Reviews

This was a disappointment. Yes I know Arnold Schwartzneggar had already made a movie about a pregnant man. But this seemed like an opportunity to do an amusing updated version,especially one that might deal with changing gender roles.

In this iteration, a gay male couple finds themselves expecting a baby.

Apparently, there was a mutation in the human species and men can now give birth. That amazing bit of news is told to us in a throw away bit, by a newscaster on TV and the main reaction of one of the protagonists is incredibly- annoyance that he is not the first anymore and no longer "special".

The movie is poorly acted and not funny. Instead of emphasizing the humorous situation of a man confronting the problems that women have faced for millennia, the movie instead is obsessed with the gross details of exactly how the man got pregnant ( anal sex naturally!) and how he gives birth( a good bowel movement , of course). There are other unnecessary gross scenes- the pregnant man has morning sickness and vomits a lot. OK. we see that several times. Got it. Did we need a scene of him vomiting in the face of his partner as they make love? Aside from being visually disgusting and not remotely funny, it is illogical. One when is extremely nauseated, I doubt one feels like making love.

There are some nice performances by the actor playing the doula and the young ex boyfriend But that's about it.

The lead actors are occasionally wooden and mannered. The actresses who play the sister and the doctor are especially amateurish. Sorry. I know it's a low budget movie , shot on location and it's nice to support creative filmmakers trying for something original.. But this one doesn't work as a comedy or a relationship story.

This contains spoilers: This obscure little movie boasts a fine cast, including Christine Lahti, Jennifer Jason Leigh,Nick Nolte, Hallie Steinfeld, Guy Pearce and Kristin Wiig in the lead. I guess they all saw something in the script that they liked. And truth be told, it is a fairly compelling story, although executed very slowly. I kept thinking, what a great yeasty drama this would have been if made in Old Hollywood with say Bette Davis or Greer Garson. The plot is a good one- meek, shy innocent one played by Wiig, is conned by two teen girls into corresponding via email with one of the girl's widowed father who is a drug user and ne'er do well.He is well played by Pearce with a characteristic withered handsomeness- a Lothario gone to seed. Wiig is so taken by the fake emails, she hops on a bus to join him.

When she realizes she has been duped, she decides to stay anyway. And here is the meat of the movie. She manages to redeem this lost man by her innocence, selflessness and purity. She even manages to chase out his slutty , druggie girlfriend played very well, as always, by Leigh.

See why this would have been perfect for Old Hollywood?

Pure innocent goodness redeems lost man with home cooked meals and fresh laundry. Lars Von Trier would hate it!

The plot is satisfying and works except for one major flaw near the end. The two teen girls get no comeuppance or punishment for their cruel prank. Wiig doesn't even get an apology. I think the movie suffers a bit for this. They were trying for something subtler , I guess.. Sometimes, though conventional melodrama is the way to go.It was invented for a reason, after all.It

I did like the suggestion at the end, that Pearce is not really cured of drug addiction and Wiig may end up running that motel by herself one day. Wiig is good in the role. It's a great part. I think a finer dramatic actress may have shown us more layers. But good to see, she is expanding her repertoire.

The movie is worth checking out.

The movie is sometimes a sex romp and sometimes a family comedy. But it made me kind of queasy, especially, with the gratuitous nude scene of the klutzy model is an unfunny bit of slapstick, filming a commercial where she is unable to hold onto a bar of soap and keeps hitting the director in the head with the soap. These sort of scenes are grafted onto a sentimental plot where a very horny tour guide operator discovers a love for young children and family. This plot is set in gear by a mom who somehow allows her children to be attended to by the male stranger. At one point, the tykes tell the guy whom they confuse with their dad, , "aren't you going to bathe us?" Luckily, we are spared seeing that unsettling moment actualized.

The movie has a cheesy Euro pop score that does it no favors as it floats in and out of the action.

This is one of those movies whose plot could have easily been resolved with an ordinary conversation between the characters. Instead they are forced to adhere to the inane storyline and come off as brain addled libertines. Even the sensible flight attendant Greta has to act like a moron allowing her fiancé to lock himself in the plane's bathroom until she capitulates. Of course, the plane load of passengers serenade the lovers as they make up...I was getting a little airsick during that scene.

While it has some pretty travelogue sections , the movie over all does not succeed.

This movie is watchable and engaging despite its flaws.its the sort of movie I wish I had seen as a child , I would have liked it a lot more then. The real life Mr. And Mrs. Cary Grant are the parents of three children plus two foster children. Both foster kids come to them as sullen, angry and disturbed , but in a short time, after being loved, mostly by the patient and kind Mother(Betsy Drake) , they transform into nice sitcom kids. Once Mom succeeds with Jane , there isn't much doubt or tension that orphan #2 will end up a conformist Eagle Scout.

The good stuff-the child actors are all good. Norman Taurog elicits good performances out of children. We hope he didn't need to threaten to kill the dog, this time, in order to motivate the kids(famous story told many times by Jackie Cooper). The not so good stuff- WB and Max Steiners decision to telegraph every emotion with the heavy score. I know it's a feature of its time, but really do we need another tinkly version of Row your boat,after we heard Grant and the family sing it ad nauseum.

Another possible negative-Cary Grant casting, in general..yes his performance is fine, but seeing him with his great tan ,great hair,Cary Grant voice playing a struggling municipal employee,just not real believable in this role. And this is not to say,Grant can't be great playing struggling, real people,just not in this movie..

There is a running gag that I did enjoy,that Grant is constantly sexually frustrated,with all of the kiddie interruptions. And there is one eye popping sight gag, that will go over every kids head, I am sure . Mom and Poppy are about to get it on, he has planned a romantic night with a bottle of champagne .They are interrupted again by crises de child. Grant accepts it as the bottle of champagne explodes and foams all over the bed.Probably the best moment in the movie. Some other strange bits-why did orphan #2,jimmy John sport a real New York-ese Brooklyn accent, when no one else did?

What about the extended scene of Grant in his white trunks and nothing else.? He looks trim and good for 50's standards,but why is he still clad in the trunks for the next ten minute scene? Over all, worth watching and engaging, but definitely dated and of its time.

Forgotten epic of a meat packer played well by Edward G. Robinson who takes over his fathers business and becomes ruthless.

I agree with the previous reviewer who complained about the many holes in the plot and inconsistencies- Robinson is first presented as a lover of humanity and the arts. He has a complete personality switch and becomes a ruthless, amoral business man all because of a little Machiavellian advice from lover Francis.

That said, the movie is interesting, well produced, historically accurate in a lot of ways and finally quite moving as Robinson ends up alone, back in his beloved Greece but afflicted with dementia so the events of his life become momentary snapshots that come and go.

I also liked the portrayal of the deterioration of his marriage. As in many 30's movies, there is a lot of truth that is hinted at but not fully explored.Sometimes, this leads to a superficiality which is unsatisfying but sometimes it leads to motifs that suggest subtly the inner workings and leave it up to us to connect the dots.

Surprisingly good Carole Lombard drama about a virtuous chanteuse who is eager to have her hard drinking, wastrel husband, embrace her middle class values of hard work instead of allowing himself to be supported by his stereotypically rich and stupid parents.

There is more going on here than appears on the surface and the themes

presented would be explored more fully in other plays, novels and movies.

Are Lombard's Depression Era values of meaningless hard work for pay really the key to achieving fulfillment in life?

Clearly, the job that Lombard forced Raymond to take is mind numbing and meaningless. After all,they don't really need the money. Why take that job away from somebody else who really needs it? Shouldn't Raymond find a job more suitable for his "talents" (if he has any..)

The movie shows us some of these issues but stacks the deck by making his parents so obtuse and snobbish that Lombard by contrast seems always correct. Other movies like You Can't Take It with You take an opposite tack- life is short, why waste it on empty labor unless you have to.

Anyway, Lombard looks beautiful and her performance is emotional and nakedly "out there" as the best of the 30's and 40's actors are. Raymond isn't bad - he refers to himself as a rotter and a drunkard. Today, we might say he is a potential alcoholic and his buddy Sig is his enabler. The movies production values are quite good for 30's Columbia. The movie worth catching and thought provoking

As most other reviewers have pointed out-this woman's picture of 1931 has some very odd morality and that's what makes it a very interesting relic. Norma Shearer is a liberated young woman who allows her lover to have sex with her whenever he wants without his offering any sort of commitment. He even announces after they have run off together that he has a wife in Paris. Then he dumps her in Mexico. But she accepts all this abuse because she still loves him and believes that marriage is not necessary for happiness. However she is still so hurt by him, she becomes a super slut and becomes well known among the elite Eurotrash for her available sexuality. Then the lover sends her a telegram saying he is divorcing his wife and will agree to marry her. Shearer is thrilled until the lover finds out about her checkered European adventures and dumps her. There is a "happy" ending when the lover comes to his senses a year later and agrees to marry her.

Wow- talk about an abusive relationship, by todays standards.

All the while, Robert Montgomery as her best friend half heartedly offers to marry her whenever she gets upset. His character drinks throughout the movie. Montgomery gives the best performance and is quite charming. Today, we can interpret his actions as either deeply closeted or just someone who loves his liquor more than actively pursuing the love of his life.

Shearer has costume changes in nearly every scene. I am sure the female (and some male) audiences of the day loved it. As usual she is very chic. She has a tendency to pose, silent movie style occasionally- but I can fault the director . He should have reined her in. She didn't do that much when she worked with a stronger director like George Cukor. Shearer has loads of charisma that still come across today. The movie is worth checking out...

Early talkie musical comedy has its moments. Robert Montgomery is charming. The song "Go Home and Tell Your Mother" has an infectious melody,if an insipid lyric. Benny Rubin is occasionally hilarious (if not very P.C.) as Montgomery's Jewish sidekick. If you know a little Yiddish, his scene with a fellow" landsman" on the golf course is a riot. The location shooting is fluid and polished by the standards of the day.

The plot is silly and forgettable and the leading lady is pretty but not much of an actress. I read this was a flop. I guess by 1930, audiences were not in the mood for the super rich lording it over the working class and talk about " inexpensive" $50,000 apartments came off as elitist and offensive.

Still, for a not unpleasant time filler, you could do worse than Love in the Rough.

Half Nelson is far from great. But it has a terrific performance by the very charismatic Ryan Gosling that make it worth a look.

Gosling plays a beloved teacher who is a total jerk who deserves to be fired. His most glaring offense is that he is a crack cocaine addict. He also beds a co-teacher then coldly kicks her out of his apartment and then shows up at 2 in the morning , drunk and attempts to rape her (lucky for him, the poor woman punches him and doesn't call the police) He is supposed to be teaching (mostly) African American kids 8th grade history. However, all he seems to be teaching is watered down Marxism 101 (the dialectic)and a litany of the worst offenses the American government has ever committed (the Chilean Allende coup and the Attica riots are two events the kids learn really well). I guess, all the history stuff like the Declaration of Independence,The Civil War-that's for rich white folks. His specialty is blame America first.

But that is the unpleasant main character and Gosling does a great job portraying him. The audience likes and sympathizes with him.

The movie itself is contrived nonsense. The plot gets into gear when Gosling makes a boneheaded and totally unbelievable decision to smoke crack in the girls locker room. Of course he has an apartment of his own and he could have easily gotten high in the privacy of his home- but the movie needs a plot, so he gets high at school. And then he gets caught by a student, who is a bright girl who happens to like him a lot. He had become a quasi father figure to her and the rest of the movie is mostly about her utter disappointment in him as his addiction gets worse and worse. The story is extremely depressing and I couldn't wait for it to end. Near the end of the movie, we are introduced to his family and I suppose we are supposed to see how he became who he is. It doesn't work. The parents are aging radicals, who drink a bit. Mom seems nice and she plays a song from Marlo Thomas's record from the 70's -Free to be You and Me about how it is okay to cry. I didn't get the point. Gosling's character certainly is no wuss ( he stands up to drug dealers)and he seems like he is in touch with his feelings... being okay with crying doesn't seem to be an issue.... He is an addict. That's his issue!! His Dad makes a lame, mildly racist joke about Ebonics. So does this mean Gosling is rebelling against Dad by teaching Black kids? Well maybe if Dad was Archie Bunker. But Dad is sort of pathetic and says to his son, "I love you" So none of this scene makes sense and you know the movie is in trouble when it introduces important characters in the last 15 minutes.

See this movie for Ryan Gosling. He deserves to be a big star. But that is the only reason to see Half Nelson.

Young Jackie Cooper does his shtick that will be familiar to anyone who has seen his Oscar nominated performance in The Champ.He summons up the emotion by grabbing the air with his fists and sobbing loudly,"Aw shucks, aw shucks."

Here Jackie is the younger brother in a family whose parents have divorced and his mother has remarried a well intentioned but rather cold man, who happens to be a doctor and whom everyone refers to as "the doctor" Jackie's teen age brother is well played by Maurice Murphy, whom I never heard of, but impersonates a teen rather well.The movie has plenty of phony bits including an emergency surgery for the teen brother by "the doctor" who also happens to be an expert surgeon. (he makes his considerable diagnosis by a quick wield of his trusty stethoscope) Up to this point in the movie, "the doctor" is sort of the villain. He even whips Jackie when Jackie is being his bratty self. But then "the doctor" performs the emergency surgery and to further canonize him,his blood is "the right kind" for a transfusion and soon enough Jackie realizes that it's okay to have two Pops. It's even better than okay. "It's slicko , " as Jackie says in his early 30's patois.

This is the kind of movie that I would have loved on the old Wonderful World of Disney Show that I watched when I was a kid. As it is, the movie is fast paced and entertaining in a junky way. And Jackie Cooper is fun to watch. So it's worth catching.

This very obscure film turned up on Turner Classic movies at 6AM recently. It was definitely worth watching for it's fascinating portrait of bored, lower middle class, high school- juvenile delinquents. The plot itself is melodramatic and not too impressive: Eric Linden plays a 17 year old who is being raised by his loving but annoying,worry wart grandmother(whom he calls Ma in a thick Noo Yawk accent). Eric becomes a ringleader of a wild crowd who drink and party all night at local dance clubs.The movie is extremely frank in it's depiction of teen age sexuality. Arline Judge, who looks a bit like Winona Ryder, plays his trampy bed partner who is also screwing one of his buddies who is also one of the group. On one drunken spree, Eric murders his old family friend who is known as Hiney. A media circus ensues as Eric goes on trial and begins to believe all of the tabloid publicity. He does stupid,unbelievable things like dismiss his attorney in mid trial, but he almost gets away with murder until one of his pals betrays him.SPOILER_ SPOILER

The movie ends surprisingly with Eric's execution-perhaps this is a warning to the young audience-don't let this happen to you! I liked a lot of things in this movie: This is definitely a pre-code and the movie lets us know that these teens are all having sex with each other. Arline Judge is very sexy and charismatic. Why wasn't she a bigger star? There is a great scene of Eric looking down her blouse that leaves nothing to the imagination. I also appreciated the conclusion which is not a happy one. Linden, an actor who is often grating and weak here gives a super performance as the tough kid. In spite of his mistakes, you always like him. But most of all, I loved the depiction of the kids of the Depression. Aside from their choice of dance music and clothes, these kids are no different from today's kids or I suspect, will they be any different from kids of tomorrow.Their main activities are sex, drugs( alcohol) and dancing. The movie even has an adult cluck disapprovingly and mutter,"Kids today...!" This movie is a fascinating peek into Early Depression era life. It is a fast moving melodrama that is definitely worth watching.