Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘NYC’

Juliet Never Dies

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“West Side Story” (1961) — movie review
Today’s review is for the musical / romantic tragedy “West Side Story”, directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise and starring Natalie Wood as Maria, a young Puerto Rican girl who falls in love with the wrong boy (Tony);  Richard Beymer as Tony, a former Jet trying to stay out of trouble but pulled back in;  Rita Moreno as Anita, Maria’s sharp, loyal friend who is in love with Maria’s brother (Bernardo);  George Chakiris as Bernardo, Maria’s protective older brother and leader of the Sharks;  and Russ Tamblyn as Riff, the Jets’ leader whose confidence gets everyone in deeper trouble than they expect (and him killed).  The film follows two street gangs, two young (LoL) lovers, and the cost of pride on the West Side of New York City.
Background:  I saw this movie once when I was a teen.  I didn’t like it then.  I liked it even less this time.  “West Side Story” was released in 1961 and became a major hit.  It received eleven Academy Award nominations and won ten, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Chakiris), and Best Supporting Actress (Moreno).  It’s one of the most successful film musicals ever made and considered a landmark for choreography on film.  It’s also the best‑known adaptation of the 1957 Broadway musical, which itself was a modern retelling of “Romeo and Juliet”.
Plot:  Rival youth gangs (the Jets and the Sharks) fight for control of their neighborhood.  Riff wants a “rumble” with Bernardo to settle things.  He convinces Tony to come to a neighborhood dance where the challenge will be made.  Tony meets Maria, and they fall for each other immediately — which makes everything worse.  The rumble goes ahead anyway, and things get out of control:  a fight, an unintended fatal stabbing, and a revenge killing (stabbing).  Anita tries to help Tony and Maria escape, but anger and misunderstanding lead to a final tragedy (Tony is shot dead).  The film ends with Maria confronting both gangs as they finally see the cost of their hatred.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  No;  not as bad as the movie;  adequately filmed;  many;  no.
Any good?  No.  “West Side Story” may still be one of the great film musicals, but IMHO the acted parts were tolerable to good and the dancing and singing were mostly terrible.  The story is simple, but the energy, music, and choreography still (just) fail to carry it.  The themes — love, pride, and prejudice — still work, but the musical framing in this film version simply doesn’t (for me).
Acting:  Natalie Wood’s acting is warm and almost believable as Maria, even with the dubbing.  Richard Beymer is just okay as Tony.  Rita Moreno is excellent as Anita and deserved her Oscar.  George Chakiris is strong as Bernardo.  Russ Tamblyn brings energy to Riff’s dancing, but not to the acting.  The ensemble (mixed gender) dancing is very good.  The acting bits are FAR better than the musical style but that’s still not saying much.
Filming / FX:  The filming is colorful and stylized.  The choreography is the ridiculous despite being sharp, athletic, and filmed cleanly.  The sets alternate between looking stage / theatrical and actual on-site.  The camera work is steady but neither the singing nor dancing appealed to me.  No modern effects, but there are some token off-center hazing of couples and some vaguely psychedelic coloring and motions which I found distracting more than interesting.
Problems:  Many and major.  I always have a problem when actors in their mid-20s are cast as young teens.  It’s almost never believable – and it wasn’t in this film.  The casting of non‑Latino actors in brown makeup is a big issue today;  but in fairness, they also coated the actors who might have been Latinos in brown makeup, too.  Tony’s hands were frequently darker than Maria’s in closeups!  Most of the dialogue felt stiff and contrived and almost none of it made for a decent segue into any of the songs.  To be perfectly honest, none of the cast looked like they were singing and only Moreno looked she could have been singing her songs.  And, the actors’ spoken voices didn’t match their singing voices.  The “attempted” theatrical (stage) style felt dated.  The dubbing is noticeable (i.e. terrible).  Any of these was enough to ruin the film, and they (the combination) did just that (for me).
Did I enjoy the film?  No.  The music is barely okay and I did manage to remember a few of the main lines from a couple of the songs, but not many lines, or songs.  The dancing is strong when the couples are mixed, or just female, but visually ridiculous when all male 20+ year old males are doing ballet “like” moves when they are supposed to be in a street gang.  Very few of the emotional moments land (for me).  The tragedy doesn’t work (regardless if you know it’s coming) – it is SUPPOSED to be Romeo and Juliet – but strangely, Juliet / Maria never dies.  This is a film I can say I’ve seen and won’t ever watch again (but I will HAVE to watch different versions).
Final Recommendation:  Low (to skip it) recommendation.  “West Side Story” is a major musical with historical significance, but unless you have a really good reason to watch it, I wouldn’t.  There are many other MUCH better musicals out there to better spend your time viewing.  Since I have been to so few stage productions, I really can’t comment on if this was a faithful rendition of the stage musical.
Final Thoughts:  Strangely enough two of the songs had lyrics which were probably “questionable” back in 1961.  There is a rooftop song (“America“) sung by the Puerto Ricans about limited vs unlimited opportunity AND racist discrimination in coming to NYC.  The second song (“Gee, Officer Krupke”) is about the social / economic conditions which “may” lead to juvenile delinquency: poor parenting, poor education, poverty, mental health issues, police discrimination, judicial and social worker apathy.  Both songs are interesting (to me) because I wonder how much / little has changed / improved in the last sixty-five years…
.
Click here (9 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

AOL ≠ P&P

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2023| 3 Comments »

“You’ve Got Mail” (1998) — movie review
Today’s review is for the “rom / com” (which has literally no comedy in it) drama “You’ve Got Mail” starring Tom Hanks as Joe Fox (a corporate franchise bookstore executive) and Meg Ryan as Kathleen Kelly (a 2nd generation owner of a local bookstore in NYC) in a movie which is a poor imitation of “Pride & Prejudice”.  (Note:  This was my FIRST EVER viewing of this movie and I don’t believe I’ve ever seen many / any previews / segments.  I must have been under a rock or in a cave.)
Basic Plot:  A rich guy (Mr. Darcy, I mean Fox) is opening a discount mega-bookstore across the street from a moderately successful (Lizzy Bennett, I mean Miss Kelly) local children’s bookstore owner.  The couple meet online via an email “chatroom” on America On-Line.  They meet in real life and Kelly recognizes Fox as the “enemy” and immediately dislikes him (prejudice) because his book store doesn’t offer the personal service of her little bookstore (pride).  They exchange emails (hence the title) for several months and fall in love with each other.
When Fox finds out (first) who the secret email “lover” is, he sets about winning her heart in real life.  Blah, blah, blah…  He reveals himself and they live happily every after.
Is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  How’s the romance?  How’s the comedy?  Is this movie worth your time to watch?  Yes.  A few moments of awesome, mostly terrible.  Surprisingly romantic.  Nothing funny in the movie (at all).  Yes – but really for historic reasons more than anything else.
Any good – The production quality is perfectly adequate.  The movie is paced okay as this genre goes.  I found it slow and kept waiting for more.  I don’t know what but something…  But, at the end of the day, I would have to admit I enjoyed it.
The acting – Meg Ryan is her typical, slightly flustered, spunky but beautiful girl next door.  Tom Hanks is past his sell by date for this role.  Like Ryan, this role is one of his type-cast roles (or at least from that time period in his career it was).  He was just at the point of aging out of the role.  I don’t know what the shooting time schedule was like, but in some scenes his face looked positively bloated and he looks considerably older (more “mature”).  His body, however, seemed his standard weight, so I really have no idea what was going on health wise.  Particularly towards the end of the film, Hanks looked like the average / unattractive guy next door who someone like Ryan / Kelly would not have given a second look to.
The movie starts with both the leads having significant others (to whom neither are married), but they (the “SO’s) are both shallow roles, with poor dialogue, and it was simply beyond “my” belief that either lead would be involved with either “SO”.  The “trick” of the script was how to break up both couples without making either lead look bad.  Ryan and her boyfriend are having dinner out and he tells her he doesn’t love her, but they’re “perfect” together (they aren’t).  Kelly agrees.  Hanks gets stuck in an elevator with his “other” and he sees she’s not worth his time, and she’s immediately written out of the script – but we NEVER see the breakup!  All of the other background actors in the movie were equally shallow, vacuous and unbelievable in their roles.  Jean Stapleton was almost interesting in her part – but not quite;  although it was pleasant to see her in a (any) role.
Romance – If the movie has any redemption, it is in the “romance”.  For whatever reason (and I believe it comes down to acting ability) there is a “chemistry” with these two actors and it comes across to the viewer through the lens.  In both cases, it’s their eyes, their slight facial changes and the way they move around each other – that just calls out “falling in love”.  (Even to an old cynic like me.)  This is one case where the leads really do make the movie.
Comedy – There are some awkward moments in the movie, but there is NO comedy in it that I can remember.  I guess, Fox’s dad’s fiance hitting on her future son was “supposed” to be funny, but it wasn’t.  I guess situations in the movie were supposed to be “funny” or maybe “ironic”…  Maybe the “cute” moments were supposed to be funny.  They weren’t.  Okay, maybe they were cute.  But they weren’t funny.  The best example I can think of is when Fox meets Kelly while he is babysitting his young relatives.  Kelly asks if his daughter wants a book and the girl replies “He’s not my daddy.  He’s my nephew!”  Fox has to explain the little girl is his grandfather’s youngest child and the young boy is his half-brother.  His father’s child by another wife / different mother.  Fox explains this as:  “A typical American family…”  Like I said, “cute”, but not funny.
Is it worth your time – definitely!  Here are two actors in their prime early career roles playing romantic drama.  Both have gone on to decades long careers.  Hanks’ far more successful than Ryan’s, but still, both notable actors.  And the roles allowed them to demonstrate their natural chemistry, whether is was acting or actual chemistry.
Here’s where the P&P tracking breaks down.  Darcy, I mean Hanks, doesn’t save Kelly’s store from closing or any of her employees (except one) from unemployment.  All they do is accept each other and live happily ever after.  Hey, I never said it was a P&P remake;  although being a movie about bookstore owners, P&P had to come up in the story-line as a book she recommends to him, which he reads and which he refers back to, to her.
Final recommendation:  Strong.  This is (was) a socially significant movie which is (has been) referenced in many others since its release.  It features two career actors in early roles which suited them individually and together.  And, yes, it is a bit of tear jerker.  There!  You were waiting for me to admit that…  Weren’t you?!  LoL  Break out the pop corn and the tissue paper…
.
Click here (28 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Luke, I AM Your Father

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 14, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“10,000 Saints”  (2015) — movie review
This review is for the 2015 coming of age drama “10,000 Saints” (aka:  “Ten Thousand Saints“).  My version uses the numbers and not the words in its title.  The movie stars Asa Butterfield as Jude Keffy-Horn (main character);  Ethan Hawke as Les Keffy (Jude’s dad);  Hailee Steinfeld as Eliza Urbanski;  Emily Mortimer as Diane Urbanski (Eliza’s mom);  Julianne Nicholson as Harriet Horn (Jude’s mom);  Avan Jogia as Teddy McNicholas (Jude’s best friend);  and Emile Hirsch as Johnny (Teddy’s brother).
Basically, Harriet is raising Jude in a small town in Vermont.  Les lives in New York City and is dating Diane.  For some poorly explained reason Les and Diane send Diane’s daughter (Eliza) to visit Jude on New Year’s Eve.  Eliza shares drugs with Jude’s best friend (Teddy) and they (Eliza and Teddy) proceed to have sex.  Eliza goes home and Jude and Teddy steal some Freon to get high which results in Teddy dying.
Blah, blah, blah…  Funeral.  Everyone feels guilty.  Jude moves to NYC to live with his dad (Les) because going to NYC was Teddy’s dream for them to escape Vermont.
Les is a small time pot grower and no-account, but he welcomes his son into his “home”.  Eliza discovers she is pregnant and turns to Jude because she has nowhere else to go.
Blah, blah, blah…  They meet Teddy’s older brother, who turns out to be gay, but who promises to marry Eliza and help raise the baby out of guilt about his brother (Teddy).
Blah, blah, blah…  Eliza has a baby boy.  Jude holds it.  Eliza puts the baby up for adoption.  (Adoption and “good” parenting are two BIG plot points in this movie.)  End of movie narration.  It’s some years later and the baby is now playing soccer in a park.  Jude’s voice narrates that Eliza is about to start a family and he already has one.
So, is this a good / great movie as either “coming of age” or as “drama”.  No.  It’s a mildly interesting movie at best.  I have to admit I really only picked this movie up because I’ve been haphazardly trying to follow Butterfield’s career.  I really enjoyed him in “Ender’s Game” and “X+Y” and thought he was pretty good in “Hugo“.  I’m not a big fan or Hawke and I only “recognize” Mortimer by face (from “Newsroom” and not by name).  I “really” should know Steinfeld as I’ve seen her the most of all of these actors, but I didn’t recognize her name and just had that sense of “I should know you, but don’t.”  She also played major characters / roles in “Ender’s Game“, Marvel’s “Hawkeye” and the remake of “True Grit“.  Overall, the acting by all of the cast was pretty good to very good.  I particularly liked Hawke and now feel obliged to go back and have a look at some of his earlier work.  LoL.
I guess my biggest problem with the movie is there is no attempt to explain why the two lead teen characters become the way they are since they both appear to have been raised by loving mothers.  We seem to be led to the conclusion, that somehow not having fathers in their lives is the reason the kids have turned out the way they have.  Having personally been raised by a single, working mother, I found this mildly offensive.
Side note:  Jude and Johnny are in a “band”.  They play a couple of songs in the movie as a plot device.  I say that because although the music isn’t to my taste, it fills a couple of minutes and provides a reason for the lead characters to be developed / “fleshed out”.  Actually, I couldn’t stand the music, but I did “enjoy” watching the guitar players fake performing.  This is something I would have never given a thought to if I wasn’t trying to learn guitar myself.  Again, LoL!!
Final recommendation:  At best this gets a moderate recommendation.  The acting (expressions and dialog) was mostly okay to good, but it was just too hard to believe any of the characters were real and / or doing what was happening in the movie.  It was also difficult for me to place myself in NYC, Vermont and New England back in the 1980’s (when the movie was set).  I’m not sure why, it just was.  All in all, it’s not a bad movie, and certainly not a waste of time viewing, but it’s also not a movie which I can’t wait to see again (even in a few years).
Post-script:  the movie title comes from a line of dialog in the movie.  At Teddy’s funeral, the minister is trying to express that some people believe we have ten thousand saints looking down from heaven and watching out for us.  The “source” of this is a loose interpretation from the Bible:
1 CORINTHIANS 4:15
For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers.  Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
The post title is a reference to StarWars and is a play on one of the reveals in the movie.  It (the reveal) is not a shocker to us (the audience), but it is to one of the characters.
.
Click here (14 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started