Change Your Image
merridew-2
Reviews
Goodbye, My Fancy (1951)
An Ending Marred by Miscasting
Most films of this era are predictable. The leading lady winds up with the leading man. She doesn't end up with the guy billed further down. And especially when the leading man is tall, handsome, and elegant, and the other guy is short, gruff, and charmless. Robert Young versus Frank Lovejoy? Young, of course. So it was both jarring and unsatisfying when, in the end, Joan Crawford's Agatha Reed rejects Robert Young for Frank Lovejoy.
It wasn't so much that Agatha rejected Jim Merrill for Matt Cole. It was that she rejected Young for Lovejoy. Take the identical script and cast, say, Gregory Peck as Matt Cole, and the ending would have been neither jarring nor unsatisfying. It's no criticism of Frank Lovejoy. He was simply wrong for the part. And the film's ending suffered as a result.
Management (2008)
Unbelievable
I didn't believe either of the main characters. Not for a minute.
Sue is in her rental car, leaving the motel for the airport, and suddenly turns around in order to have sex with Mike on a laundry room table? What!? I was waiting for Mike to ask Sue at some later point: "What exactly were you thinking when you came into that laundry room? Were you thinking at all?" And the Sue-Jango relationship is inexplicable. Is Sue that desperate to do charity work? Are charitable organizations unwilling to hire her?
As for Mike, is he a naive, lost puppy looking for love, or the possessor of deep insights into the human psyche? He can't be both. (And how does a first-time skydiver hit his target that precisely?)
In short, the story is an unbelievable mess. Its only saving grace is the innate likability of Aniston and Zahn (who established a similar persona in "That Thing You Do!").
Empire of Light (2022)
A movie in search of a story
What is "Empire of Light" about? Is it about a relationship that transcends race and age? Is it about a battle with mental illness? Is it about a person who manages movie theater but has never watched a movie? Or about when she finally sees her first film and its life-changing effect?
Problem is, "Empire of Light" never makes up its mind what it's about. It's full of excellent performances but with no central storyline. And because it has no central storyline, we aren't quite sure when its primary story is finished. The final scenes seem disjointed as a result, as if writer-director Sam Mendes is trying to wrap up lots of different films at once.
Above the Shadows (2019)
Whatever Happened to "Celebrity Poker Rodeo"?
I get this movie. I understand the ultimate message. It's presented a bit melodramatically, but that may be what the genre demanded. And I've long been a fan of Olivia Thirlby, ever since "Juno" and "5 to 7." However, I'm puzzled by a scene that was set up perfectly, but never shown.
So Holly meets Shayne, who is naturally skeptical of her supposed invisibility. Together they meet Shayne's manager, who tells Shayne that he's secured him a TV booking for "Celebrity Poker Rodeo," where he would play poker before a live audience.
Is there any better way for Holly to prove her value to Shayne than as an invisible accomplice at a poker tournament? The scene practically writes itself. The moment was teed up and ready to go.
But if Shayne ever does appear on "Celebrity Poker Rodeo," we don't see it. What a lost opportunity.
Was this perfect setup purely a coincidence? Or was something later deleted? Claudia?
Six Minutes to Midnight (2020)
Do We Really Care?
Reportedly, Eddie Izzard, whose family is from Bexhill, knew the story of the real Augusta Victoria school and wanted to turn it into a WWII drama. But what is there really to this story: (a) there is a British school for the daughters of high-ranking German Nazis (inexplicably being educated in England) whom (b) the Germans want brought back to Germany before the war begins but (c) the British want detained in England (but would commit a diplomatic faux pas if they detained them prematurely). But does anyone truly care if these girls stay or go? All of the intrigue and thriller elements (some of which are reasonably well executed) are laid on top of what, at its core, is a seemingly inconsequential premise. Whether it's true or not, it's uninteresting. The twists and effective moments should have been saved for a film where the stakes were something we cared about.
The Last Vermeer (2019)
An Odd Gamble
Isn't it likely that the audience for a film about Han van Meegeren will consist, in great part, of people who recognize the name Han van Meegeren? That's why I found it most curious that the film is structured around keeping the best known fact about Han van Meegeren a secret. Whom did they expect to surprise? Only people totally ignorant of Han van Meegeren - that is, the people least likely to go see "The Last Vermeer."
There are some earlier moments that clearly foreshadow the big reveal, so maybe it wasn't supposed to be that big of a surprise. But then, why make it a surprise at all? Why not tell the audience what it already knows from the beginning, and find something else to keep its members in suspense. Because as currently told, there is little suspense at all.
It isn't an easy task to entertain an audience with a story the probable audience already knows, including how it ends. But I don't think this was the best way to do it.
Mary, Mary (1963)
Debbie? Plain?
The merit of this film is that it preserves for posterity one of Broadway's longest running comedies, with only minimal changes from the stage version. That is not an insubstantial contribution, and the movie deserves credit for letting us experience much of what 1,572 Broadway audiences witnessed.
That said, there is something impenetrable about watching Debbie Reynolds looking positively gorgeous as she tells Michael Rennie of the trials and tribulations of being a "plain" girl and woman. The part of Mary was written for Barbara Bel Geddes, who fit that dialogue perfectly (see her Midge in "Vertigo"). Debbie, on the other hand, was simply too radiant to give credibility to a character who supposedly compensated for insecurity about her looks with unceasing wit.
5 to 7 (2014)
What a terrific movie!
It's a love story. It's a coming of age story. It's a class-of- cultures story. But to call "5 to 7" a "romantic comedy" is to evoke images of all sorts of rom-com clichés that this film does its best to avoid. There were moments when I expected the movie to go in a predictable direction, and it didn't. I thought this was going to be a movie about a young, sheltered writer who could never achieve success until he stopped writing and started living -- but, while this played some part, it wasn't exactly that, either.
Best of all, I adored every character in this movie. There are no villains. The only villain is life -- the inherent complications in good people's lives that, try as you might, you can't dodge. The two principals, Anton Yelchin and Bérénice Marlohe, were perfect. Frank Langella was hilarious; Glenn Close touching. And the sprinkling of real-life people into the story was handled exactly right.
It's a shame that this movie has had such a limited release. It is truly a wonderful film.
Hollidaysburg (2014)
Good performances, good moments
I've been following the progress of this movie on "The Chair," read Dan Schoffer's original screenplay ("How Soon Is Now") before it was revised by the director, and was anxious to see the final product when it was shown on Starz. Of the two films shadowed in "The Chair," this one seemed the most promising, although Anna Martimucci's self-doubt was getting a little too much to bear. The prior IMDb reviews ranged from a "waste" to "awesome" -- but you never know where these reviews are coming from, pro or con. Nonetheless, my expectations were low when I sat down to watch.
I was pleasantly surprised. The acting was uniformly excellent. The directing was smooth and, at times, subtle. I missed some of the story lines and characters from the original screenplay -- but found the Philip Quinaz character and his pumpkin pies (particularly the wonderful, unfolding pie panorama), and Brian Shoaf's Mitch, excellent additions. I can't say the same for Martimucci's own character. Anna should have stayed behind the camera. I know why her Courtney character was added (more on that later), but we didn't need her.
But more than anything, I found "Hollidaysburg" real. The characters seemed real. The dialogue seemed real. The emotions seemed real. This is a millennials movie, trying to show Generation Y'ers as they are, not how Hollywood has depicted them. Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know -- but it sold me that it is. And I think that's why the Angela-Courtney relationship was added, to show the world that millennials don't bat an eye at same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage.
What the movie lacks, in my view, is more story. These characters come home from college for the long Thanksgiving weekend and return Sunday basically unchanged. Is Tori really any different on Sunday than she was on Wednesday? Even the final voice-over, quoting John Updike, suggests that each day is a rebirth, and what's past (including the just-completed holiday) is dead. Then why should we care what we saw these people experience? In an effort to eschew a "Hollywood ending," we're left fairly unsatisfied.
I felt like I witnessed a slice of these characters' lives. If, according to Hitchcock, "Drama is life with the dull bits cut out," then "Hollidaysburg" is life, dull bits and all.
Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)
A Movie in Search of a Story
The problem with "Hyde Park on Hudson" is that the filmmakers never decided on the story they wanted to tell.
Is this the story of "The President and the King" -- how FDR and King George VI formed the "special relationship" that still exists today? How, as war loomed large in Europe, FDR brought his unique leadership qualities and political skill to bear to both (a) inject much needed confidence into a British monarch riddled with self-doubt, and (b) humanize the British crown for the American people in order to lay the groundwork for the essential, though initially unpopular, alliance to come?
Or is this the story of "FDR and His Women" -- how a President serving at one of the most stressful times in our history, but whose wife provided him with no personal solace, formed and maintained the secret relationships he considered necessary to recharge his batteries and keep going?
The filmmakers never choose, and "Hyde Park on Hudson" suffers greatly as a result. They take a little from column A and a little from column B, mix them together, and wind up with two halves that don't add up to a whole.
And then there is the other problem: Why weren't the very few scenes purporting to show the front of the FDR home at Hyde Park shot in front of the FDR home at Hyde Park? "Sunrise at Campobello" was shot there, so why not "Hyde Park on Hudson"? The building has a very distinctive exterior. The folks most likely to want to see this movie probably know what it looks like -- and weren't happy. I know I wasn't. You mean you couldn't film even those very few exterior scenes at the FDR home? Then reproduce it through computer imaging. Do something. It's as if, instead of the exterior of the White House in "American President," someone had used the Woolworth Building.