Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
The story doesn't make sense.
28 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Look, when you first move into a place, you can explain away a number of things that might give you the creeps as mice in the attic or squirrels on the roof or the house settling. Maybe, depending on your history, you might think you're losing your mind. I think when you have proof on film of something in your bedroom while you're asleep, it doesn't matter if it's a person who has a passkey or someone who knows about a secret passage or if it's a ghost or a demon. You have proof something's in there that shouldn't be. You get out.

Nick doesn't. Nothing is presented as a reason why he wouldn't leave. He doesn't have angst over an empty bank account or a history of being cut off from his friends by a long-term abusive relationship. He has resources, but he doesn't use them until it's almost too late. And then, when he tries, he's blocked. He wants to take the train back to London, but there's a fire at the train station, so presumably no trains are going to be running for a few days. So he's back in his bedroom. Are there no cars to hire in the UK? Is there no coach service? Are there no hotels in Nottingham where he could stay?

Right before the ending of the movie there's some text that says that the footage that follows was pulled from the cloud and is presented on edited. So now you know, without even watching it, that Nick died. Do you have any idea how easy it would have been to have his friend, whom he's supposedly been communicating with this whole time, log onto Nick's cloud account and either watch footage that was uploaded earlier, or even in real time, so this information isn't given away?

Plus, it would have left things open for a sequel where the antagonist attaches to the friend.

Ridiculous. It taints the whole film.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very Interesting Historical Docudrama
27 December 2003
This movie is a little choppy, but you try fitting 20 years of turbulent history into a two hour movie. If you don't know about other things happenning during the same period (the Great Depression, for example) the allusions to its effects on the primary storyline are hard to follow. I'd like to see this done as a mini-series, with about ten hours or so to tell the story in full.

Still, if you think that the civil rights movement began with the Montgomery Bus Boycott, you will find this movie fascinating. The drive to organize the African-American porters combines civil rights and workers' rights with historical perspectives on the late 1920's and 1930's.

One thing that struck me about this movie is the presence of benevolent White characters. In many African-American rights movies, all Whites are either evil or ineffectual morons. (Think the White assistant principal in Lean on Me). There are many White racists in the role of antagonists in this movie, but there is also the White rep for the AFL, who works to support the growing union.
14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good Fences (2003 TV Movie)
Absolutely NOT a Comedy
30 July 2003
I like Danny Glover. I think Whoopi Goldberg is brilliant. I thought I'd love this movie, especially since the wrapper specifically says that "the laughs don't stop in this hilarious comedy." Wrong. This was painful.

We've seen aliens meet the neighbors in several forms and trailer trash meets the neighbors. When George Jefferson met Archie Bunker, it was hilarious. Surely the same story could be told in a wealthier community and be funny. This was just sad. Instead of being amused, you feel pain for Whoopi's family and pity for her unenlightened neighbors.

I didn't feel that Tom's (Danny Glover) actions at the end followed either from his history (revealed, I think, too late) or from his prejudice. The lighting on Tom's face, by the way, is about as subtle as the foreshadowing in the 19th century gothic. If you can see it, it doesn't work.

I've seen the racial conflicts of the 1950's-1970's done as drama (Mississippi Burning, In the Heat of the Night, A Patch of Blue) and I've seen it done as comedy (previously mentioned All in the Family, certain episodes of MASH, and any other quality show from the period). The fact that this wasn't funny has less to do with the topic than with the writing.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Totally Agree. This movie is an 8 or 9, easy.
14 July 2003
Okay folks, if you want classic drama with meaning for the ages, go read War and Peace; movies are for entertainment. This is one of the movies that my family turns to again and again for good, solid laughs. I love Kathleen Turner as the mercenary mother-spy, Dennis Quaid as the naughty-boy father spy. Stanley Tucci as the small time hood up against a power he is utterly unprepared for is AN ABSOLUTE RIOT. Fiona Shaw is great as the nympho megalomaniac (it's always a shock, watching this, to realize she plays Mrs. Dursley, Harry Potter's evil aunt). Tom Arnold and Park Overall are riots as the mundane neighbors-in-the-hotel.

I don't like the portrayal of the two NOPD officers as much, but when this movie was filmed, they were scandalous, so I can understand why the writer/director thought it would be funny. Fortunately, it's dated.

Best lines:

"I picture you as a rosewood armoire with really nice drawers." -Jeff

"Paulina, Paulina, Paulina, my hat's off to you." -Jeff

"Oh yes, well why not your pants?" -Paulina

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, you can sing, dance, impersonate Elvis... Not get in the car, you suspected felon, you." -Jeff

"Let me see if I understand this. You took our child into a knife fight?" -Jane "Hey, it was a fair fight. Two of them, two of us. -Jeff
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed