Movie Review: Sleepless in Seattle
Year of Release: 1993
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Nora Ephron
Cast: Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Bill Pullman
Plot outline: A motherless boy uses a radio talk show to find a new wife for his father (IMDb).
Sleepless in Seattle is very much a modern take on classic Hollywood openly taking several elements from the great An Affair to Remember (1957) and adapting them to fit into a modern setting. Yes at times the storyline is unbelievably cliché and often quite repetitive but it doesn't try to be anything more than a heart warming romantic story. It is very much old fashioned in its innocence, with a dream like feel to it which takes you out of the real world but not to the extent that it feels too fantastical. This is where the charm of the movie lies, it delivers that romantic tale which many wish would happen to them and taking them away from all the stress of real life into a warm and happy one. Adding to the magical mix is Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, a pairing which works remarkably well. Tom Hanks who has a bit of Jimmy Stewart about him does a brilliant job of delivering a toned down performance which although at times wallows in the realms of being cliché is just right for this movie, providing a balance between being corny and being interesting. The same can be said of Meg Ryan whose bubbly, somewhat frenetic persona oozes out of Annie in every scene, giving the movie bursts of energy where needed. Whilst all this is good, it does have some issues, mainly in the supporting characters which feel slightly cartoon like (e.g. Bill Pullman as Walter is so pushed to the side lines that his character feels too dispensable and dispatched with far too easily when it comes to the crunch for Annie). Although Sleepless in Seattle undoubtedly has some fine moments of humour the emphasis is set firmly on being a classic romance, causing laughs through humorous moments rather than obvious gags. In many ways Sleepless in Seattle is more whimsical than hilarious but the balance works well to stop it feeling monotone. All in all Sleepless in Seattle is a very enjoyable movie which despite its age it's still as pleasant and enjoyable today as it was on its original release. It delivers an inoffensive fairytale feel good movie with enough about it to make it stick in your mind. (AW)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: Falling in Love
Country of Origin: USA
Year of Release: 1984
Director: Ulu Grosbard
Cast: Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, Harvey Keitel
Plot outline: A chance meeting could lead married commuters to an affair (IMDb).
Based on (or inspired by) the 1945 British movie Brief Encounter, Falling in Love is unremittingly, perhaps deliberately, banal. The funniest line in the movie ("How much do you weigh?") is inspired by the characters' inability to think of anything to say. We learn nothing of substance about them. They are provided with spouses who are ciphers, with personalities that are shallow and narcissistic, with crises that depend upon a manipulative script. And as if all of that were not bad enough, the movie also resorts to Idiot Plot techniques to squeeze out an infuriating ending. A final farewell between the lovers is prevented because of faulty communications. A later reunion takes place when there is only one fact that each lover needs to know - that the other is separated or divorced. Incredibly, neither character makes this revelation, because to supply that single essential fact would spoil its manipulative and shameless ending. Incredibly, there are passages when this movie works. They are entirely due to the chemistry, the genuine human qualities of Robert De Niro and Meryl Streep. They carry the plot and the dimwit dialogue because of the goodwill they've built up with us, and because of their own magnetism, their ability to invest worthless dialogue with a certain personal charm. Falling in Love will serve as a definitive example of good performances in a bad movie. (RE)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: Deja Vu
Year of Release: 2006
Country of Origin: USA, UK
Director: Tony Scott
Cast: Denzel Washington, Paula Patton, Val Kilmer, James Caviezel
Plot outline: An FBI agent has the ability to travel back in time and falls in love with a woman as her murder approaches (IMDb).
As if suffering the worst natural disaster in a century weren't bad enough for New Orleans, now there's this: A ferry full of Navy sailors and their family and friends, celebrating Mardi Gras, is blown up by a terrorist on Fat Tuesday. Even more disheartening: If the FBI really does have a way-back machine, which allows its agents to interact with events that happened exactly 4 1/2 days ago, then why didn't the feds employ it shortly after Katrina devastated the Big Easy? Couldn't they have asked ATF Agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) to travel back in time and use his strength and charms to persuade Mayor Ray Nagin, state and federal officials to get the city's residents out of harm's way, pronto? Those are some of the questions prompted by Tony Scott's nonsensical if mildly entertaining time-travel flick Deja Vu. The plot isn't the only been-here-before aspect: The Jerry Bruckheimer-produced movie cribs some of its farfetched ideas from Primer, which was far more intriguing in its explanations about wormhole jumping, and Minority Report, with its theories of pre-crime intervention. The results are hardly fresh. Deja Vu concludes with an absurd happy ending that seems to break the kooky rules established by the movie's universe. Deja Vu was the first major Hollywood production shot in New Orleans after Katrina, and footage of real-life devastation in the Ninth Ward figures into the movie, along with brief shots of the St. Charles streetcar and glimpses of the Garden District and the French Quarter. Too bad the filmmaker didn't give the beleaguered city something to brag about. (PB)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: Silverado
Year of Release: 1985
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Cast: Kevin Kline, Scott Glenn, Kevin Costner, Danny Glover
Plot outline: A group of misfits try to bring justice to a small Western town (IMDb).
This big budget movie bombed at the box office. Big Chill director and Raiders of the Lost Ark writer Lawrence Kasdan tries to make up for all its deficiencies that include being overlong, clichéd and having a rambling story, by keeping it exuberant. It covers the following usual Western happenings: a saloon fist-fight, multiple shoot-outs, incident over a stolen horse, a stampede, a house burned down, a jail break, a corrupt sheriff working with a greedy cattle baron, the climactic gun duel between the villain and unlikely hero and the heroes parting ways at the end to ride off in the sunset. Though entertaining in spots, visually splendid, showing a love for the Western genre and with its action sequences well choreographed, it still lacks any dramatic edge to hold one's interest for over two hours. The movie has what could be considered a series of pseudo climactic shoot-outs throughout until, thank heaven, the final forced one clears the town of the baddies. After the dust clears, the cuddly good guy Paden (Kevin Kline) decides to tie the knot with the widowed idealistic pioneer woman Hannah (Rosanna Arquette) and remain in town as the new sheriff; while the noble Mal (Danny Glover) rides further west with his sister (Lynn Whitfield) and the adventurous brothers (Scott Glenn and Kevin Costner) ride for California seeking further thrills. Jeff Goldblum has a turn as the slimy, dandified, and backstabbing gambler; while Linda Hunt is the diminuitive tough-minded wise saloon manager who is threatened by the corrupt sheriff Cobb (Brian Dennehy). This was Costner's breakthrough movie, and his merry role propelled him into stardom. (DS)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: Love Affair
Year of Release: 1994
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Glenn Gordon Caron
Cast: Warren Beatty, Annette Bening, Katharine Hepburn
Plot outline: After meeting and falling in love, a couple plan a rendezvous three months later. When one of them is injured on the way to the meeting, the other waits without knowing what happened (IMDb).
Love Affair depends on grace and style to make its effect, and that's just as well, because most of the people seeing this movie are going to know how it turns out. If you haven't seen the original Love Affair (1939) with Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer, or the remake An Affair to Remember (1957) with Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant, you must have seen Sleepless in Seattle (1993), which was about people who loved the earlier movies. No, there aren't going to be many people in the audience who don't know what's supposed to happen on May 8 on top of the Empire State Building. When Warren Beatty is pacing around up there, indeed, we almost expect him to be part of a crowd, with Boyer, Grant and Tom Hanks, all partners in misery. That's why it's kind of surprising that this second remake works as well as it does. What's interesting about the screenplay is that the movie's key turning point takes place, not between Beatty and Bening, but between Bening and legendary Katharine Hepburn. Sure, Bening likes the guy, but she distrusts him, and it's not until she sees the real Mike through the eyes of his aunt that she can take him seriously as a potential partner. Hepburn's scenes steal, and almost stop, the show. She has been old for a long time (she is in her 80s) but this is the first time she has also looked small and frail. Yet the magnificent spirit is still there, and the romantic fire, and she's right for this eccentric old woman, living alone in unimaginable splendour, and feeling an instant connection with the young woman her nephew has brought home. Part of the magic of the Hepburn scenes is set up by the location and the cinematography. There are scenes in the movie - including Beatty and Bening walking across a vast, lush green meadow - that are so radiant your jaw drops open. It's as if nature itself is a co-conspirator in the romance. Funny thing. This is one of the few Idiot Plots that works. Yes, there is a monumental and tragic misunderstanding between Mike and Terry. Yes, their happiness stands to be destroyed because both of them are pussy-footing around, and not saying what needs to be said. But the movie toys with that, and with us, in delicately written dialogue that allows them to say, and not say, everything that needs to be said, and needs not to be said. (RE)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Year of Release: 1993
