rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Conclave (2/10)

A film whose makers are convinced they've come up with something "edgy" and which "pushes the envelope" -- but in reality is hopelessly contrived (and super-boring as well).

Watch this instead...

[AndyDursin]

If you're Catholic especially, the end of that film is so profoundly offensive and patently unbelievable that, as some commented when the film came out, STAR WARS provided a more believable ending.

They could've saved everyone's time and just called it THE POPE IS TRANS!

[AndyDursin]

EVER AFTER
9/10



Once upon a time, before Disney infused every movie and valued IP property with "Girl power!!", there was this 1998 box-office sleeper hit (when there used to be such a thing) that mixed a more contemporary-styled, feminist Cinderella retelling with old-fashioned movie magic and legit romance. The result? Something that remains a true delight, and never lectures or talks down to its audience the way so many films Disney and others have produced over the years in their live-action "fairy tale" films which have tried, and mostly failed, at their own brand of "revisionism."

Drew Barrymore's accent may be unsteady but she probably gives her best performance ever here and has a lot of charm in the lead role. Dougray Scott is likewise sympathetic as her Prince -- he's human and caring while still being "strong" -- and Anjelica Huston does broad villainy expectedly well as the wicked stepmother. Andy Tennant's film works because of the cast, sure, but also the script by Susannah Grant which does something remarkable: it shows its heroine being "strong" and helpful, in equal measure, to the Prince, while doing so without being pretentious. In fact, it plays for laughs a scene where she literally carries him out of a gypsy camp.

The movie, then, manages to get whatever post-modern feminist leanings it has out with good humor -- and more over, there's still ROMANCE in this movie. The girl still wants the guy and vice versa. They each do their part in lifting one another out of the circumstances they're in. This isn't a movie where the Prince is some blob or we have to hear the heroine go "I don't need no prince!" No, she knows what she wants -- and it's completely OK to have a love story too.

That element worked fine in 1998 but, viewed from today's perspective where this kind of thing is handled so poorly in Hollywood, it's just refreshing from every angle -- a movie with a POV that doesn't feel forced, contrived, or talks down to the audience like they're being fed a lecture. Amazing this movie gets its point across far better than anything along those lines today, and it's some 27 years old.

Everything else in this movie is first class too: George Fenton's wonderful score, the assured scope lensing, the French locales, even the framing device of Jeanne Moreau, all of it works...even our son who didn't want to watch it clearly was "into it" when it was over. The great final shot with the score crescendoing at the finish line is the icing on the cake.

[AndyDursin]

LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR (1977)
1/10


Here's a candidate for one of the ickiest, most "dirty" looking and feeling studio films I've ever watched.

Diane Keaton plays the wannabe-sexually liberated heroine at the heart of Richard Brooks' woeful mess, one that shows the downside of the '70s and its singles scene. While demurely teaching deaf kids during the day, Keaton's repressed heroine seeks the fun of meaningless sex at night, eschewing her Catholic family and domineering dad Richard Kiley. In fact, after moving in with her orgy-loving sister Tuesday Weld, Keaton plows through a series of would-be romeos -- including William Atherton and a young Richard Gere -- before she meets Tom Berenger's unstable wacko, who ends this lurid mess with the bleakest of 70s downer endings (based on a true story, unfortunately).

There's virtually nothing connecting Keaton's various travails with a compelling dramatic line, or one that seems to be providing a coherent narrative focus -- the individual scenes play like self-contained vignettes but there's just seemingly no point to it all. Her character isn't very sympathetic either, further compounding matters. It's like Brooks set out to capture the elements of the book it was based on without providing a point to what he was making, resulting in an emotionally detached, unappealing film, and even seeing all kinds of stars in small bit roles (LeVar Burton, even Brian Dennehy pops up at one point) fails to provide a reason to sit through this.

The grime of 70s NYC is captured, at least, in all its filthiness, but I felt icky when this was all over -- this is a truly detestable movie, "bar" none.

[Eric Paddon]

In general, the content of Richard Brooks' movies have made me shun them. I have no desire to see "Elmer Gantry" and I have no desire to see "The Happy Ending" with its "marriage sucks" agenda and this one I will not make time for either. Your reaction reminds me of how I felt after I suffered through Frankenheimer's "52 Pick-Up" and I felt like I needed to bathe afterwards.

That said, "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" was well-made. On the other hand, I did not like "In Cold Blood" with the way Brooks so blatantly tried to make the viewer identify with the killers and treated the victims like non-entities and that's made me loathe to see other films of his that don't instinctively turn me off because of the subject matter.

[TaranofPrydain]

LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR (1977)
1/10


Here's a candidate for one of the ickiest, most "dirty" looking and feeling studio films I've ever watched.

Diane Keaton plays the wannabe-sexually liberated heroine at the heart of Richard Brooks' woeful mess, one that shows the downside of the '70s and its singles scene. While demurely teaching deaf kids during the day, Keaton's repressed heroine seeks the fun of meaningless sex at night, eschewing her Catholic family and domineering dad Richard Kiley. In fact, after moving in with her orgy-loving sister Tuesday Weld, Keaton plows through a series of would-be romeos -- including William Atherton and a young Richard Gere -- before she meets Tom Berenger's unstable wacko, who ends this lurid mess with the bleakest of 70s downer endings (based on a true story, unfortunately).

There's virtually nothing connecting Keaton's various travails with a compelling dramatic line, or one that seems to be providing a coherent narrative focus -- the individual scenes play like self-contained vignettes but there's just seemingly no point to it all. Her character isn't very sympathetic either, further compounding matters. It's like Brooks set out to capture the elements of the book it was based on without providing a point to what he was making, resulting in an emotionally detached, unappealing film, and even seeing all kinds of stars in small bit roles (LeVar Burton, even Brian Dennehy pops up at one point) fails to provide a reason to sit through this.

The grime of 70s NYC is captured, at least, in all its filthiness, but I felt icky when this was all over -- this is a truly detestable movie, "bar" none.

From what I recall reading, Brooks made Looking for Mr. Goodbar because he felt that the sexual revolution had gone too far, that the hook-up culture, if left unchecked, would lead to more grisly murders such as the one that ended this film. The problem is though, that by being so unflinching about the sordidness, self-destructive quality, and nihilism of the world in this film, it becomes something quite like what is supposed to be decried. Supposedly some cynical 70s audiences laughed at this film, which is very disturbing... I only saw this movie once, a few years ago on TCM. That was enough. It is poorly edited, with it lashing forth from the nightclub/sex scenes to the schoolroom scenes with sheer awkwardness. And it is certainly sleazy and depressing, still haunting enough to prompt me to physically flinch when I hear one song used in the film on SiriusXM's 70s on 7 radio station. The two things I will give the film: the soundtrack is well chosen throughout, and the performances in the film, all across the board, are very strong, with Keaton's performance especially being much, much better and convincing than the film that surrounds her.

[mkaroly]

I don't know why anyone would want to make a movie out of this subject material to begin with.

[Paul MacLean]

EVER AFTER
9/10

Haven't seen this movie since it ran in theaters. I really didn't like it at the time, tho I did (and do) quite enjoy the score by the underrated George Fenton.

My problem is, I do not like Drew Barrymore. I think she was great in one film -- E.T. But she didn't blossom into a physically attractive woman, and she tended to chose distasteful projects (Poison Ivy, Bad Girls, Mad Love, Boys on the Side) and her public persona was grotesque (who can forget the way she immodestly flashed her breasts at Letterman, when she appeared on Late Night). By the time of Ever After, her public and screen personae were just antithetical to a pure and innocent character like Cinderella (for me anyway).

[AndyDursin]

That's a lot of distaste though for someone who acted like an idiot through their teens and early 20s, isn't it? I mean, I can think of a lot of others who did a lot, lot, LOT worse than just have a substance abuse problem, make a few bad movies and act like a fool on national TV back at the time.

The bigger point is that Barrymore really did clean herself up and turn herself around by that point so the offscreen stuff from her younger days -- her teen years especially -- was never an issue as far as EVER AFTER went...for me at least. Im not the world's biggest fan of her acting either (though shes quite likeable in that movie) but she sobered up not unlike how Rob Lowe basically did the same, basically reinvented her career, and has been pretty much on the right track of things ever since. And she apologized for what she did on Letterman a long time ago also.

People in that industry especially when theyre younger make bad decisions and her family especially was a total mess. I personally wouldnt hold her turbulent growing up against her. She overcame quite a bit to have the career she had, given the trainwreck she grew up in.

Plus, the movie wasn't a Disney-styled storybook take on the material. It was very romantic and contemporary in its approach, but was also meant to show those stories were inspired by real people who had flaws and weren't perfect. That was the point of the movie, that they lived, not that it was idealized, as it was depicted by the brothers Grimm. To that end, her casting in the film was pretty much spot on, and she had done enough to turn her image around that it was a convincing turnaround on-screen and off for many viewers.

Either way I think I touched upon some elements that have aged it quite well also. It manages to throw female empowerment in the movie in a way that doesn't talk down/lecture/belittle the audience, while still making the Prince appealing and sympathetic in a way that makes him "human" without being weak. And the love story is still what it's all about, as opposed to today, where the male characters and romance itself are useless sidecar passengers to the female's journey of self-discovery in films that have tried a similar approach
(but failed in doing so).

[Paul MacLean]

That's a lot of distaste though for someone who acted like an idiot through their teens and early 20s, isn't it? I mean, I can think of a lot of others who did a lot, lot, LOT worse than just have a substance abuse problem, make a few bad movies and act like a fool on national TV back at the time.

In fairness a lot of actors have exhibited tawdry behavior -- but you have to admit hers was especially bad. I mean, how many others else flashed a talk show host?

So that public persona made it impossible for me to accept her in the lead of a romantic fairy tale. Apart from that -- and this isn't her fault -- but she's just not an attractive woman. She didn't have the looks to be playing Cinderella.

This is my review for Renaissance Magazine from 1998...

Ever After
Drew Barrymore, Angelica Huston

I think the film-makers meant well, but for various reasons, Ever After proves very disappointing and a missed opportunity. In an approach similar to the distasteful Snow White: A Tale of Terror, much has been done to strip away the more fanciful (and "politically incorrect") trappings of the original Cinderella tale. In the lead, Drew Barrymore is moderately convincing, but ultimately lacking in the necessary passion (nor does she really possess the innate beauty one expects in the character).

The film's unceasing attempts to make Cinderella into a strong, "modern" woman, while well-intentioned, only come-off as contrived and tiresome. Of course the role of women has changed considerably in our century (though we've still a ways to go), but trying to impose a modern sensibility on so archaic a tale only smothers the film in the preposterous. Depicting Cinderella as a feisty, earthy woman is an appealing take on the character, but she is *so* tough and aggressive, the story and setting just can't support it. For instance, in one scene the heroine takes up a sword to defend herself against the villain, proclaiming "my father trained me well". But she was only 8 years old in the scene where her father died. Who could possibly be well-trained in the use of arms at the age of 8 (and still be proficient ten years later with no practice)?

The faerie godmother character is also conspicuously absent from this particular adaptation. While this might seem to make the story more real, the character who instead comes to Cinderella's rescue (and furnishes her gown for the ball) is none other than...Leonardo Da Vinci. Perhaps the idea of a faerie godmother is a little silly and hard to believe, but no more so than the idea that Leonardo Da Vinci has nothing better to do with his time.

With the exception of George Fenton's appealingly lush and romantic score, the production quality is fairly bland, considering this is supposed to be a romantic faerie tale. In a lot of ways, the film is something of a throwback to the functional B-movie costume dramas of the 50s, down to the B-list star, gaudy lighting, costumes which look like costumes and sets which look like sets.

* 1/2 (one and a half stars)

[AndyDursin]

Sure but, again, that was the moment she finally figured it out, turned herself around and has never had a relapse so to speak either. As I said its much like how Rob Lowe managed to do tne same. At this point in the world there are much worse crimes against humanity.

[Paul MacLean]

Sure but, again, that was the moment she finally figured it out, turned herself around and has never had a relapse so to speak either. As I said its much like how Rob Lowe managed to do tne same. At this point in the world there are much worse crimes against humanity.

Sorry, I don't meant to take a dump on a movie you obviously enjoyed very much.

But I think it's fair to say we all have a line which taints a performer once it's been crossed -- certainly in regard to certain types of roles. It's hard for me to look at the childlike Pee-Wee Herman after Paul Reubens' "movie theater incident". It's hard to accept John Lennon waxing lyrical about the perfect world of "Imagine" when he beat his first wife.

I think Drew Barrymore is a perfectly good actress, but (for me) her public persona (especially her antics on Letterman) made it impossible for me to accept her as Cinderella.

[Monterey Jack]

Apart from that -- and this isn't her fault -- but she's just not an attractive woman. She didn't have the looks to be playing Cinderella.

Dude! Drew in the 90s was a doll.

[Eric Paddon]

But I think it's fair to say we all have a line which taints a performer once it's been crossed -- certainly in regard to certain types of roles. It's hard for me to look at the childlike Pee-Wee Herman after Paul Reubens' "movie theater incident". It's hard to accept John Lennon waxing lyrical about the perfect world of "Imagine" when he beat his first wife.

Exactly. I can handle watching O.J. Simpson in a dramatic role like "Towering Inferno" or "Capricorn One" because in those films I'm caught up in the story. I can NEVER watch the "Naked Gun" films again with him doing comedy without being self-conscious of what he did. Similarly, with Bill Cosby I can handle an "I Spy" episode or a piece of old stand-up but "Fat Albert" episodes are now unwatchable along with "The Cosby Show" because Cosby the wise father-figure type was a fraud.

Jane Fonda in her prime I think was one of the sexiest women to ever grace a movie screen, but the two films of hers from the 70s that are forever off-limits for me are "Julia" and "Coming Home" because that's Fonda the political activist which IMO is something her other roles of that era manage to conceal (not that I'd see "Julia" if it had anyone else, since Lillian Hellman was a Stalinist toady of the first order who likely made that whole story up).

[AndyDursin]

I get that but I dont feel what Barrymore did was anywhere near as bad as OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby or Jane Fonda.

She didnt kill anyone, rape anyone, run over anybody, have sex with a minor, assault her boyfriend in the head, etc etc . She had a drug problem by the time she was 12 and zero parenting of any sort beyond peers like Spielberg trying to get her on the right track. It took her a while but her turnaround is legit, shes never relapsed into the bad childhood she went through and has had a long and successful career producing, acting and doing her silly talk show. I dont watch it but someone does so more power to her.

Plus its not like she was acting in soft core porn.
POISON IVY isnt some salacious NC17 movie, its just a lame teen thriller. I dont like BOYS ON THE SIDE but its not exactly BASIC INSINCT, its just some innocuous "chick flick" back when they used to make those. Not really a big deal.