Change Your Image
Jack_Me
Reviews
Palm Royale (2024)
How fair is it that a viewer only watches one or two episodes then rates the series badly?
I enjoyed this comedy series very much. It was over the top but an outrageously funny spoof. And the actors were a delight to watch.
I do have to say that I was disappointed in the series final episode as it seemed to pack far too many unfinished and potential storyline threads into it, to the point that it came off as chaotic. That said, if there is a second series I will watch.
I interrupt this review to make a comment as per the title of this review.
How can someone watch one episode, or two, then pan the whole series and give it a one-star rating? I find that very annoying. When I read the reviews and find that obvious unfair treatment admitted. When I like something, I'm always curious to read others opposite opinions, but it is annoying to find that those reviewers never even watched the series they are panning so negatively.
Big Gay Love (2013)
A really bad movie. Tedious.
A really bad movie. Tedious.
About half-way through the running time the movie suddenly turns "dream world" ostensibly with the main character under anesthesia for liposuction but there is absolutely no clear beginning, and especially no clear ending to this "dream world" sequence. The main character is rescued/absconded/kidnapped from the hospital (before or after the operation?) but then the movie action just continues as if we are back to real life. Absurd.
The writing and character development is truly awful. The main character explodes and reacts to imaginary slights with over-the-top hysterics. And there is never any actual resolution about why, or what actually happened.
We did watch it from beginning to end, but believe me that was a real chore.
Do yourself a favor and never waste your time watching this.
A Place to Call Home (2013)
This is FUN! It's a spectacle!
This is FUN! It's a spectacle! Don't take it too seriously and just enjoy it for what it is.
Frankly, it's a soap opera where the twists and turns of the storyline, and the characters do not often have logic, nor follow-through, nor resolution.
Much of the action is simply for the drama of the moment, and then the viewer is moved on to the next event in these characters' lives. It is not a documentary on real life in Australia in the 1950s. Although it has enough costumes, sets, and atmosphere of that decade to keep you grounded in it. And it is not even a real story with character development and resolution. After all it was written to order. Possibly first two series, with cancelation, then suddenly another series, then another, so the writer and the "story" had to keep going. Creatively developing more intrigue. But the characters you meet in the first episode, do not really develop into the characters who finish the series. They are who they are then at the beginning, and then they are who they are when it ends. I really don't mean this as a negative because as I say, it's a really fun spectacle, not a deep thoughtful analytical treatise. Villains are villains, and heroes/heroines are simply the "good guys" in this weekly serial.
Sure there is some character development, the characters do occasionally get fleshed out with bits of background, but actually most remain fairly one-dimensional only to serve this entertainment spectacle. It's meant to be watched and enjoyed for the moment. Don't waste your time trying to make it seem logical, nor on piecing the time-line or story continuity. It's not meant that way and it just doesn't stand up to that kind of thought nor analysis. Just watch, just enjoy, just laugh, just shriek and just look forward to the next episode.
I really enjoyed it once I realized it was not going to be anything other than the glorious spectacle it is.
The Opposite Sex (1956)
Such an inexplicable disappointment-----
I, as many others here, was excited to learn of, and anxious to see this "musical remake" of The Women. But as my summary states, I found it to be such an inexplicable disappointment! Others here have said it better, so I'll just echo the complete bafflement of having stars of the caliber of Joan Greenwood and Ann Miller DO NOTHING AT ALL in the film! Amazing and so disappointing.
I'm afraid the root cause of this bomb is the choice of June Alyson for the lead. Frankly, Norma Shearer grates on me; I do not worship at her altar; however, she certainly brought enough depth of character to the original wonderful 1930s film to justify all the shenanigans of that film, which all revolved around her. What she did, what she didn't do, how she reacted, etc. In this sorry remake, that character as played by June Alyson is so boringly uninteresting. We can't see at all that the character's friends would react with such concern. Who cares is more the response given. And lets get this over with.
The pacing was excruciatingly slow and flat. The "humor" was pathetic. The pathos was humorous. And as has been pointed out, why? Why even call this thing a musical? In the '30s and '40s, there was often one or two musical "entertainments" worked into the film as incidentals or backgrounds, but that didn't justify calling them musicals! Yes, I'm afraid that this piece definitely needed a different more dynamic lead, and it also needed a much better director and/or editor to pick up the pace.
So disappointing. I can't even recommend it for the "period" costumes....though I must comment they were so "stunning" as to all seem like stage costumes! Boo-hoo. I thought I had discovered a new treasure to enjoy.
Mourning Becomes Electra (1947)
One example of something Film can offer, and so rarely does
I found this film fascinating, stimulating, and a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Though I have not ever seen a stage production of the O'Neil original, this nearly 3 hour long film seemed to be essentially a filmed version of that play. And for that I thank the filmmakers of this production, actors, directors, producers and studio. In reviewing other's opinions about this film, I am amazed that so often the negative criticisms concern exactly those strengths I found in this film. That it was not full of artificially cooked-up "atmosphere" from Steiner (whom I do truly respect and enjoy elsewhere), that it was not full of quick cuts and microscopic closeups was something I found wonderful. That it was confined essentially to a very few sets was also wonderful. Those sets were very detailed and not skimpy at all. This was a filmed play! That some should state that as a negative is beyond me. There are so many films (even in this film's release era of 1947) available to so many people in so many areas, but how many of us have been lucky enough to experience a great playwright's work, brought to life by great acting and delivery? Far far fewer folks, in far far fewer venues, and far far fewer locations. This then is what I mean when I say that this film was one example of something Film can offer and so rarely does. The opportunity to experience a play!
And what a wonderful experience it was. The acting was terrific. After more than one scene between Christina and Lavinia, I fairly exclaimed with pleasure at the dramatic interplay between the two. What some called disdainfully "overacting", I found thrilling and stimulating. After all, one is not watching a home movie of one's family or friends. So called "realism" in many modern films is in my mind vastly overrated. A work of film, or of the stage, should be "realistic" it is true, but should not ever be so real as to distract from the art itself.
Tastes change and film-making is an industry to make money like other manufacturing methods. But part of the admiration for what is often called the "Golden Age of Hollywood" is attributable to the then less uncommon understanding that "Art" was as valid the goal as earning a profit! At least by the people involved in the acting and production, if not by the investors themselves. Sure there are occasionally great films made today, and there were plenty of "B" pictures made then too, but to critically dismiss this film for not being something other than what it was, is to miss the point I feel.
Rosiland Russell Rules! JACK in Maine