Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

JimBell Blog

  • Waitress

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Waitress  (2007)

    Waitress (2007) seduces you—and that is not necessarily a good thing. Jenna (Keri Russell), the waitress at Joe’s Diner, is adorable and has an exceptionally expressive face. One male critic wrote, “I dare you to sit through Waitress and not fall for Russell. Her face is open like a baby’s and sculpted like a goddess [sic].”Another adoring critic, Prairie Miller, says the movie is a “girl homage to . . . Southern women” which “seduces the audience.” But what are Jenna and the movie saying?

     

    I enjoyed watching Waitress, but when it was over, it made me think of the song “Little Black Dress” performed by Cindy Church. She sings about all the options women have in the game of love and concludes, “Why chose anything else when a little black dress will do.” There’s truth in that, but are men really that easy?

     

    Waitress’s witty script also seduces you. When pregnant Jenna has a torrid affair with her married doctor, she creates a pie with her husband Earl in mind. It is called “I Can’t Have No Affair Because I Don’t Want Earl to Kill Me Pie,” and the camera shows her dolloping custard into a pie shell, dropping in a penis-shaped banana, and then saying, “Hold the banana.” One of the other waitresses quietly doubts that they could put that pie’s name up on the blackboard in Joe’s diner. This is witty script writing. But what is it saying?

     

    This movie is variously described as a “comedy,” a “romantic comedy,” and a “dramady.” Regardless of the exact label, all comedies say something substantial. Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) is anti-war. Shakespeare’s As You Like It (2006) says something about mature versus immature love. Yet if you try to identify and critique the underlying theme of a comedy, the effort is often dismissed because “it’s only a comedy.” For example, on the Internet Movie Database, a woman complained that Waitress “sugarcoated” serious issues, and that these issues were neither funny nor romantic. The doctor having an affair with his patient was not romantic but disturbingly unprofessional. Numerous people having affairs was not funny, and we never heard from the spouses being cheated on. You can guess what the very next response was on the blog—the entire response--“Lighten up.”

     

    Waitress presents a world where the women are endearing. What are the men like? Earl (Jeremy Sisto), Jenna’s husband, is both childish and abusive. In the end, he gets what the movie thinks he deserves: When he is celebrating the birth of his first child—albeit a girl—Jenna dismisses him and demands a divorce. The other main male is Dr. Pomatter. Jenna is his patient, and he has a torrid affair with her, a violation of his profession responsibility and code of ethics. He is also cheating on his beautiful, talented, and trusting wife. In the end, he gets what the movie thinks he deserves: Jenna leaves him standing alone in the middle of a hospital corridor holding a plastic wrapped piece of junk food instead of the homemade pies she usually baked him.

     

    The minor male characters include Joe (Andy Griffith) who owns the diner. He is so ornery that all the waitresses except Jenna refuse to deal with him. Although he is curmudgeonly, he has a soft spot for Jenna who, against all odds, will actually serve him in his own diner. He has no one. He leaves Jenna a wonderful gift. The guy who runs the diner, Cal (Lew Temple), orders the waitresses around, caring not one iota for them as people. Then, in spite of a wife the waitresses judge as just fine, he starts screwing one of the waitresses. The third waitress falls for a simple-minded, ah-shucks guy who gets her attention by stalking and harassing her. He invents moronic poetry that seems quite heart-felt and does, in a weird way, express his puppy love for the girl he marries. That’s the men in the movie; that’s the other half of humanity.  If you think it accurate, you will commend the film for holding such weakness up to the ridicule it deserves. If you think the portrait inaccurate, you’ll avoid being seduced by Waitress’s charm and repartee, and criticize the film for being sexist.


  • Donnie Brasco

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Donnie Brasco  (1997)

    In America, we’re likely to see and judge Donnie Brasco (1997) as another Mob movie. Although that’s fair, it’s not what drives the movie. What drives the movie is suspense and more suspense. On the most basic level, we hope that the young undercover FBI agent known to the Mob as Donnie Basco will survive. The movie does a good job of making us care for the young agent, at least initially. He’s got a nice wife, three young daughters, and an important job to make the world a better place for all of us. But he is in with a bunch of wiseguys who blast rivals with shotguns and then butcher them—the cutting knife for you, the sawing knife for Donnie. And they are perpetually on the lookout for a rat. If that’s not bad enough, the guy in charge of looking for the rat is Donnie’s best buddy in the Mob, Lefty. His chances of survival are slim.

     

    There is another level of suspense: we worry that the young agent is cracking and going over to the Mob. The salient sign of this is his marriage deterioration. He’s treating his wife as if he were a thug and she a moll. He’s losing patience with the FBI. His best friend is Lefty, a long-time Mafia worker with numerous hits under his belt. If Donnie goes back to the FBI, Lefty will immediately be whacked by the Mob because Lefty “vouched for” Donnie. Donnie has secretly snatched a satchel with $300,000  and said that the cops got it. At one point, he tells his wife that he has gone over to the Mob. At the same time, however, he is thinking of using his bag of loot to buy Lefty a yacht so that when Donnie goes back to the FBI, Lefty can escape the Mafia hit.

     

    Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral; Enchanted April) brings his talent for character studies to the Mafia. Al Pacino as Lefty makes you care about the washed up hitman. Johnny Depp as Donnie rivets you to the screen with his inner torment.


  • It happened one night

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    It Happened One Night cleaned up at the Oscars in 1934, but is it too dated to enjoy today? It is dated, but not in the bad sense that we cannot relate to the people, but in the sense that people in 1934 were somewhat different than we are today. We can, I hope, appreciate that. This is a romantic comedy about a spoiled rich girl (Claudette Colbert) and a wise-cracking unemployed reporter (Cary Grant) who slowly fall in love. Today we might think of a Paris Hilton making porno tapes, but in the 1930s, a spoiled rich girl was somewhat helpless because she had led a sheltered and pampered life under her father’s protection. The father’s (Walter Connolly) dominance, which a knee jerk from us declares evil and patriarchal, was much more of a social reality than it is today. But that doesn’t mean we cannot appreciate it in its historical context. And, if we relax our political correctness for a minute, we notice that at the end of the movie the father is sensitive enough to notice that his daughter is unhappy, insightful enough to find out why, and audacious enough to supply her with a get-away car so she can flee from her unwanted marriage to the wrong man.

     

    Similarly with the daughter: She may be so incompetent that she has her handbag stolen on the bus, but she is also feisty. In fact the entire movie is her defying her father and running away to New York to be with the (unloved) guy she married on the spur of the moment. Along the way, when the reporter treats her coldly or cavalierly, she usually responds with spirit even though she is out of her element. After the reporter is unsuccessful hitching a ride, she steps forward, slides up her skirt, and proves, she says, that “the limb is mightier than the thumb.”  Such a sense of humour in the battle of the sexes has long disappeared.

     

    There aren’t many guys like the reporter around today. He lives in a man’s world and has a confidence born of that advantage. Early in the movie, he and his buddies are drinking from mickeys when he phones his editor to give him an ear full, he gets fired over the phone, he pretends he quits, and he dances off joking about being a king and catching his royal ride when he has less than $20 to his name and is catching the over-crowed bus. He firmly believes that if he writes a superb story, he will get his job back. He is not consulting his lawyer about a wrongful dismissal suit; he is not learning a lesson about being more politically correct; he is not worried about a racial and/or gender hiring quota. So he seems quaint to moderns. Even more so because he has a dislike of the rich. While we worship the super-rich, he has a Depression era distrust of the wealthy elite, and this, more than any archaic sexism, accounts for his sometimes disdainful treatment of his little rich girl. Given the way the free market banks have almost destroyed the country this month much as they did in 1929, we might have some empathy for the reporter’s antipathy.

     

    The good acting—so rare in 30s films—helps us make the trip back three-quarters of a century. Claudette Colbert sometimes looks like a frail damsel in distress, but she has a wonderfully rich voice which carries some authority. Clark Gable does not play the stereotypical handsome ladies man but rather an abrasive career reporter out to make a buck in hard times. And the light-hearted tone—so rare in current films—helps make the visit to the 1930 thoroughly enjoyable.

     

     


  • Witness for the Prosecution

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Although film buffs already know that Witness for the Prosecution (1957) is a very fine movie, is it an old film classic not worth viewing today? Is it a relic or something you can enjoy next weekend? I say rent it!

     

    In spite of what postmodernists claim, people like a good story. No one knows exactly why we’re captivated by a yarn, but I think it is in part because it relates so closely to what we imagine every day—what might happen next, what that person’s motives are, he seems trustworthy but maybe isn’t, she seems evil but there may be more to it, and so on. In a film, however, the stakes can seem much higher while actually being negligible. What a treat! Witness for the Prosecution has a plot to hold your attention. A dying and rascally lawyer, Sir Wilfrid (Charles Laughton), gets out of hospital and takes on a case that will be difficult to win. A wealthy lady has been murdered, and all fingers point to the suave and superficial Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power). Unfortunately, even Vole’s wife (Marlene Dietrich) is not supportive. As the trial proceeds (major plot twist #1), Mrs. Vole actually steps forward as a witness for the prosecution, saying that her husband came in late, with bloody sleeves, and suggested he’d killed. But a mysterious women intercedes with a bundle of letters from Mrs. Vole to her darling “Max” (twist #2) indicating that she was perjuring herself to convict her husband. When Leonard Vole is found not guilty, his wife reveals that she concocted the letters to take the blame on herself because that was the only way that the guilty Leonard could get off. But then a gorgeous woman latches onto Leonard’s arm . . .

     

    Witness for the Prosecution is well worth watching because of the tone—so up-beat amid deceit and murder. Nowadays, we get used to movies being depressing, but life does not have to be cynical and jaded. The punch line of Witness for the Prosecution is often missed because viewers think the film is about Mr and Mrs Vole and the trial. But the first and last word go to the rascally old lawyer, and running throughout the film his determined nurse (Elsa Lanchester) tries to keep him under control.  What wins out—weird for modern cinema—is the old man’s passion for justice. He first ignores his doctors’ orders not to take worrisome cases, he then frustrates his nurse’s best efforts to get him to drink hot chocolate instead of brandy, and he concludes the movie by vowing to defend Mrs. Vole so that justice is served.

     

    All of the storytelling and upbeat tone is delivered by Billy Wilder’s great direction and by a stellar cast—do we ever get tired of good acting? Charles Laughton is note-perfect as the career lawyer determined to pursue his ideals all the while being a grumpy, uncooperative cardiac patient. He deserved his Academy Awards nomination. His real-life wife, the veteran Elsa Lanchester, delivers much of the film’s comedy in her nurse’s efforts to take care of him. No doubt, she deserved her Golden Globe win. Although Tyrone Power initially turned down the Leonard Vole role because he was disillusioned with film and his film career, Billy Wilder put the project on hold until Power was persuaded to get in on the lucre. All the more credit to Power as he sparkles with superficial charm. Although Marlene Dietrich initially over-acts when she pretends to be unsupportive of her husband, she holds her own with the other actors when she turns the tables in court.

     

    All in old-fashioned black and white, this is a treat of a movie, and you shouldn’t miss it, even though it is half a century old.


  • Bound (1996)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bound  (1996)

    Bound (1996) is sometimes recommended as a modern version of a classic 1940s film noir. Although the themes are similar, Bound fails miserably to make us care about the two main characters. Every film’s basic premises create challenges which must be overcome. In classic film noir, a recurring problem is how to make us sympathize with a protagonist who is dumb or ignorant or criminal or overwhelmed by events, and usually the movies succeed in some way—he’s an ordinary working Joe, he had a terrible childhood, he may be a criminal but he is fair minded, and so on. But with Bound, the two main characters . . . well, see if you empathize with them. One is a Mafia prostitute who, after witnessing yet another torture/murder, feels she’d like to steal 2M dollars from the Mob and get out. The other is a self-described dyke with a mighty pout who is hired to do reno work in the Mafia apartment block, has sex with the prostitute, and thinks she can put her robbery background to good use helping to steal the 2M from some seriously sadistic dudes. Are you worried about what might happen to the two young ladies?


 


Advertisement