episodes), period art direction, etc, as well as in observing the elaborateness of murder plot, however improbable.

Sometimes stories work as drama, and even tragedy. Usually such episodes turn out to be the best ones (eg. Five Little Pigs).

Except for art direction and acting, this episode fails everywhere else.

However as an adaptation this does remain within spirit of original stories and other episodes. That is, apart from white slaver storyline. That storyline was explicitly mocked in other episodes for its stupid absurdity (eg. The Adventure of the Clapham Cook, Cat among the Pigeons, etc.)

Poirot: Taken at the Flood (2006) Season 10, Episode 4

One of the worst episodes in this series

[2/10 · 13 January 2016]

This is one of the worst episodes in this series. It is a murder mystery with several deaths, where in spite of Poirot pontificating at the end as if he solved it, he basically discovers nothing that actually leads to the solutions. Instead solutions are based almost entirely on confessions, or long available evidence being not acted on for no apparent reason until then).

While some other episodes, when they do not work as murder mystery, work as good drama or even tragedy, this one fails even in that front.

Most of the faults, not all, derive from the book, and unlike in most episodes, adapters have failed to improve on the text. Most of the changes, due mainly to period change from 40s to 30s, makes makes it worse.

I will point out some of the most obvious faults.

Lot of the plot depends on recognition of man murdered in pub. How is it that a known explorer(known enough to deserve headlines on disappearance) has no photos? Or that only two people are available to identify him, and either one or other of them can definitely count on getting away with lying about the identity of a well known person? Why is it that police cannot question Rosaleen away from her alleged brother? There is no legal bar.

Why didn't the Scotland Yard act on "expert forensic evidence",that explosion was not accidental, so easily available to Poirot on mere request? Why didn't the family or Major voice their suspicions which they must have had (Major certainly did in his opening description) to police? Rowley confesses to what can now be termed "manslaughter", but without that confession there is no evidence to implicate him for that. Nor is there any evidence presented to implicate David for the attempted murder, or any of the other murders, even if the explosion was planted.

Only thing of worth Poirot discovers is the cleaned floor stones, but since we already know that "murder weapon did not kill him" and murder was staged after death, this is of secondary importance.

How does the person who insisted on abortion, keep the guilt ridden aborter under his control, using same abortion, claiming she would be dammed without him? People who wrote this seems to be utterly confused and ignorant about Catholic theology and teaching.

Why does David speaks to fake Rosaleen as if she is actual Rosaleen, when talking privately to her about Rosaleen's marriage to 1st husband? In spite of some good acting, all of the above and more, not to mention the 'cheats' (facts made known to audience at same time as 'solution'), sinks this episode irretrievably.

13 January 2016 at 15:12

Poirot: Cards on the Table (2006) Season 10, Episode 2

Bad episode that nevertheless improve on the book

[5/10 · 10 January 2016]

This is a really bad murder mystery. However, i give it 5/10 instead of something lower, because it improves on the book. It also has good production values and competent acting.

Plot in the book is beyond ridiculous; extremely melodramatic, with impossible psychology, far from convincing motives, ultra risky murders(plural), a weak solution that wont convict anybody, etc., etc..

This adaptation improves on motives and psychology by adding lot of homosexuality (too much actually), though one can't commend negative portrayal of almost all homosexuals. It cuts some melodrama (not completely) by replacing additional murders, sacrificial suicides, desperate rescues leading new romances, etc,, by regular sacrificial confessions, reconciliations, desperate rescues strengthening already budding romances, etc., etc..

It continues to have a weak solution that will not convict anyone in court. It also fails to completely eliminate other suspects logically. Evidence as presented, still fits others very well. Instead it relies on mere assertion and murderer's unnecessary and foolish (and psychologically impossible, given how he character and actions before) admittance of guilt.

Furthermore this adaptation 'cheats' by hiding important clues from audience(bridge partner's name, what is on photos, shaitana's talk about drugs, etc., etc.).

Poirot: The Hollow (2004) Season 9, Episode 4

Excellent dramatic tragedy, bad murder mystery

[9/10 · 8 January 2016]

This adaptation (not the book which is simply absurd), works very well as very good drama, even as a good classical tragedy. Acting, direction, art direction, and all other production values, all support each other to create that successful outcome. Excellent! But it(both adaptation and story from book) is awful as a murder mystery and solution; irrational and not believable.

To take just one absurd instance, there was no need to get others involved. Henrietta, if she has witnessed murder, merely had to keep her mouth shut, or if her presence in pavilion is proved with the doodle (which would be impossible!), merely deny she saw the actual firing of gun since she was looking in the other way.

Two gun trick would have got murderer off. And would a murderer keep the holster once she was lucky enough to get it off the murder scene undetected, especially if she had sense enough to cut it and disguise it as leather work at first? Why not burn it, throw it in a dump, etc. etc., if she can cut it and disguise? She had more than enough time. That it was in her possession was the only thing that might have convicted her, but even with holster conviction would have been highly doubtful.

Of course her own personality and psychology matters, and would probably result in same outcome, her suicide or admittance of guilt. (And Henrietta's guilt may result in a desire to help cover up). But all that is drama and tragedy, not murder mystery. Poirot was not needed for all that. And it was all that which makes this episode great.

Poirot: The Clocks (2009) Season 12, Episode 4

Leaves a very bad taste in the mouth

[2/10 · 6 December 2015]

This episode, while extremely well made technically (art direction, camera work, sound, etc.) and well acted, leaves a very bad taste in the mouth on several counts.

Criminal mystery, or rather mysteries, are depended on coincidences to carry out, and are solved through coincidence.

Poirot basically gets two girls to find the crucial evidence that unwittingly incriminates their father and only parent. That they can be made to search for evidence, and then can find it, are all by chance. In other words, it is solved quite by chance, in rather shoddy fashion, and not by "grey cells". But in spite of this evidence and its finding being key to solving the cases, all of this is barely on screen, compared to less important things and characters. Girls are not heard of again, after Poirot makes use of them.

On top of that, Poirot and his friends, engage in simplistic moral posturing, that include actual speeches. Story and characters are morally complicated and they could have made a better episode wherein all the moral complexity is highlighted, if not explored. Noticeably camera do not focus on Poirot's reaction when blind lady points out, in reply to his speech about results of an occupied country, that Poirot will not be fighting the war to prevent occupation of a country. Remember, according to this series, he ran from his country to England in during WW1, while her sons died and she got blinded, while going out of England to fight in a war that started to protect his country. A thinking viewer, even with obvious desire of adapters not to focus on any of that, cannot but feel contempt for Poirot's moral blindness. To make major character coldly blind and hypocritical is a great idea, but then to ignore these characteristics is not.

Poirot: Murder on the Links (1996) Season 6, Episode 3

Stupid illogical convoluted solution

[2/10 · 1 December 2015]

As a murder mystery this is awful. It is an insult to viewer/reader. Solution as explained by Poirot does not eliminate other suspects logically. Instead he interprets all the evidence in an extremely convoluted way involving coincidences, to implicate the murderer of his choice. Other far less convoluted interpretations of same evidence would make better cases against Jack, Bella, Madame Renauld, and Stonor. If the murderer is not killed at the end, she would have been acquitted by any court that used logic. In fact no actual case can be made against murderer with evidence presented. Only valid evidence against her comes from her getting killed during final attempted murder at the last moments of episode. Even that is rather dubious since other more credible suspects kill her. Viewer is bullied in to forgetting logic and believing the solution by reenactments, and final attempted murder at the end. Of course since most of details are taken from book, adapters of this were merely trying to hide the stupidity of solution in book by such means.

Other than stupidity of solution, this episode displays the high production values and acting one comes to expect from the series.

Forget Me Not (I) (2010)

Too many clichés and half baked philosophy

[5/10 · 5 October 2015]

To give it its due, this is well made (as in well produced) and well acted movie.

However it is marred by inclusion of way too many clichés. Tortured and troubled man and woman wondering through the night (or day) talking and having innocent fun and falling in love (or almost falling). Background of nicely photographed cityscapes. It even has man giving up his coat to shivering woman. nice but ...

Old hat. Older than movies in fact. Read Dostoevsky's "White nights". Same thing 150+ years ago. (By the way, that work has been adapted several times too). In fact there are so many movies with same formula they should create a definite genre for the type.

This one does have sort of a departure from formula at the end, but it is too specific and rare, and gets focus on only at the end. Movie could have made more of it if the full details of what is going on were revealed from the start. Instead movie introduce theme of suicide from the start, and then indulge in rather poor philosophizing on that theme intermittently. That is a poor way to handle such a subject.

This is worth watching only if you like this formula, since it is a better example of the type. And only if you do not care too much about philosophy.

A Novel Romance (2015 TV Movie)

Good romantic comedy

[5/10 · 5 August 2015]

I only gave it 5/10, judging it as a general movie. But as a romantic comedy it scores much higher.

It ticks off all the usual romantic comedy plot points, very competently and satisfyingly. Man meets woman, falls in love, unwilling concealments leads to misunderstandings and obstacles, everything gets worked out at end with help of friends and love, there are tears. Though thankfully there is no villain.

It has likable (but not perfect) clean cut white characters, with token minority characters. It is shot in tourist brochure backgrounds.

It stays within the bounds of modern western politically correct 'liberal' ideology, as such is outside bounds of realism. It preaches honesty, being true to yourself, reality and power of perfect love, etc. As such most of the dialogue is not worth any attention.

However, i found movie genuinely funny at points, not unintentionally either.

Another extra, it has Amy Acker, always a very good thing in any movie or TV. Other actors were not bad performers either, though some of the direction was bit clumsy.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

a commendable attempt that fails

[5/10 · 3 August 2015]

This is a worthy attempt at adapting Shakespeare, but unfortunately it fails. For the record, i have no problem with setting in late 19th century, or the nudity; Shakespeare would have used mud wrestling if allowed. Failing is due to other reasons.

Movie takes itself far too seriously, for a play that is extremely funny that is fatal. In Shakespeare, comedy comes from absurdity, changeability, and arbitrariness, of love, even when it is intense and passionate. Love and Reason do not indeed keep company. But screenplay, instead of laughing at absurdity, presets tragedy, and almost forgets to laugh. Play within play results in tears, and not from laughter. Bottom at the end gets a lovers' farewell from Titania, instead of loathing disgust she expresses in text.

Generally actors are well cast, and give competent performances. Problem with Kevin Kline's Bottom is the screenplay which underplay the absurd juxtaposition of Bottom with Titania, not him. Pfeiffer, who has proved she can act in other movies, fails to convince here as fairy queen. Even though she she looks great for the part, we see her reading lines and acting. Calista Flockhart does well as Helena.

Italian town sets and costumes are excellent but wood looks fake. Bicycle obsession does not contribute anything.

The Rich Are Always with Us (1932)

Flimsy story, worth watching for performances

[5/10 · 25 July 2015]

There are 3 short clips at the start of this movie, set in 1900, 1920, and 1930, respectively, taking place in powder rooms where high society women gossip about Caroline Grannard, lead character, 'richest woman in the world', played by Ruth Chatterton; she is born, gets married, and lunching with writer Julian Tierney (George Brent). Interior decoration, dress, and even background music, are all period appropriate. While Warner Brothers probably had these sets and dresses and extras lying about from other movies, and whole thing cost very little, question that interest me is why all that for a simple exposition that would have taken two lines of dialogue in the movie proper? Did the director and producers wanted filler to pad up something so insubstantial that it cannot even stand on its own for 1 hour and 10 minutes? Seems so.

Plot here involve romantic and marital entanglements of rich society people, mainly on who the lead character really loves, her (soon ex) husband she 'mothers', or the writer who she keeps hanging without deciding (to the annoyance of a rather spoiled society girl (Bette Davis) who is in love with him). Nothing else, there is no higher purpose, no socio political commentary, no deep psychology, no insight into human nature and relationships, no simple enjoyable love story/villainy even. While there is no absolute requirement that movies should have some of that, absence do make them rather boring.

However, this is not boring, mainly because of the acting. Chatterton is so good that i want to see more of her movies. As others have noted, in this movie she has a way of repeating and even stammering some dialogue that is so naturalistic that i initially wondered whether they had run out of takes and used the least bad. But it happened frequently enough, and there were similar stuff with her gestures, that it was soon clear it was deliberate. She comes from a stage background, but when modern 'method actors' use similar techniques, you can spot them right away. Almost all the others were rather good too, though from a different style. Brent as usual underplays his part. Energetic Davis (3 years before her breakthrough role in 'On Human Bonadge') in that phase of career when Warner tried to make her blond, sexy, and glamorous (successfully in my opinion though she herself thought otherwise), found the right foil in Brent (with whom she was to star in quite a number of her best movies), as demonstrated by her scene with him in his apartment. John Miljan, who plays husband, and Adrienne Dore as his lover, were also good.

The Man Who Came to Dinner (1941)

Cynical, unfunny, mediocre, characters thinking they are charming, witty, and clever

[2/10 · 24 July 2015]

This movie is about an art critic and radio personality, supposedly 'wonderful', 'charming', 'clever', and 'witty'(or so other characters keep telling he is, when he in fact opposite of all of them), meeting with an accident during a lecture tour in American Midwest, his taking over the house of his businessman host, and his selfish (one of his 'endearing' traits by testimony of characters in the movie) interferences in the lives of all he comes into contact.

If ever there was movie that can be called dated, this is it. It was made to reflect and entertain particular set of people. Most of them and their work were, though now thankfully forgotten, then influential in so called theater, art, and intellectual, circles of USA, based mainly in New York and Hollywood.

As is to be expected, movie looks down on so called 'flyover country' and its values. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but is not a good idea if one is stupider and empty headed than people one is looking down on.

No matter how hard one tries one can't make superficial cliché words turn lukewarm water into acid that burns, or wine that delights. Writers of this play turned movie were not Oscar Wilde, and it shows. Especially in contrast when they borrow a few lines from him.

Protagonist's much praised wit seems to consist mostly in verbal threats of slapstick violence against various victims. As such it is even more ephemeral than actual slapstick, which at least has some physical substance. Almost all of his victims do not resist (this is another giveaway that this movie is a coastal elite fantasy since actual people in middle of USA are not known for passive submission, quite the contrary). When his sectary, Bette Davis, give him a talking to, she is as mild and ineffective as other token resistance from others towards the end. In fact, given that she has very willingly worked for him for 10 years, before objecting to what she has seen, only conclusion that can be drawn is that her character is extremely stupid.

Movie shows its stage origins. But then people who produced this can't be very imaginative or creative to begin with.

It does have the polished production values expected of a studio product, and has a competent enough cast, though as expected during that period, most of them overact (in the case of the lead, Monty Woolley, atrociously).

This almost completely wordy movie, drops names and makes allusions, to then current celebrities, and would be celebrities, in every other sentence. Most of the references have been unintelligible to most viewers since shortly after the movie was made. Its characters were also supposedly based on specific real people, people long dead and buried now, deservedly so, as viewers of this movie soon realize.

Watch on the Rhine (1943)

highly overrated, period bound, morally blinkered, preachy, propaganda piece

[2/10 · 23 July 2015]

This movie stays true to its original play and its writer, Lillian Hellman. That is its main problem.

After the advent of talking movies, Hollywood began to tap into American stage for both writing and acting talents. Unfortunately in 1930s American stage was dominated by well paid privileged left wing writers writing plays for their own kind. Usually when studios adapted their plays, screenwriters and directors played down the ideology driven plots, to broaden the mass appeal, and to expand the character development to create vehicles for studio stars and character actors. Generally this produced excellent results.

However for this movie, made during WW2, studio wanted a propaganda piece, and used both the stage director, Herman Shumlin, and writer (with her lover Dashiell Hammett, who seems to have not changed much). In her work, Lillian Hellman looks at everything, especially history and society, through her Marxist lenses. She attacks her ideologically enemies, (some of these enemies were indeed enemies of mankind in general, as here with Nazis) in variety of ways, some of them rather clichéd and tired. She is also incapable of self criticism when it comes her own Marxist ideology, or its proponents in world of her time. All this results in rather one dimensional characters who ignore the unheard but obvious objections to their arguments, spout preachy monologues, and melodramatically act for either the highest or basest motives.

In this movie message is clear and loud. World, especially Europe, is going bad due to Nazis. Righting it, requires that Americans snap out of their isolationism (and tea parties and magnolias), and get their hands dirty with blood, either directly or indirectly through allies.

Throughout the movie American noble innocence and naivety is emphasized and contrasted with Europe. Ironically, writer's willful blindness to America's own evils, such as slavery, is obvious through her racist depiction of black characters and their white masters. This is a trait that is present in her other works as well. Her racism does not stop at that, she makes her primary villain a Romanian, who is treated with contempt by even the Nazis, and whose lack of intelligence is commented on as a facet of his race, by the German anti Nazi hero.

It is hard for anyone who is not carried away by wartime propaganda to sit through this movie, in spite of some commendable acting by Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson and George Coulouris.

Juarez (1939)

Studio movie about emperor Maximilian with mixed results

[5/10 · 23 July 2015]

Hollywood movies about Mexico, new ones as well as old ones, tend to include lots of largely inaccurate clichés. And are mostly acted by people who have no connection to Mexico. This movie is a rare exception with regard to clichés, though it is still acted mostly by non Mexicans.

Movie is also mis-titled. It is about the French imposed emperor of Mexico, Maximilian (excellently played by Brian Aherne, as a well meaning dupe, in well over his head, and his wife played by Bette Davis in a role suited to her talents), rather than his opponent republican president Juarez(played by Paul Muni, with laconic and stoic, and thus rather stiff, dignity). As far as I can judge, movie is fairly accurate with regard to external historical facts. However characters are too black and white to be real. For instance, Maximilian was indeed well meaning in real life, but hardly a complete dupe of others, and was knowingly responsible for creating lot of suffering. Juarez, in his turn, was no spotless democrat. Movie almost completely ignores the important political role of Catholic church, and bloody anti clericalism of republicans. It also whitewash USA's role and selfish motivations, while smearing the French and their emperor more than they deserve.

As is to be expected,from a major studio movie of that era, this one has excellent production values.

All in all, movie is worth watching.

Speak (2004)

good acting by lead, worthwhile story, bad movie

[2/10 · 12 July 2015]

i have not read the book, so is not competent to judge either quality of book, or its transference to movie. this review is about the movie only.

it is a story about trauma, and inability and/or unwillingness to communicate with others, as well as resulting isolation and depression. in other words, a worthy story to be told. unfortunately, it is told in worn out cinematic clichés about American high schools, using a lot of supporting characters, especially adult ones, who are mere one dimensional cartoons. one may argue that it is a teenage point of view, but even teenage movies, when they are great, let the teenage point of view grow up to realize that cartoonish view of others, fellow teenagers and adults, and world at large, is a false one. this movie remain in cartoon-land throughout.

script also includes far too many tendentious political pronouncements totally unrelated to story.

that does not mean all is bad here. kristen stewart is a very good actress and make the lead character live. one gets the feeling that had her character more speaking lines, she too would become simplistic caricature through the bad script. luckily character does not speak much, and allow the actress to bring her to life.

i must also commend the rather understated but well executed cinematography, with barely perceptible allusions to other works.

but, in spite of mitigating factors, since the movie fails in its core, i have to give a bad score instead of a mediocre one.

Simon Schama's Power of Art (2006)

Fake art critic engaging in ad hominem attacks against great artists

[2/10 · 10 June 2015]

This is a fake series on several levels. It features Simon Schama, whose credentials as an historian have been long suspect, and who has no credentials at all as an art critic with any aesthetic sensitivity. Instead he has a substantiated record as a propagandist, for modern western establishment and regimes, especially as a war mongering one. As for the content, series has less to do with works of art themselves, but is more concerned with retelling of anecdotes, of very doubtful veracity, about artists, their patrons, and rivals. These anecdotes, some of them entertaining, were obviously selected to prejudice the viewer favorably, or unfavorably, according to views of Schama or his producers. Anecdotes are illustrated with badly acted reenactments. In contrast, artworks themselves are shown only in badly lighted very short cuts. As an example, take episode on Bernini and 'Ecstasy of St Theresa'. It has lots of ad hominem attacks against the sculptor (and his patron popes and cardinals) through unsubstantiated anecdotes, but sculpture (which is a whole chapel in fact) is never shown in full on location. Its relations to other art works at the time or before (word 'baroque' is never used even to discard it), its composition from variety of media and materials, and its methods and techniques of creation, are barely referred to, if at all. While reference is made to St Theresa's own words which inspired the work, Schama seems to be unaware of the long tradition in Roman Catholic Church (and outside) of equating physical ecstasy and sexual union, with Divine Love. St. Theresa's words, while better expressed, are in line with that tradition, and with words of other saints, but this episode erroneously paint them as exceptional, and even unique.

The Canterville Ghost (1997 TV Movie)

Too serious moralistic adaptation with almost none of Wilde's wit

[2/10 · 9 June 2015]

This is a really bad adaptation. To start with, Oscar Wilde's wit is almost completely absent here. It is also too serious, too moralistic (with absurd morality of modern secular west applied anachronistically to past), and way too sappy romantic. In contrast, Oscar Wilde made witty fun of seriousness, all kinds of morality, and sentimental romanticism, in his creations. While it is excusable, when adapting works to art, to cut, add, or change, details of plots, characters, and settings, to suit the audience & medium, adapters should take care to remain within the spirit of the original to be counted successful. Inability of the makers of this production to do that is obvious. They should have done better to create an original work under a new name. But they chose to borrow and destroy.