joelcairo1941 Reviews

Stoker (2013)

Contrived and Strained

[6/10 · 1 March 2015]

The storyline is really contrived, and it strains too much to be artistic and clever but with no purpose. I did appreciate the Hitchcock reference to "Shadow of a Doubt," even to the point of calling the uncle Charlie. In 1943, Hitchcock toyed with the idea of evil that can lurk just on the edges of sunny pleasantness. The niece and uncle are mirror images of each other, but the niece is horrified by the distorted image that looks back at her in the form of her uncle. In the end, good wins out, and we are left to believe that the niece has successfully exorcised any evil that might have been festering inside her psyche by the death of her uncle. Hitchcock had to have such an ending to get past the censors of the day. I suspect he would have liked a much murkier ending.

**SPOILER ALERT** Seventy years later writers and directors are not hampered by the constraints of censors and are allowed much more latitude in their creations. All through the movie, the writer and director lead the audience to see India's perverse nature and her taste for killing. Indeed, she has an orgasm thinking about the way her uncle murders her would-be rapist. An ending that would have helped to maintain the integrity of the storyline would have been for India to watch Uncle Charlie kill her mother and then go off with him to become serial killers in an effort to slake both their murderous impulses. I think Hitchcock today would have approved such an ending. Instead, the writer and director use a cop-out ending of good impulses overcoming evil impulses.

Jack & Bobby (2004–2005)

give me a break!

[17 October 2004]

There's nothing refreshing or new about Jack & Bobby. Despite all the hype about the allusions to another Jack & Bobby, it turns out that this is just another excuse for the WB network to put on a "drama" with fresh-faced suburban white kids who seem to be only preoccupied with sex and appearing cool. As for the threadbare cliché of the American presidency as the hallmark of greatness, well, we only have to look to recent history to see that such a claim is laughable. It's high time for middle-class America to take a long, hard look at itself to see that it doesn't even come close to being the breeding ground for greatness that it imagines itself to be. Rather, it perpetuates mediocrity and conformity at every turn. I'm only sorry to see the always-wonderful Christine Lahti being wasted in such tripe. Jack & Bobby -- give me a break!

Dancehall Queen (1997)

Good fun!

[7/10 · 15 August 2002]

I have seen this film several times, as it gets surprisingly heavy rotation on cable television. Each time I catch it, I thoroughly enjoy it.

The story line is highly improbable, but it doesn't matter because the performances (acting and dancing) are top-drawer. It's a reminder that films about the ordinary struggles of common folk can be engaging without all the special effects that one finds in the Hollywood products of today.

Sorcerer (1977)

Stick with the original.

[4/10 · 17 June 2001]

This movie pales in comparison with the 1952 French version, "The Wages of Fear." It relies too heavily on special effects to tell the story rather than on human relationships, as one sees with the original. Since there is hardly any character development in "Sorcerer," it is impossible to develop any warmth or sympathy for the characters. Likewise, the characters never develop anything resembling a bond between them, as one sees in the original, and as one would expect to happen between people who must depend solely on one another to stay alive.

There is none of the existential philosophy of the human condition in "Sorcerer" that one finds all throughout the "The Wages of Fear." There is none of the compassion for the many permutations that a personality takes on in times of desperation. In "Sorcerer" we only see cartoonish machismo.

Very disappointing overall.

Dance with a Stranger (1985)

Not for the faint of heart

[9/10 · 10 December 2000]

There is nothing sentimental about this story of obsession. Set in London in the 1950's--and what could be drearier--this bleak story based on the true story of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed in England, is a tour-de-force for Newell, the director, the two leads, Richardson and Everett, and the incomparable Ian Holm.

Miranda Richardson as Ellis gives a knockout performance in every scene. She has so perfectly captured the emotional pitch of a woman in love with a heel that one cannot help identifying with her. Her all-consuming love, even to the point of neglecting her son, makes it ridiculous to entertain the common query of "why doesn't she just get away from him?" Mike Newell captures all of the emotional highs and lows of a relationship of this kind, and the rakishly handsome Everett is both charming and destructive as Ellis's amor.

The beauty of this movie is that it is not just about two ill-fated lovers, the way many Hollywood movies are. It is also about England's class system. Ellis's attraction to Blakeley is more about her desire to be acknowledged by her "betters" than just by this one man. Perhaps the most heartrending scene comes at the end where one sees Ellis's painted finger going over a letter she is about to send on the eve of her execution to Blakeley's mother, apologizing for the misery she has caused her. The language of the letter is perfect, because it reveals volumes about Ellis's class aspirations, and the hopelessness of her ever achieving them.

This movie is a must-see for movie lovers, but it is not for the Meg Ryan set.