Reviews

The movie starts with an interesting concept, but it fails to follow that concept to any sort of meaningful ending.

Having experienced a tragic miscarriage some years earlier, a failed relationship (with a partner who has since moved on to a happy relationship with his now pregnant bride), and now a major professional disappointment, stressed-out Alma has an opportunity to experience a temporary window of pleasure, even happiness, with robot Tom.

However, Alma's intellect drives most of her actions and decisions with respect to Tom. And that intellect tells her that because Tom is a robot, their "relationship" isn't real, and any feelings she may develop for him won't be valid.

Thus, while Anna may have a few genuine moments of fun and pleasure with Tom, for the most part she maintains a certain detachment, always aware that it's a "facsimile" relationship.

And that makes for a rather boring movie.

I admit I was sometimes frustrated by Alma's detached demeanor, since it kept me from caring about her or her relationship with Tom.

But then I would think about the position in which Alma finds herself. She knows that her time with Tom is a mere few weeks. Despite the suggestion that when your life is falling apart, there's nothing wrong with reaching out for a lifeline--which Alma does, briefly--she has to weigh the momentary pleasure of "now" against the sadness she will feel if she allows herself to get close to Tom and then has to say goodbye in 21 days.

No wonder Alma wants to end the experiment early. She's not really equipped to handle it.

We do find out somewhere during the movie--if I read the subtitles correctly--that another participant in the three-week "robot test drive" is so happy with his robot companion, he is in negotiations to see about keeping her longer. (I'm not sure exactly how long.)

This *could* have been a game changer in the movie. Would Alma change the way she interacted with robot Tom if she suddenly learned that she could be with him for a much longer time (presumably, years)? Would she take a chance on the "validity" of love with a robot who would never experience actual feelings for her, but whose programming could bring pleasure to her life? Given the chance to be with him long-term, could she, a human, be satisfied with his/their "imitation love"?

Unfortunately, the movie does not go in this direction. Rather, it just loses momentum until it fades to black. I have not read the short story, but I wonder if it is also strong on the "what if" element but weak on the execution.

Okay, I rented this movie years ago and then recently found it at my public library and gave it another viewing. Yep--still love it.

It's the kind of love story *I* like--a story with heart, unexpected sweetness, and a happy-enough ending that makes you hope these crazy kids will somehow make it.

Was Latter Days made on a shoestring budget? Well, just watch it, look at the production values--bare bones. Wes Ramsey and Steven Sandvoss were clearly not seasoned actors, and IMHO they were further hamstrung by an awkward script. A script that, let's face it, doesn't really stand up to close scrutiny...

And yet.

The camera loved Sandvoss, whose "aw-shucks", almost shy demeanor as Mormon missionary Aaron worked so well against Ramsey's more extroverted performance as cynical L.A. pretty-boy player Christian. (Sandvoss' own acting limitations here seemed to me to be partly camouflaged by his character's awkwardness. For example, is the inexperienced actor fidgeting slightly outside the airport terminal, not sure how physically to fill the empty seconds between the end of his kiss with Ramsey and the arrival of the airport custodian? Or is it simply Aaron being all tentative and uncertain in a situation that's completely new to him? You be the judge.)

I also enjoyed the way the story flowed, in the sense that Christian seems to start falling for Aaron around the same time Aaron realizes just how shallow Christian is. Up until that moment, Christian has been pretty much in the power seat, slowly reeling in the naive missionary with his good looks and charismatic charm. (Of course, he has already tested the waters and confirmed that Aaron is not immune to some subtle advances.) It's literally a game to Christian--one that stands to net him at least 50 bucks once he gets Aaron into bed.

But when a disillusioned Aaron calls Christian out on his shallowness and disengages from the friendship, Christian can't just shrug and move on. Instead, he is bothered by the loss of Aaron's good opinion of him. He misses Aaron's companionship and his quiet (if inexplicable) conviction that life is good and we're all connected.

And so the balance of power shifts, because from this point on (from my POV), both men are vulnerable in the relationship, not just Aaron. That's what I mean by enjoying the way the story flowed.

The fact that both actors looked incredibly hot naked, together, making love, was just an amazing bonus. (However, I could have done without the slightly porn-y music played in the airport hotel. Also, I was not a fan of the the editing of Aaron and Christian's romantic moments. Too many jumps. When people are falling in love and savoring the unexpected moment, the kiss that is a discovery, the feelings that are a revelation, I want the camera to stay with a shot for more than 2 seconds. Digitally clean up what you need to, I guess, but otherwise, give us a chance to enjoy the experience.)

Anyway.

Clearly I've thought about this a lot.

I wish someone would remake Latter Days, with the same sweetness of the original movie, but with better production values and a smarter, tighter script.

***SPOILERS***

I saw this when it first came out. I remembered loving the love story part of this movie.

I recently had a chance to review the recent Criterion Collection release of Klute, courtesy of our public library.

I don't know if the movie really is different from what I remember, or if the library got a "cut" version, but it seemed to me there was a key love scene missing. Not the scene where Bree and Klute first have sex. That one's there.

I'm talking about a later love scene where Bree experiences fulfillment during sex for the first time. This is a really key scene in the movie as it signals a turning point in Bree's relationship with Klute.

Am I just not remembering correctly, and there was no such love scene? It's driving me crazy, because I feel like I remember it!

***TOTAL SPOILERS AHEAD***

I think the premise of this movie was supposed to be: A married man dies, and his male German lover, seeking to remain close to his beloved, spends time with the dead man's wife and young son. He even goes so far, when seduced by the wife, as to have sex with her, and in the manner that the dead husband had once described to him. But everything is shattered when the wife learns who the German is: the lover of her late husband, who had been about move to Berlin "to be with someone else".

That could have been an interesting story. What is the impact of losing someone you love deeply and can't forget, so that you take extreme measures to feel "connected" to that person again? What is the impact of betrayal by a seeming new friend and love interest? How do the two impacted parties reconcile all that has happened?

But unfortunately, that is not the story we got, IMO.

Instead, a married businessman--an Israeli who spends time regularly in Berlin--dies, and his male German lover goes to Israel to seek out the dead man's wife, though his motivations are murky, which by the way is a characteristic of this movie. Murkiness. Lack of clarity as to what motivates the characters and why they do or say certain things. So I just assume the German, a baker named Thomas, wants to see where his beloved used to live, see the wife and son he sometimes talked about, and feel connected to the man he loved and still misses. But you'll have to assume that for yourself, since the movie is not going to tell you.

Thomas ends up working in the wife's new cafe, and they eventually have a rather uninspiring sexual encounter. While Thomas does think about the dead husband during the act, it's not clear if he really enjoys the encounter or if it is cathartic for him in any way. This could have been a great opportunity for us to see Thomas struggle as he asks himself "Do I really want to go this far to stay connected to my beloved? Is this who I really am?" Instead, the encounter is just another event that comes and goes, with no real character development attached to it.

(Oh, and for some reason, during this time period, the cafe's "certified Kosher" designation is take away, even though the wife is taking pains to do nothing that would put the cafe at such risk, from what I see. But that story line seems to go nowhere and I cannot explain its significance, other than maybe it was just a plot device to ratchet up the tension.)

The wife subsequently finds out that the person her husband was going to leave her for--yes, we learn that he was going to leave her for someone else, had it not been for the fatal car accident--is this very man!

Thomas is told that she wants nothing more to do with him, so he heads back to Berlin and his bakery. In the closing shots, it is three months later, and the wife goes to Berlin to see the bakery. She arrives in time to watch Thomas bike away. A small smile appears on her face. End of movie. Whatever.

What was the point of this movie? Did we truly explore the impact the husband/lover's death had had on these people?

No. Instead, what we mainly have are a lot of extended shots/poses of characters looking off in a soulful, or bemused, or thoughtful, or sad, or other inscrutable manner. Or shots of dough being kneaded, cookies being decorated, etc. For long stretches of time. So long that I barely made it past the 40-minute mark in this film, but thanks to fast forwarding, I was able to increase the pace of the film to an acceptable level. Judicious editing would have shaved off 15 minutes and improved the pacing.

Anyway, I think these "tableaux" were supposed to take the place of actual story or character development. God forbid the director should tell us what these characters are actually thinking and what they are really feeling and whether they are experiencing any struggle or turmoil. In large part, it is left to us to intuit their thoughts and motivations.

The only really compelling scene for me was the one where Thomas overwhelmed by all that has happened, has an emotional breakdown. That was well done. But we were cheated out of the inevitable and much-needed confrontation between Thomas and the wife.

To sum up, I just don't think this film went anywhere interesting. We don't learn much about these people, and we never quite understand their motivations. (Case in point: the dead man's mother-in law.) So at the end I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on.

+++ MINOR SPOILERS BELOW +++

Not quite a 7/10, but close enough. Points are for cinematography and acting. Story was not bad, could have been better.

************* This was a visually interesting movie for me. The cinematography gave a very good sense of Johnny Saxby's Yorkshire farm: vast, isolating, often cold (it looked to me like the actors must have been freezing in some of those scenes), and generally intimidating to a family that does not have the resources to take care of the endless chores that must be carried out in order for such a farm to succeed.

For me, the acting was fine. However, the lack of subtitles on the DVD was a problem. I'm American, and I simply could not understand some of the dialogue in the film, due to the heavy accents of some of the actors. Granted, there's not a lot of dialogue to begin with, but it's clear that there were a couple of sentences here and there that seemed to be germane to the story line, yet I could not make them out, even after rewinding and listening again.

I thought the film was way too slow in parts. I get that there's a certain allure to keeping in all that film footage of the harsh, desolate "personality" of the Yorkshire countryside. But some of that, IMHO, needed to be edited down to keep the film moving. Also, I was not a fan of the scenes dealing with lamb deaths and birthings. I think that those, too, could have been shortened up a bit while still getting across the idea of the hard and sometimes emotionally exhausting life of a sheep farmer.

Now, onto my main problem with this film. For the life of me, I could not understand why Gheorghe (the itinerant farm hand who comes to help Johnny during lambing season) was attracted to Johnny. I can see why Johnny was attracted to handsome, warm, capable, and caring Gheorghe. But gawky looking Johnny, with his sullen and resentful attitude, showed me nothing that explained why Gheorghe would be interested in him.

I think this was a big failing on the part of the film. We needed a little more dialogue (not that I would probably have understood it :-) ), something that Gheorghe reveals to us that helps us understand his attraction to, or affinity with, Johnny. It would not have been that hard to do. Instead, we never learn much about Gheorghe, which hurt the relationship's credibility for me.

In that same vein, instead of a brief post-coital bedroom scene where all we see is Johnny asking Gheorghe how to say certain English words in Romanian--really, Director/Producer/Editor, this was important to show us??--maybe that scene should have shown Johnny articulating his hopes and dreams and conflicting feelings. Or maybe the two of them sharing thoughts, revealing things, that show us why they fit together as a couple. You know--something of substance.

I am also skeptical that two men would feel comfortable kissing passionately in full view of any co-workers who might happen to walk by. (This occurs late in the film.) But hey, maybe Scottish attitudes are more laid back about that kind of thing?

Finally, I'm kind of confused about how the men will make a go of the farm, down the road. Gheorghe says he's been through this before (the loss of his own family farm) and can't do it again. Did he and Johnny actually discuss what could be done (beyond making sheep's-milk cheese) to truly make the farm a viable, going concern? I don't think so. It would have been nice to understand that they had an actual plan, going forward.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

I like the premise of the movie, but the actual execution was a big let-down.

Maybe it's because I'm American and not familiar with the Israeli sense of humor (in the same way that French humor kind of baffles me). Or maybe something was lost in translation when the sub-titles were written. (The film is in Hebrew, and the copy I saw did not have English dubbing, so I relied on the sub-titles.)

Whatever, I did not find this film amusing or enjoyable.

The film was populated by a number of characters whom we barely got to know, let alone care about. I'm still not sure who a couple of them were.

And then Michal's rejection of the engineer suitor (I'll give her a pass on pop star suitor Yoss) made no sense to me. Well, to be clear, I think I get the expectation -- "Hashem will provide", right? and on the last night of Chanukah, to be specific -- but I didn't buy it. Because maybe Hashem sent these sudden new suitors Michal's way in answer to her prayer, that's how I see it. Maybe He thought His timing was wiser than hers?

But by Michal rejecting a perfectly good suitor because he does not meet her scheduled time frame, the movie is able to achieve what I assume is its main objective: to show that if you have enough faith in Hashem, He will provide, and exactly as you requested it.

As silly as this conceit is, perhaps a worse failing of the film is in the depiction of Michal. I found her to be an unlikable, unknowable character. We don't have any reason to root for her as the movie goes along. Bridget Jones is quirky, yet we see things about her that make her oddly likable. Ditto Muriel ("Muriel's Wedding"). But Michal? Not so much.

And frankly, her current Debbie-downer attitude notwithstanding, I don't know how it is Michal isn't already married when the movie starts. Are suitable brides so plentiful in her Hassidic community that no bridegroom could be found years ago? (When the movie opens, she is engaged, but to my knowledge they don't have long engagements, so I'm assuming she and the original fiancé had only been engaged a short time as the movie opened,and she's already over 30.) Is the fact she owns a mobile petting zoo a deal-breaker in her community?

Maybe there was something said that explained everything, but if there was, I missed it. It just seemed to me that the filmmaker did not provide the type of backstory or other information that would help folks like me understand how Michal comes to find herself in her current situation when the movie starts. Perhaps to Israeli viewers, though, it all makes sense.

The only other comments I have are:

1. I dislike it when actors sob but there are no tears to be seen. (Noa Koler, I'm looking at you.)

2. Shimi was very easy on the eyes. :-) The filmmaker should have focused more on Shimi's interactions with Michal, and their friendship, throughout the film.

---SPOILERS AHEAD---

I'm watching this trilogy backwards, since I started with Covenant of Grace (the final film) and have just finished Testament of Love.

Overall I liked it. Having already seen the final film, I did not have the frustration a lot of folks had regarding the ambiguous ending of ToL. (Film three showed us what ends up happening.) Also, not having seen the first film, I had no sense of "I've seen this before," etc.

While I enjoyed the story, and give high praise to Hannah Barefoot and that little scene stealer Kaitlyn Taylor Graves for jobs well done, there were several aspects that fell short.

1. As someone already mentioned, there was that incredible house and the looming question, how Chris could afford it? Even if Chris were comfortably well off due to some sort of trust fund, the house itself was really distracting! How do I focus on the story when I'm wondering how many rooms there are in this house and how much it's worth? I wondered if it had its own Facebook page.

2. When Chris invites RJ to his home during the family confrontation, RJ bears the brunt of everyone's anger and rage. Chris says he needs him there, though, presumably in order to have the courage to come out. Wow, way to be selfish, Chris! I needed a later scene where Chris apologizes to RJ for exposing him to all that vitriol. I wanted Chris to say that in his own need, he had not realized how it would be for RJ. And I wanted RJ to forgive him, saying it was worth it just to hear Chris admit he loved him. Alas, there was no such scene, if I recall correctly.

3. I also wanted a scene where Chris says he's taken the first step but he still has things to figure out. He has a career and a child and family, etc. This would have given RJ a reason to LEAVE, perhaps in some frustration. But there was no such scene, so it made no sense to me that RJ left--especially since Chris had just declared his feelings for him. RJ was finally (it seemed) getting what he wanted. Wouldn't he postpone going home?

4. If RJ's leaving made no sense, it especially made no sense for him to go about it by crashing the anniversary party and abruptly telling Chris he's leaving (with no explanation). I get that the director really liked the drama of this scenario, but come on, you need a better thought-out setup.

5. The editing was poor in places, in my opinion.

On the one hand, you have long conversations or arguments or whatever, and they seem unedited. That is, IRL we may pause to think about what someone says before we respond. We might pace a little bit before responding. That's fine, but on the screen it's boring to see that. Those scenes needed to be edited down. (And may I say that I did not need to see so much of Ben Farmer wanking off in the bathroom, either. I'm pretty sure I understood what the director was trying to say with that scene within about 15 seconds of the action starting. Chris is frustrated and angry, he can't get off with his wife--indeed, he is probably fixated on RJ at that very moment--and he hates himself and the fact that he can't stop wanting to be with men and that it's men who "do" it for him, and not women. See? I got that well before being treated to the side view of Mr. Farmer masturbating. Just my 2 cents there.)

On the other hand, some scenes were too edited. For example, you've got this climactic scene where RJ unexpectedly kisses Chris in front of family and friends. But the editing is really choppy. We go from hands down at the sides to hands suddenly around each other's neck, but there's no transition. And there are Chris and RJ mashing their mouths together, but again, where's the build-up? Where is the soft, insistent kiss from RJ that slowly coaxes Chris to surrender all resistance and kiss him back, with passion slowly building from that point? All I could think was that what we saw was the best of the film footage available--maybe there were problems with the sound or something that prevented the director from providing a (to me) more complete and logical scene.

Despite the above-mentioned shortcomings, I still liked this movie. Now I just have to watch the first one in the trilogy...

***SPOILERS SPOILERS***

Thank goodness I watched this at home and could take a break after the first hour--very slow moving, like your average glacier.

A major portion of the movie focuses on the effort to learn to communicate with the aliens who have landed on various parts of Earth. Within what appear to be weeks or months--let's assume months, even though it's never made clear--our heroine, language expert Dr. Louise Banks, has figured out how to communicate with the aliens, who seem to communicate with a few vague sounds and a lot of dynamic visual symbols. Louise and the aliens go from exchanging a few simple symbols (the written word for human, the alien expression for who they are, etc.). A man provides a demonstration of "walking." And the next thing we know, Louise is talking to the aliens in short sentences, which the aliens more or less understand. And we're not just talking "Boy eat apple"-type sentences. No, we're talking abstract concepts like "what is your purpose," "weapons," and so on.

I simply could not believe that they could crack the language code so quickly. Sorry.

Also, another key plot point of the movie is what appear to be Louise's flashbacks. We come to understand what these are by the end of the movie, but my, wasn't it convenient who and what she did and did not remember? And the timing of the flashbacks was peculiar. I could not buy that at some point during the entire "mission," she did not look at the other character and say, "Wait, I know you!" Very inconsistent and unbelievable.

While watching this movie I had a distinct feeling that it was based on a book. (It is in fact based on a short story.) Some stories are "mind" stories, internally focused as much as anything else, with much or most of the story impact deriving from the state of the protagonist as he/she is perceiving and interacting with external situations. Also, some stories rely on a certain unique written style to enhance the story impact. All of this was my sense about "Arrival"--that as a written story, it might have been quite intriguing from a mental/psychological and stylistic POV, but trying to transfer something like that to a visual medium like the big screen might have caused it to lose some of that impact. (I have not yet read the short story, so I could be wrong.) Anyway, JMO.

Disclosure: Straight middle-aged woman here.

MINOR SPOILER included below.

Wow, never heard of this trilogy before. Then I noticed TF:CoG was among the new DVDs recently added to our local library collection. (I was kind of surprised, since I live in a pretty conservative mid-western city.)

Anyway, I was so impressed by the acting in this story! The performances were so good, at times I felt like a voyeur, witnessing intimate moments I had no business seeing.

Nick Ferrucci's portrayal particularly came across as so honest, so truthful, it blew me away. The vulnerability expressed through his eyes was very convincing. Hope to see more of him in the future.

The story itself was compelling. I've never seen a movie where two men were sweetly and passionately in love, emotionally and physically. Always a sucker for a good romance, I found this as satisfying as any M/F movie romance. I was a little surprised, though, that one of the characters who seemed adamantly opposed to the M/M relationship "came around" by the end of the movie. I'd have preferred that not happen, as I think it would have (sadly) been more realistic.

Now I have to go track down the first two installments of this trilogy. :-)

**SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS**

**TOTALLY SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS**

**I WARNED YOU**

I expected better, after reading a number of good reviews.

Here is a partial summary of this forgettable movie:

1. Retired, well-off, 70-ish widow lives a low-key but pleasant life alone. She has friends she spends time with (golfing, playing bridge).

2. We see a montage of her morning rituals--get up, read paper, take pills next to kitchen sink, all with her dog by her side.

3. Elderly dog dies. I had to fast forward through some of this--it was not just a short scene, there's the trip to the vet, the death, etc. It depressed me.

4. Now we see a repeat montage of her morning ritual--but now each event without the dog being there. Blythe's character, Carol, is in a funk. I'm feeling a bit dejected myself.

5. There's some uninteresting crap that happens. She talks with the pool boy. They drink, ruminating a bit on life. (Pool boy is aimless.) BTW, Carol spends a lot of the movie drinking. I'm not sure she can function without a drink, frankly. (Ironically, by the halfway mark of this movie, I will be wondering if I can get through it without a drink.)

6. Carol sings a mournful Cry Me a River at a karaoke night. I was surprised she did not sing "Is That All There Is". I look at my watch and wonder where exactly this movie is going.

7. A week after the dog dies, Carol meets the Sam Eliot character, Bill. After 2 dates, they really click. At last, the movie looks like it's taking a turn for the better!

8. Bill immediately dies. That's right--it seems like he's barely on the screen and bam, he's gone. Again, it's not just a short scene. Trip to hospital. Oops, sorry, Carol, you can't see him, you're not family. Later a phone call to Carol breaking the news....

9. There's a meaningless marijuana scene, followed by a meaningless "munchies" shopping scene, among Carol's bridge group when they next meet. I did not give a flying fig about these ladies and their efforts to do something a bit naughty, something to shake up their humdrum lives. I saw no purpose to any of it, other than to say the obvious: "It is what it is, and life goes on. We're all in this together-- let's try to make the best of what's left."

Frankly, I'm just going to stop here. If the above plot points works for you, by all means, have at it. As a baby boomer myself, I found it all pointless and rather off-putting.

The only good part of the movie for me was the ending when Carol adopts a senior dog from the pound. But it did not make up for the other 89 or so minutes of this boring and depressing flick. Obviously, YMMV

Possible minor spoilers...

You know, if this movie had been edited better in the first half (or first two thirds, whatever), I suspect I'd have liked it better and rated it higher.

Here's the thing: The final third of the movie significantly informs the first two thirds. It's what makes the movie. So you don't want to dawdle getting to that final third. But neither do you want to shortchange the first two thirds.

The trick is to show enough of the first two thirds--the decline of a father grieving the death of his son during a college campus shooting two years earlier--for us to get that yeah, he has certainly declined, yeah he's depressed, he's lost, and yes, he's reconnecting in some way to his dead son by listening to the songs the son wrote and left behind. But not so much of this that I start going into a coma and have to FAST FORWARD through it! I mean, the songs are mostly not all that compelling, and you can only watch someone being depressed and mopey and anti-social for so long...

And as another poster pointed out, we know that the father is going to give in to the troubled young man (Quentin) who keeps wanting them to sing the dead son's music, so why drag that out?

But no, we have to keep seeing the father rejecting friendly advances, being moody, saying little, and doing random acts that make us not particularly sympathetic to his situation.

William H. Macy is lucky that I stuck it out until the final third of the movie, when it starts picking up the pace and becoming interesting.

So, it's an okay movie, if hamstrung by crummy pacing/editing, but whittle away about 15 minutes and it would have been much better, IMHO.

**Spoilers below**

I found this movie to be absolutely "the same ol' same ol". Dialogue was rather clichéd and trite--nothing you haven't seen and heard before. The premise--oh, hey look, I lost my job and am too old to land another one, and I just found out my daughter needs a boatload of money for college by next week, so I'll just whip up this scheme--was a stretch. (BTW--in the real world, if you have a solid work record, yet you're told you're being let go essentially because you're too old/old looking, you'd probably think about filing an age discrimination lawsuit. In this movie, though, that idea never even comes up.)

The father/daughter convos were especially silly, particularly toward the latter half of the movie, where I felt the father had every right to want his daughter to come home with him instead of being left alone with a con man (who, BTW, has an amazingly large and well-appointed apartment for a young man of uncertain means).

Instead, the father is made out to be the "bad" guy, while the impulsive daughter is apparently supposed to be the voice of reason. Please.

And here's something else I found offensive about this movie. The whole movie centers around the idea that Tom is being judged in the work world, and found wanting, based on his age and looks, rather than on his considerable talent. (He's 50 with some graying hair.) And yet his love interest is a good 15 years younger than he! At one point in the movie, a very stereotypically blue-collar middle-aged NY waitress points out that Tom is a good age for *her*. But the movie delivers this observation in a manner that clearly telegraphs to the audience the message "As if...!"

See, it's terribly wrong to consider a man washed up at his job strictly based on looks and age, but it's okay to assume that this same man, looking for romance, will of course pair up with a much younger woman, and not a woman actually close to his own age.

Thanks for the double standard, Hallmark.

A lover of Charlotte Bronte's novel, I did not care for this movie version of Jane Eyre.

Perhaps for someone who has never read the book, the movie works, but I thought the screenplay was seriously lacking (and strangely slow paced, given how much of the story was left out).

For my money, Moira Buffini, who wrote the screenplay, just didn't seem able to properly portray the development of Jane/Rochester's relationship, especially given the 2-hour time constraint. In fact, I was left wondering whether Buffini had thoroughly read (or attempted to understand) the novel or if she just based her hit-or-miss screenplay on some Cliff Notes version.

I think it's safe to assume that some of the blame also lies with Cary Fukunaga's direction of his actors. For all I know, maybe the resulting movie was largely his own vision of "Jane Eyre the Movie", rather than Buffini's.

Central to the story is the evolving relationship between Jane and Edward Rochester. However, in this version, the viewer is expected to "get" that Jane and Edward are falling for each other based on a few spotty scenes or bits of dialog, with much of the book's context missing. I found myself having to mentally fill in way too many blanks.

I think that an extra 20 minutes would have been perfect to flesh out the Jane/Rochester dialog and to allow for the addition of a scene or two where we could see why these two people become attracted to each other. (For example, how about a 1-to-2-minute montage of scenes of Rochester waxing eloquent about his exotic travels and the interesting people he's met, with Jane listening raptly?)

The ending needed to be expanded an extra 5 or so minutes as well. That's one of the most delicious parts of the story, and I didn't care to see it all sewn up in 60 seconds.

Michael Fassbinder was a pleasant surprise. He might be a little better looking than Rochester ought to be, but I could see early on that he had the chops to pull off what could have been the best Rochester yet (well, in a better-written film). I liked that he seemed willing to show us the really not-so-likable side of Rochester, and those mercurial moods we see in the book.

Mia Wasikowska's abilities I'm not too sure about (although I did think she had an acceptably young and plain look about her, unlike Ruth Wilson, whose un-Janian-like looks ruined the 2006 version for me).

I thought that Mia largely failed to convey, with her unchanging, serious expression, all the turmoil that Jane is experiencing inwardly as her relationship with Rochester develops. Since we don't have benefit of a narrator in the movie, as we do in the book, we rely on the actor to tell or show us what's going on inside. I don't think Mia did an effective job of this.

I found the main characters' chemistry spotty at best. I'm blaming most of this on the screenplay as well. And here's why:

During the post-wedding scene--where Rochester pleads his case-- both actors demonstrated that they *could* have chemistry together-- nice chemistry--and *could* convey all the passion I had been expecting, but not seeing, elsewhere in the movie.

But this chemistry only appeared for me when the dialog and the scene were fleshed out enough to clearly show the actors the way, as in the above-mentioned instance. I felt like Mia particularly did not connect with the character of Jane, without benefit of sufficient dialog, context, and direction. Again, I felt that the screenplay (and maybe direction) simply let the actors down more often than not; they simply did not have enough to "hang their hats on," so to speak.

The one thing this version of JE really did have going for it (IMO) was the wonderful cinematography, costumes, and sets.

**SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW**

I suspect that someone created this gosh-darn-cute Wall-E character and that Disney/Pixar then got the bright idea to build an entire story around it. Unfortunately, they did great with the animation but forgot to include the, um, story part.

The animation was certainly sophisticated--if you could stay interested long enough to appreciate it.

The movie had a couple of good moments, but for those of you who didn't see it, let me summarize what you missed here, from the point where the two protagonists meet until the end of the movie:

"Wall-e." "Eve." "Wall-e." "Eve." "E-ve?" "Eve." "Eve." "Wall-e." "Eve!" "Wall-e!"

(bashful) "Eeeve" (giggle/demur) "Wall-e."

(terror) "Eve!!" (sadness) "Eve."

"Foreign Contaminant!"

(anxious) "Eve! Eve!"

"Wall-e!!! (death's door) "Eve."

"Foreign Contaminant!"

(hopeful) "Wall-e?" (sad) "Wall-e..." "Eve?" "Wall-e? ....Wall-e!!" (BFF) "Eeeve." (BFF) "Waaall-ee."

The End.

Yep,that's right, this was the bulk of the dialog. For 1.5 hours...

I guess I just needed--more.

Let me qualify that. If you loved 27 Dresses or Dan in Real Life, you'll like this movie. It has the same contrived feel, the same "no one would ever say this stuff in real life" dialog, the same chemistry-free pairings. Within 10 minutes of watching this mess, I was bored and annoyed.

The acting was horrible--though kudos to Isla Fisher for giving it her all under the circumstances, I loved that "Marisa Tomei" kind of quality she had--but how can you really "ding" actors when the scripts they are given are so lame? Reynolds--who I suspect couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, let alone this pile of pooh--admittedly had dialog that no man should have to say. Note to writers of "romantic comedies": Men are not women. Most of them do not talk like women. We do not want to hear them talking like women. (Also, were RR's eyebrows shaped? Because that was just a bit too "metrosexual" for my taste.)

Even Abigail Breslin, the little girl, pretty much phoned it in. There was a scene where she flops onto her tummy in bed, pouting, and suddenly she kicks her feet a bit--not in a natural "I'm having a tantrum" way, but more like she was thinking, "Oh, wait, it would be a good touch if I kicked my feet here."

There is no character development in the movie. Everyone is extremely superficial, annoyingly so. Some events make no sense. (Why did Will get fired for one faux pas in an industry riddled with scandal? And just what all happened, job-wise, between "then" and "now"?)

Timing is deliberately kept fuzzy. It's hard to tell how much time has passed. (For example, Will looks about the same to me at the start of Clinton's campaign as he does at the end of the film.)

If you can find a scintilla of originality in this movie, let me know.

For example, we get the usual "I want to see your face first thing when I wake up in the morning and last thing at night" spiel at one point.

Then we get the done-to-death scene where the female friend tells male protagonist (who's about to propose to another woman) to practice proposing on *her* first, and as he gets to the "I love you" part, his voice trickles off and they stare into each other's eyes for just a moment. And you just know where this is all going...

Why do I torture myself with this dreck?

**SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW** **SPOILERS BELOW**

Did I just watch "Children of a Lesser God - Part Deux"? Because I could have sworn I saw a very similar theme when I saw CoaLG 20 years ago. Only then (mid-1980s) it was about the idea of "talking", rather than cochlear implants, which were still being developed and tested at that time. But it was still kind of the same movie, only 20 years later. And guess who the deaf woman was in CoaLG? Yep--Marlee Matlin.

Anyway, regarding tonight's offering...Nothing we haven't seen before. A number of movies and TV series episodes in recent years have been devoted to the issue of cochlear implants, and they covered pretty much the same ground shown tonight.

I watched the movie anyway, knowing early on that Hallmark would never be so politically incorrect as to choose a side. I knew that we would never find out if Adam got the implant, or how well it did or didn't work out for him.

Unfortunately, in not picking a side--in an effort to give us as "happy" an ending as possible while not offending any viewers in the pro- or anti-cochlear implant camps--Hallmark drained the movie of whatever impact it might have had on viewers like me.

In fact, I find it highly unsatisfying to lay this enormous issue (of a family divided over the idea of a cochlear implant) on the table and then to cop out at the end by suggesting that "love will find a way". Come on--does anyone really think that the husband won't end up resentful in some way if the son does not have a cochlear implant? Are we supposed to believe that all will be well because apparently the mother and father are "BFFs" (Best Friends Forever)?

I found it interesting that at no time did we get to hear Adam's feelings on getting a CI or on "hearing again". I wonder if, in real life, they don't ask this question of a child who heard previously. Isn't there supposed to be a psychological evaluation of the *child* and his needs as part of the CI candidate selection process?

I'm not suggesting that an 8-year-old knows what's best for himself or should be the decision maker here. It's just that we know that Adam no longer speaks, and usually refuses to when asked. Is it because he can't hear himself talk any more,there's no longer that auditory feedback, and it's all strange, confusing, and somewhat stressful, so he doesn't try? Or is it that when he tried to talk after losing his hearing, his speech deteriorated, and folks looked at him funny, or asked him to repeat, or teased him, or didn't understand him, so that it no longer seemed worthwhile to try talking? If any of these things are true, are they not worthy of consideration in choosing whether or not to go with a cochlear implant?

(I also wondered if another thing contributing to Adam's reluctance to speak was that his school was primarily a signing school. Why bother to try speaking when it's safer and easier to sign? Where's the motivation to really try to develop the desire to talk and to really improve one's speech skills, if everyone's signing? And what does this attitude portend about Adam's future opportunities in a predominantly hearing/speaking world?)

Also - Marlee Matlin's character was too confusing for me at times. For example, she learns that her own parents had chosen not to give her hearing aids as a child. They had taken away from her the option of developing any sort of residual hearing. When she finds this out, she is highly upset. Yet the next thing we know, she doing the same thing to her child--remove a choice that might allow the child to have an easier time of negotiating the hearing world. Why? Whatever she was selling, I wasn't buying it, so to speak.

The interesting thing is that, while Hallmark seemed to be attempting to be "fair and balanced"--and make no final judgment--I found that as the pros and cons of the situation unfolded, the case seemed to favor cochlear implantation. I thought there was relatively little negative said about the CI. (Of course, I come from a hearing perspective.)

On the other hand, we learned that the deaf father had gone through life bullied, struggling, etc., for being deaf. We also learned that a significant number of deaf adults are likely to do poorly in school (not because they themselves are innately poor learners, BTW, but for other reasons) or require government assistance. Adam's mother has to rely on the father to interpret for her everywhere, because she has limited ability to speak or understand spoken English.

So the final message to me seemed to be that the chief benefit of *not* having a cochlear implant is that it reinforces for the deaf child that it's okay to be deaf--there's nothing that needs fixing. And that's a worthy message, certainly.

But it seems to me to be a pretty weak argument, when pitted against the "pro CI" benefits, which include more social and job opportunity, and less likelihood of isolation, struggle, etc. And I suspect that there are ways to introduce a child to a CI without implying that the child is "broken" or unworthy and needs "fixing" in order to be acceptable.

I can see situations where one might reject the idea of a CI - both parents are deaf and the family all signs and is functioning fine, or maybe there are medical or other reasons that make the child a poor candidate for a CI. But that was not the case in this movie.