Reviews

I get a little tired of all the complaints that get dished out on some of these boards. Whatever the film-makers did, there's always a bunch of people telling them it should have been different. They should ask themselves why other people get jobs as film critics and not them!

This is a terrific film. Different - of course - from "The Talented Mr Ripley", but just as absorbing. Different from the Highsmith book - of course - but listen, producers/directors get to make decisions - get over it, guys! I mean, who gives a flying croissant that the book had Ripley living in France. For the movie they chose Italy and a breath-taking villa. Producers are ALLOWED to do that!

I'm not a huge Malkovich fan, but this is a storytelling film and John gives a precision storytelling performance. I shall now stop saying to people that I'm not a huge Malkovitch fan. I'll say that I AM.

The other members of the cast were great and did precisely what was required to make the story absorbingly believable. I loved it. My only spoiler is this - I will NEVER choose garroting if I decide to kill someone.

Depressing stuff like this works best in the theater. Anyone who likes to be entertained by the movies is in for a perplexing evening. Sure the acting is terrific - Tom Cruise at his best and everyone turning in great performances. But it turns me off US society big time to see these self-absorbed, self-destructive, confused, unhappy people presented in all their self-harming stupidity as some kind of reflection of modern life (and death) as we experience it. Is there no spiritual dimension underpinning American lives? None WHATSOEVER? Is that what we non-US citizens are to take from this piece? I thought you guys all go to church every Sunday? This is a real weepie 'cos everyone is either close to tears or in full lachrymose flood! Good grief! The question that puzzles me is: who was willing to put big money behind this script? And why would they? I'm not saying it's a bad movie. A lot of good professional work went into it. But who loved the script enough to say: "We MUST make this picture" ? Beats the hell out of me....

Why are people so hard on Drowning Mona? I just saw it and enjoyed it a lot. In years to come I believe it will be seen as the same genre as The Good Girl - an attempt to bring very ordinary people to life without apologizing for their ordinariness. In A Good Girl, Jennifer Aniston works very hard to portray an ordinary, poorly-educated young woman in a dead-end job. She has to really work hard to suppress the natural intelligence of a very bright mind and make her ordinary girl sufficiently dumb. But she does it beautifully. In Drowning Mona - portraying Bobby Calzone, Casey `Affleck has a similar challenge. I think he creates his character brilliantly. I am so shocked to find higher up this page that Casey is ashamed of his work on this movie. Can this be true? It seems quite possible - on my DVD package he is the only major cast-member who doesn't give an interview. Casey is handsome and delightful but he manages to leave an impression of terminal dumbness. All the guy wants is to make a reasonable living fixing gardens, but his problems seem insurmountable and it's getting to him. I get the feeling that none of the cast were stirred or excited with Drowning Mona - you need to see the on-set interviews to judge this. Nevertheless it is a successful little film in its own terms and has a lot of gentle humor in it. Affleck, deVito, Midler, Lee Curtis do a very professional ensemble piece as you would expect. As a former copywriter I find the landscaping company slogan hysterically funny: J & B Landscaping - `Yeah, we can do that'. I get the impression the whole cast read through a rather 'thin' script and said exactly that.