Reviews

I am a fan of frances mcdormand,so i went to this film hoping to see a performance rivaling sally hawkins in "the shape of water." no contest: sally hawkins is transcendent; mcdormand is good. well, in one scene she is great: the remembered fight with her daughter is fantastic. blows away any of the highly praised mother-daughter scenes in "lady bird." the role of dixon's mother is unpleasant but extremely well acted. on the other hand, the plot twist makes no sense. we see a vicious psychopath boast of killing a girl - almost certainly the daughter - then worry that he was overheard. turns out he is not the killer. ok, novel twist, but if he is just boasting, not the killer, why was he so worried about being overheard? and we see him shockingly violent twice, yet his fingerprints are in no law enforcement database, local or national. clean record? not likely. why does chief willoughby write detailed letters telling mildred but not his wife that mildred is not responsible for his suicide? the only reason i can see is to set up a scene where the wife is furious at mildred. pretty catty for the kind chief willoughby. i have seen lucas hedges in 3 films in the past year, and he is least compelling here. i was not moved by woody harrelson's portrayal. yes, i understood that he was supposed to be a good man and a decent person, but i didn't feel it. clarke peters as the replacement police chief was palpably decent; harrelson was not. seemed like the wrong actor for the role. for a decent police chief, i think of chris cooper in "lone star," a great frances mcdormand film. mcdonagh sure enjoys killing off good guys (cf in bruges), but he doesn't do it nearly as well as george r.r. martin. the film is bleak and repeatedly, gratuitously violent and malicious, without justice triumphing in the end - much like "in bruges," which i hated for the same reason.

I thought saoirse ronan was wonderful. but many elements of the film just seem way off. first, it seems derivative of "20th century women," and annette bening was much better as the mom than laurie metcalf. major points in the film were told rather than shown: the nun says that lady bird is a good writer, but we have no direct experience of her writing talent; the yellow lined papers say that the mom is insecure underneath her anger, but we have no direct evidence of that. the dad is depressed? we are told that, but he doesn't look depressed at all - just an amiable, kind-hearted loser. compare to sam elliott in "off the grid." lady bird says, "i know i'm a liar"; but there is little if any footage of her mastering her lying and cheating. what's with the name, "lady bird?" it evokes lady bird johnson, who would seem to have nothing in common with our protagonist. why does she want to go to an east coast artsy school? we never see her reading, watching art films, writing poetry, etc. she is arrogant (to apply to columbia), she lies, she cheats in class. shouldn't these be problems to overcome? if the film is an homage to sacramento, why no freeways? sacramento is dominated by highways 5, 99, 80 & 50. compare to la la land, in which the freeway does have a role. what's with the hispanic brother? not explained or used as a plot device, so it just seems random. also, i thought i read in the yellow, lined sheets, "after i had your brother at age 40" - though i may have misread as the sheets were visible for about 3 seconds. but shouldn't the brother be adopted or be explained to have a different father? why does kyle say, unprovoked, "you're not the first girl i had sex with; i've slept with 5 girls before you?" i get why it hurts her, but, come on, who says that?!? he is presented as a musician and quiet reader whose dad has cancer. is that motivation to be a total jerk? perhaps i went into the film expecting too much, but this is no "juno."

SPOILERS OK, i know it's a cliché to love a novel and be disappointed in the screen version, but imo what were they thinking? "chance" is a gorgeous, kind, existential novel about an alienated, passive doc who comes back to life by rescuing a woman in trouble. along the way, he is helped by loyal friends old and new. the ending is sweet, including a lovely moment where he defies the lawyers by practicing medicine with integrity. the TV version is a creepy show about a guy with erotomania who gets taken in by a beautiful but violent woman while all his friends mock him angrily.

a bunch of us who had read the book watched the hulu series. at the end we were, "what? oh, no! why did they change it? please, no!" with a few saying, "don't invite me over for the 2nd season!" 2nd time this has happened to kem nunn. his first masterpiece, "tapping the source," was turned into the drastically different "point break." by contrast, robert stone, nunn's mentor, saw his novel, "the dog soldiers," turned faithfully into the great film "who'll stop the rain." apart from the destruction of a great novel, the TV series is decent.

this is a wonderful movie with some great lessons about what good psychotherapy can look like. (i am a psychiatrist, and i teach psychotherapy to psychology and psychiatry trainees).

OK, he's learning on the job, so he makes a few mistakes here and there (e.g. confidentiality). but he is intuitive, kind, caring, present, and natural - in contrast with the psychiatrist and the other psychologist in town, both of whom are stylized in the all-too-common "therapist" way).

if he worked in my town, i'd refer patients to him. if your therapist feels and sounds like the psychiatrist in the film, go find a mumford.

oh, and the film is fun, entertaining, hopeful - yet not all fun and games; there's a bit of a dark side.

i thought Jennifer Lawrence did a great job. to me she was charismatic and believable. i thought Bradley cooper's portrayal of hypomania worked. bipolar illness comes in many forms; this is one. that said, so many aspects of the film were way off. i will admit to the bias of reading the book and loving it. but i don't mind that the book was changed - for example, changing the man's affliction from traumatic brain injury to bipolar illness works well. but so many small details that work in the book are changed arbitrarily to forms that make no sense:

1) the title. in the book, his hospitalization taught him that he lost his marriage because he was neglectful and inconsiderate. he has resolved to be "kind instead of right," and hopes that being a better man can win his wife back; that is the "silver lining" beneath the cloud of his injury. in the movie, he comes out of the hospital angry and inconsiderate, so the title makes no sense.

2) like another reviewer, my jaw dropped to hear trazodone (rhymes with hazard) pronounced to rhyme with lake. if you know of the med, it's as impossible as if they had pronounced Valium, "vaylium, " or Robert de Niro, "de-ny-ro."

3) the dad as a kindly bookmaker. in the novel, the dad is unavailable and surly. though i understand the director, as the father of a bipolar son, wanting to show dads in a positive light, the bookmaker addition makes no sense at all. he has no customers that we can see. he makes unwise bets.

4) the brother is a decent fellow in the book, has a job, family, tries to be helpful. in the movie, he's an a$$hole for no good reason.

5) in the book, the therapist is kind, wise, humane. in the movie, he is simplistic -"you have to have a plan" - ineffectual, and irrelevant. plus he seems to be hearing everything that has happened in our hero's life before the session. where on earth does he get this information!?!? totally unrealistic.

6) the eagles: in the book, the friend, brother, and hero have a long history of loving the eagles. it is part of the hero's community. and we root for the eagles along with them. in the movie, there is no development of this community. the eagles are just something to bet on (and, again, the betting makes no sense). in the book, there's a fight with a belligerent giant's fan. in the movie this is changed - why? - to racist eagles fans attacking south Asian fans.

6) the police officer (not in the book). omg! as another poster has said, where on earth do you get your own personal cop to watch out for you when you get out of the hospital?

7) the ex-wife. in the book, she has pressed charges that put him away for years, served a restraining order, written him off and moved on. in the movie, she first comes to the dance performance and then shows no reaction when he whispers in her ear - what? - that he is now in love with someone else? a terrible scene that is completely inconsistent with the set-up of her character.

8) medication. in the book, he decides to start taking the meds, and they help. in the movie, maybe he takes his meds, but it's quite unclear.

9) terrible camera work. shaky, out-of-focus, nausea-inducing.

"girl with the dragon tattoo" ("dragon tattoo" for short). had gorgeous cinematography. "girl who played with fire" ("fire" for short) has dull, grainy cinematography. dragon tattoo had sets which exactly matched what i had imagined from the book - particularly the vengers' island; no place in fire looked familiar. dragon tattoo was edited to emphasize the main story and leave out all unessential side stories. fire wastes time in the caribbean and even shows us at length detective bublanski in temple - uh, why?? - then omits all the interplay of the good and bad cops, and much of the investigation of the conspirators.

dragon tattoo omits mikael's relationship with erika. fire includes mikael and erika but with zero spark - plus shows erika as jealous, but omits lisbeth's jealousy, which drives much of the plot of the book. so neither erika's nor lisbeth's attitude towards mikael - so carefully described in the book -make sense in fire

and the big bad guy, ronald niederman, is described in the film, and book, as blond, but his hair is dyed white. there are a lot of blonds in this Swedish movie, and niedermann isn't one of them. i suppose this isn't particularly important, except if they're going to give him dyed white hair, then don't have the police off looking for a big blond guy. just seems emblematic of all the details dragon tattoo got right and fire gets wrong.

why oh why did they dump the director and screenwriters of dragon tattoo? these replacements just don't cut it.

i loved the novel by don winslow, and i was disappointed in the movie.

first the positives: i liked paul walker. i delighted in the difference between the personas he plays as the decent but easily angered tim kearney and as the asshole bobby z. olivia wilde is indeed beautiful

now the negatives: perhaps i should judge the film on its own merits - in which case it's an OK made-for TV film. but i can't help but notice the best parts of the book are missing: the caring, heartfelt relationships.

foreground in the novel is the relationship between a bright, worldly, witty, athletic 6 year old and a decent man who knows nothing about kids. there is a tremendous spark between them - and a wealth of snappy repartee - that delights the reader. the movie substitutes a dull, whiny, out-of-shape, monosyllabic, uneducated 12 year old. what were they thinking? in the book, the crazy wisdom of the beach bum "one-way" saves the day. this bit of magic adds a whimsy that makes the novel different from other shoot-em-outs. all gone from the film. in the book, elizabeth is lovely and decent throughout. in the film, she is lovely to look at, but evil and predatory. she becomes a good guy at the last minute, spurred by kearney's kindness to the young kit. i didn't trust the sudden change of heart, and did not enjoy seeing a predatory elizabeth.

so the novel is an action adventure deepened by kearney's relationship with the wonderful kit, the lovely elizabeth, and the magical one-way. none of that depth makes it into the movie

fabulous movie. well-acted, well-directed, beautifully photographed - and this is a movie with heart. like Amelie or Little Miss Sunshine, it is certainly a fable rather than a gritty slice of life, but it is a fable with a consistent tone, and it is by no means saccharine.

there are, in addition, several very accurate portraits of humanity: Jeremy Sisto's portrayal of the abusive husband is, to me, the best i have ever seen. he is needy and entitled in a way i see every day rather than the one-dimensional sociopath we usually see portrayed on screen (cf. Javier Bardem). were the best supporting actor Oscar mine to bestow, i'd give it to Sisto. amazing portrayal.

Andy Griffith is wonderful as Joe. how many roles for octogenarians are that ripe? and of those roles, how many are acted with charisma? i loved Nathan Fillion as the doctor. i found his awkward attraction believable and his comic timing impeccable: "well, then, i'll see you on Friday, Mrs. Hunterson...(long pause)... i wish it were Friday." that the 3 waitresses are beautifully portrayed goes without saying.

one other psychological truth in the movie concerns rescuing. Jenna is a diamond in the rough. her radiance and charisma are quite visible to the audience, but not to most of those in Jenna's life. Joe sees her; Dr. Pommater sees her. of course they fall in love with her - just as we, the audience, do. of course both want to rescue her - just as we in the audience do.

that Joe can legitimately rescue her and that Dr. Pommater cannot is one of the subtle truths that make this movie more than just a diversion. that Jenna tells Dr. Pommater, "and don't try to rescue me" is just so right for the integrity of her street-smart character.

spoiler alert this movie is psychologically right on. petulia is in a bad marriage with bad in-laws, and archie is her way out. archie almost rescues her, but not quite. her indirectness and whimsy mask a good heart. "why didn't you come get me when you had the chance?" is the tragedy of the movie. she does rescue him: under her influence, he grows from angry, bitter, and alienated to lively and engaged - most vividly with his kids. but not present enough soon enough to take the stand of rescuing her and she stays in her compromise marriage.

i'm not troubled by the flashbacks at all. they are straightforward, easy to follow, and mostly appear as memories would. much easier to follow than a soderberg movie like "the limey" - which i also liked - in which time is presented at the director's taste. in this movie we (mostly) see subjective time; the characters view the present and are triggered into the past.

lovely romance, great acting by fiennes, and weisz is charismatic.

that said, i had to look at my knees for almost half of the movie to keep the world from spinning - and i still left with a headache that lasted 3 hours. and for no good reason! i can accept a shaky camera for land rover rides on dirt roads (tho my eyes track just fine in a bumpy car thank you!) but why shake the camera for close ups of the lovers' faces! are their hearts supposed to be pounding so hard they can't see straight?!? i have been to kenya and tanzania, and the rural roads feel peaceful and serene - most definitely not frenetic and dizzying as the camera-work implied.

the sound was muddy - where the quality of sound in rural kenya is crystal clear.

and the lighting obscure - where the light in Africa is brilliant.

to me, the feeling tone of the camera-work, lighting, and sound, if intentional, harassed the viewer and demeaned the continent; if unintentional, was worse than amateurish.

and the plot had a hole big enough to drive a land rover through. why submit her report through channels to the complicit government? that's the last place a radical like tessa would expect to get a sympathetic ear. why not give the story to a newspaper? or even leak the story to a rival pharmaceutical company! and if she's going through proper diplomatic channels, why hide her work from diplomat husband justin?

SPOILER ALERT. i went with 3 friends and we all loved the movie. first of all, i found the first hour of the movie hilarious. i am a psychiatrist, and i found the conversations very believable. i have had a patient sit in my chair and felt the bewilderment faber shows because i too wanted to affirm, not undercut, the patient's growing assertiveness. anna tells faber that their openness with each other has helped her. faber is awkward - my friend called his look "deer-in-the-headlights" - but genuinely cares. faber's openness and good will is contrasted with the real psychiatrist up the hall. not only is the psychiatrist mercenary, he is also into showing off and into pathologizing. when he has the (mistaken) hunch that anna might be fooling faber, he is filled with glee at his skill, not with regret at her possible suffering.

there many more allusions to therapy. the concierge is watching a film about an affair between a priest and a parishioner - alluding to the budding forbidden romance between the "patient" and "therapist." both anna and faber try to empower the other: faber encourages anna to stand up to her bossy husband (granted, he has mixed motives); anna encourages faber to loosen up (lose the tie) and to get out of the apartment he grew up in and see the world (the suitcase gift). in the theme of mutual help and mutual openness, the film reminded me of "good will hunting" and of "blue."

why doesn't she pursue him right away when she leaves her husband? because he only becomes worthy of her (romantically) once he moves out into the world and becomes assertive enough to find her.

the film shows both coming alive. not only does she go from drab to lovely, he begins to dance to Wilson pickett (here i was reminded of napoleon dynamite)

Spoiler alert perhaps i shouldn't have read the book first. the movie is such a disappointment compared to the book. bourne identity is also a better book than movie, but at least that movie carries the spirit of the book: amnesia, love, warmth, loyalty, integrity. supremacy (movie) is random and alienated.

but supremacy would be a pleasant action flick were the camera work not such a travesty. i had to look away from the screen perhaps 200 times to keep the seasickness at bay. hand- held bumpy camera, wildly careening views from ground to sky. editing cuts every 2 seconds. to me this did not evoke poised, highly-trained, cia mystery man. it evoked forced-by- courtesy-to-watch-your-cousin's-14-year-old-son's-home-video. i still have an eyestrain headache an hour later.

and what's with the fight scenes?! in identity, damon's a lithe, athletic hero (his kung-fu is strong!) in supremacy, the camera's been taken over by gremlin showboats. i can't even see what the heck damon's doing!

by the way, bad enough to kill off conklin in identity. why kill off marie?!? maybe we're missing ludlum as producer this time around.

2 positives: the scene with the Russian activists' daughter and the "i can see you" scenes between damon and joan allen.