catjoescreed Reviews

Hustle (2004–2012)

Slick, shiny, and over-processed

[6/10 · 3 April 2022]

This series feels distinctly American, and I don't mean that in a good way. I far prefer the tougher, grittier dramas that the British are so good with. This one is just confectionery, and not especially good confectionery at that. You'll be hard-pressed to remember any episodes clearly after you've watched several.

I first bought the DVDs back in 2006 or so, strictly to watch the episode with Lee Ingleby - I'm a fan, and he does a great job here, as expected. But this episode is a good one for pointing out the exasperating inconsistencies of the show's premise.

The first inconsistency is the oft-repeated "You can't cheat an honest man." Ingleby's character, Trevor Speed, actually makes his living by going through the obituaries in order to target the grieving spouses of the recently deceased. (Shades of Paper Moon, by the way.) There is never any indication that these grieving spouses are dishonest, hoping to "get something for nothing" (another oft-repeated phrase). Indeed, they are vulnerable, and it's this very vulnerability that makes them easy to cheat. Unfortunately for Trevor, one of the persons he targets is the grandmother of grifter Danny, and this is why the group goes after him.

Another person targeted in this episode is a bank employee who annoys grifter Stacey by hitting her with an overdraft fee after the group empties their bank account. Never mind that this is an employee - someone who follows company rules but does not set them. Stacey is so outraged by bank policy that she decides to take her anger out, not on the bank, but on the employee. This, on a much larger scale, is the equivalent of stiffing a waitress because the restaurant overcharges for steak. Yet somehow we're supposed to be charmed by her, and be on her side. (He is, admittedly, a bit of a jerk, but this isn't why she goes after him.)

Worst of all, and this happens in episode after episode, is their continuous cheating of the barman, who certainly seems like an honest man. However much the grifters natter on about "honor" and "ethics," they can't seem to resist making this poor fellow look like an absolute boob as they perpetrate con after con on him in order to drink free. The camera adores showing us this, and it's obvious that we're supposed to be charmed, just as we're supposed to be charmed by Stacey's constant smirking and Mickey's sanctimonious blathering about how ethical they all are.

One begins to wonder, after watching a few episodes, if we are the ones getting conned. Did we "want something for nothing" when we sat down to watch this show? Are they spinning things out in order to see how long it takes us to realize we've been lied to, and cheated out of solid entertainment? This would actually be a fun twist - maybe that's the big "reveal" in Season 8, but I won't be sticking around to see it.

Young Adult (2011)

Meh.

[6/10 · 13 May 2020]

Young Adult is a nasty, shallow, unlikable movie about a nasty, shallow, unlikable character who ultimately discovers that nasty, shallow unlikability are just tickety-boo. Patton Oswalt is good, though. And so is the dog.

Look, I'm as bored as anybody else with stories that resolve everything with a shiny bright bow at the end. And much of the plot is just as realistic as you'd want it to be. It's just that final message, as voiced by the sister and as embraced by the main character, that she's better than anyone else.

If nothing else, before this thing wrapped up, somebody should have turned old Mavis in for animal neglect, because she left that dog alone in the hotel room day after day after day, and even overnight, and never once took it outside to pee.

These cannot be spoilers when the movie itself was already spoiled by the writer.

The Invention of Lying (2009)

I wanted to like this; really, I did.

[4/10 · 10 January 2020]

I'm a huge Ricky Gervais fan, so I really had high hopes for this movie. It's a clever premise, after all, and has a first-rate cast. The religion bit didn't bother me the way it bothered some people; I could easily see that as being precisely how religion came about.

What did bother me was the fact that a guy we're supposed to care about has set his sights on an extremely shallow woman. For awhile there I was hoping that he would sit down with the friend who set him up with this woman in the first place and, as happens in so many trite romances, eventually realize that it was this other woman he really loved.

But, no; we don't even get a trite romance out of this. What we get is a man who eventually wins the woman who has absolutely nothing going for her except that she's pretty. And, when we stop to wonder precisely why this man might love a woman who has absolutely nothing going for her except that she's pretty, we realize that he loves her because, and only because, of her looks.

Making this a story about a very shallow man who falls in love with a very shallow woman, believes, in sort of incel-creepiness, that he deserves her simply because he wants her, and eventually wins her.

How disappointing.

Bright Star (2009)

Unexceptional

[3/10 · 16 November 2009]

Campion's film was so restrained and so remote that I was unable to care much for anyone except the brother who died. And why did she put so much camera focus on the children, while giving them nothing to do, nothing to say, and no real vital presence in the story line? There's Thomas Sangster, all grown up, justifiably famous, skilled as an actor, and so underutilized he might have been drapery.

*sigh*

I've been reading generalized complaints on the discussion board that men tend not to like movies like this, and that their harsh ratings will cause the overall score to go down, whilst women apparently unilaterally love this film. So, a disclaimer: I am female. I'm not overly keen on "action/adventure" films or cheap smack-down comedies. I like intelligent movies, and I don't mind slow-moving ones. Campion's "The Piano" was excellent. No, it was not the pace of "Bright Star" that I objected to, but its lack of emotional involvement, its weirdly inattentive hyper-attention to period detail (Fanny's hair for example), and its elision of what surely must have been important plot elements. In all, I found Fanny's sparring with Mr. Browne far more interesting than her mooning over Mr. Keats.

Pretty to look at, this film, but not worth paying attention to.

Oliver Twist (I) (1982 TV Movie)

Horrendous

[1/10 · 10 January 2009]

This is without doubt the absolute worst version of Twist I've ever seen, and I've pretty much seen them all. Oh, no question, the cast was great. George C Scott was wonderful as Fagin, Curry was quite nice as Sikes. Cherie Lunghi and Michael Hordern have always been big favorites of mine, going back to their days as Shakespearean actors in the BBC filming of the entire Shakespeare canon. And I was so glad to see the character of Charlie get his due - his part in the plot is so often elided.

But the plot! Oh my God, the plot! Was there ever such a condensation? Dozens of characters left out, dozens of crucial plot points obliterated in the interests of squeezing this story into 100 minutes or so. Some of the most important story elements were kept, but were stuck in at the wrong places, leaching them of their poignancy. I even found myself laughing at a couple of places, the stuff was handled so badly. Nancy's death scene, by the way, was given the goofiest interpretation I've ever seen.

I liked Sikes' dog. It's usually shown as an English bull, but in this version it was a Benji-style mutt. Yeah. I liked the dog. That was about it.

The Wind in the Willows (2006 TV Movie)

Utterly charming,

[10/10 · 6 April 2007]

A friend of mine was kind enough to burn me a DVD from the BBC-TV presentation, and send it to me in America. I was delighted, as I had been looking forward to it for some time and took for granted it would not come to the US.

I was not disappointed. This film is completely wonderful, from the saturated colors of the landscapes to the marvelously witty and creative camera work, to the absolute perfection of the actors in their roles -- each one entirely believable as the creature he was meant to be. Mark Gatiss' Rat was a bit underplayed--it was only on second viewing that I became aware of the subtleties of his performance: the little ratlike twitches of the nose and the occasional baring of the teeth. Bob Hoskins gave a solid, workmanlike performance as Badger, and of course Matt Lucas' Toad fairly stole the show.

But the absolute revelation of the film was Lee Ingleby as Mole. Somehow in watching him I was able to see two presences on screen at the same time: the full-scale human and a tiny shadowy creature of delicacy, timidity and great vulnerability. The humble little Mole, so earnest and willing to please, is of course the center and the heart of the story, and Ingleby brought him to life with extraordinary grace, sensitivity and humor. His parting line, "Perhaps there's room in the world for all sorts of creatures" (paraphrased) is a lesson to be lived by even today.

This is not the "Wind in the Willows" you grew up with. This is live actors in limited make-up, breathing life into the characters through their own talent, rather than through special effects. (Though there are a few of those too, and quite clever ones at that.) As soon as a commercial release of the DVD became available (March 26), I bought it. My first copy was well-worn long before then.

Mr. Bug Goes to Town (1941)

Warm memories of a great little movie

[1 April 2006]

This film used to play occasionally on daytime TV when I was a child. I must have seen it at least three times. Made by the same team (Gordon and Fleischer) that brought us "Gulliver's Travels", it's a charming little movie with a plot very similar to the later Pixar film "A Bug's Life." I remember first learning the name Hoagy Carmichael when I read the credits as an eight-year-old (my mother was astonished to know that I had heard of him.) If "Hoppitty" were ever released on DVD I would buy it in a heartbeat. I don't know anyone else who has ever seen it, though, which necessarily limits the amount of outcry over this deep injustice to a great little movie.