xatian11968 Reviews

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

White People good, Indians bad.

[2/10 · 6 January 2019]

Yehwah; for all of Hollywood's hypocrisy, you'd think the Coen brothers wouldn't have relegated Native American nations to the same dustbin they've occupied since the high ho days of baby face Andrew Jackson. Where is Barack Obama regulating Netflix from us and this kind of charade? Right, he's half white too. This "collection" isn't disappointing in the way you learned that Jack "Nasty" Twist is killed in a road side ditch, but it is disappointing in that it is the same old retelling of how the "West was won" especially as short stories go. Do you know why "Dances with Wolves" remains the relevant and critically acclaimed feather in the storytelling cap of the west? Because DwW remains honest to the story that the west was filled with other people before the "official" pioneers crossed to Oregon. And this is a real plea to the AMPAS, to leave these tired portrayals where they belong... in black and white 50s shows. Yes; it is a sad sad story 'the American West' at times, but the Ballads were filled with one dramatic tale after another - as absurd as traveling circuses were even then - as to why the west had to be won, and not from the Native American Indians perspective either. Sure, it would take the "Revenant" for Leo deCaprio to take Oscar home, but what the details in the story "Revenant" attempted to fix, the Coens carried on in the "Cowboy myth of one valiantly shooting 18 Indians with two bullets on foot in the height of a hurricane at the behest of a pale faced virgin (a totally otherwise incapable white woman screaming on the other side of a dead horse). The Ballads, for all its fantastic beauty of seismic set dressing and wagon train teams of sewing machines only a 1840s horse caravan outfitter could dream of, still reeks of rank of a misogynist bygone mindset. Or is it bygone for Democrats?

Or Perhaps maybe the story of the Indian warriors was left out by the financiers' hands?! The tale left absent from the Coens' so-called amazing work, is that of wives and of daughters who learned that their sons and fathers were lost to the invaders, lost whilst protecting their homes from the US Army. But enough about Politics and Revenant, even Johnny Deep attempted to capture, and succeeded in making visceral for audiences of one Lone Ranger. But delicate history is never easy, and the Coens' work passes on what could otherwise be a beautiful yet stark picture of what the west would look like, already home to the 562 tribes the Coen brothers took no shame in "killing in the name of."

Do you know why Tribes were called "savage" (because the Coens don't; never send a Hollywood type to pass a history test)? Indians were called savage for gay politics, and not just the Democrat LGBTQ politics circa 2019 either. For all of Hollywood's love of illegal aliens, brown people and democracy, there is not one spec of Native American diversity in this Coen travesty. So just like Congress, we heard all about the Palestinians whose land Israel invaded, but not an ounce of respect to the "Savage" who paid so dearly, for their failed "migration policy". Otherwise, the photography was astounding, and the dark dark tales really did capture a little truth... And that is what makes the Indian perspective so disappointing here. All we saw were blurs of redskin, scalping a white man, when it was the French and the Germans of Leo deCaprio's Revenant who taught the warriors to scalp in the first place.

Such a disappointment of creative scale the Ballards are.

Cherry Pop (2017)

An Experience: the Best performance of [ .] you'll hear this year.

[8/10 · 2 December 2017]

SPOILERS! The Best performance of Ave Maria you'll hear this year.

This delightfully care free film by screenwriter Nick Landa is warm and comfortable throughout. Along with its inviting cinematography this film is a fun one for those with an evening to relax and laugh - you want to visit this place, if not for its lively backstage drama. And at the height of its success, is the performance by Lars Berge, a newcomer to film, but certainly not to song. Cherry Pop is not the film you may think it is. And although it rests squarely in a dive drag bar just off and on the other side of the railroad tracks, don't let that distract you, this story is honest as it is frank in what is the 'always on going battle' between gay and straight community.

The cast performance did a fabulous job, each delivering a real experience that didn't border on gay or straight stereotype – surely most everyone was in drag, but this film was full of the community that exists outside the dressing room and off the stage. The ladies-in-drag's talent off-screen translated into delivered performances, of performers, just trying to get on with their lives. Their costuming was done with taste and flamboyance, which can be missing on Main Street. For those of you, unfamiliar with stellar 'drag queens', these contributing actors in Cherry Pop make the pop that becomes this cherry. But this film isn't so much about the drag queens, and really is, much more a PFLaG convention, seen from the "P" and the "F" vantage, and not so much the LaG (which may confuse the lgbtq folk, but doubt not in Nick Landa). Nick Landa's story and his success in Cherry Pop is that he has taken the discussion full circle, where straight males and drag queens, doting mothers and frustrated sons, find some middle ground.

This film is also a great love story, about lost love, current love, and love that comes and goes. But Nick Landa has presented a plausible question for all of us, as Allusia Alusia's Dellusia's fashion forward approach in her role presents. On the other hand, Nick Landa has reminded us that a dedicated partner will see us through to the end, and the love that Lars Berge's Cherry shares in music and life will see mainstream heterosexual drag films relegated to the outdated bin. The treatment the story receives by Director Assaad Yacoub is a fresh take on an old story, and the story Screenwriter Nick Landa invites you on is "an experience", and much of it will have you saying, this is a film even Ann Coulter would enjoy. 'Benedicta tu in mulieribus' – blessed art Thou among women. Cheers!

Riverdale (2017–2023)

✫ ✫ out of 10

[2/10 · 27 May 2017]

I really enjoyed the comic books, so when I saw the write up on this on Netflix, I had hope. Holy cow did that hope evaporate fast.

First off, there is way too much 'Netflix' name dropping in this series. I mean we're watching the series on Netflix, do we really need to have these kids fitting the corporate name into every line? No. And let's talk about these high school "kids". They all look so- so- old. This would have made a better 'freshman in community college' flick than its attempts at being young adult. On top of the notion, that these kids are far too pretty to reflect reality, where are Archie's pimples?

So it's no wonder that the fun Jughead from the good old days was relegated to narrator in this sad excuse, because this "kid" in this series is no where near cool. But that's just off the top. The series definitely attempted to tackle some serious issues, but the message was lost in the fact that this is a show about teenagers below the age of consent. Not post voting age, so many of you may find the story lines a little bit, if not highly, questionable. They range from murder, to football hit lists, to actual sexual relationships between a student and teacher. Paging Roman Polansky. Paging Roman Polansky.

Its one thing to discuss inappropriate relationships with teachers and their students, but this series not only glamorizes the subject, it goes one step further to say that the law is negotiable here. But the parents of this flick are just as damaged, considering that the elder cast were all last seen in the 1990s version of youthful angst and lust, from the 90210 to Santa Rosa, to the streets of the Upper East Side. Wow, I guess its second saving grace is that Courtney Cox turned down a cameo.

And let's talk about the serious story flaws here. The Archie comics were set in a relatively expected background. We got the need to have biker gang greasers, like we did in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with old Mr. "I ain't famous". But in this series, the mix between modernity and anxiety causing racism is just something we got to talk about. The producers who green lit this script must have been high on meth to let this terrible juxtaposition of mid-century racism and cell phones out of the box. Poor Poor Skeet Ulrich. I mean to be pushed into playing a dark-skinned caricature better suited for 1943, than 2017, he should have stuck with the doomsday roles with Pamela Reed.

All in all this storyline just does not work. And it would have been far better successful if they had left the entire plot back where it was meant to have been seen - in the past. Seriously, the delivery of some the sub-plots would have taken wings if not subjected to laboring through the anachronisms of 1939 and the anachronisms of last week. The only shining glory is that the gay guys are seriously okay and seriously worth rooting for, when the rest of the hetero-characters were best left to the comic books. In fact, all the males should have just been gay, and we could have done without the females at all. At least then, this would have been just another bad Netflix gay film, than the tragedy of modernity that Riverdale is. Cheers!

Macho (I) (2016)

Muy Fun!!

[7/10 · 12 April 2017]

Took the netflix spin and landed here. Interesting film in Espagnol. Takes a telenovela hue to its storytelling. A little slow in the beginning, but the wardrobe design is colorful. Outrageous caricatures with some good moments, but definitely a non-American syntax to the LGBT aspect, and overall feel. Great sets, very beautiful homes and offices. Wonderful performance by the late Renato López.

All in all it was fun film if you didn't take it too seriously.

**Crazy that López, in real life, gets killed by the cartel; getting assassinated two weeks after this film's release.

Such Good People (2014)

Such Silly People!

[10/10 · 15 June 2016]

This was a fun film, great for a late night or a lazy morning.

Thank You Michael Urie and Randy Harrison! The Ugly Betty fans at my house have been without a new installment for what seemed like a century until we stumbled upon this gem on Netflix.

I enjoyed the theatrical body work Urie and Harrison brought out in this film. Some would call it slap stick, but the movements of the actors really added to their overall character profiles. The humor was simple, but the choreography really added a fun flare. Urie and Harrison fit together as well, in the line of other good gay films like "The mostly unfabulous social life of Ethan Green", and "Eating Out."

Ana Ortiz; Alec Mapa; Drew Droege; Tania Gunadi, how much fun did they all have making this? This stellar supporting cast made this film; and was quite reminiscent to how entertaining it was to watch Ugly Betty - not because of the writing, but because the actors made the writing complete.

Certainly this film won't win many awards, but after watching Leo DeCaprio drag himself through the mud for five hours just for a gold stature, this film is a great antidote to the blase cinema culture expecting every last film to come out to be Shakespeare drab. Cheers!

The Big Short (2015)

Just boring.

[2/10 · 17 April 2016]

Some 52 minutes into the film, an actor in one of the many buddy buddy scenes breaks the fourth wall and takes a two second gaze directly into the camera. I shut if off at that point, and thanked my lucky stars I didn't contribute to the cinema studio's take at the movie theater.

This film really felt like just another 'popular boys theater club' spending money on a poor script just because everyone was "hot" and popular, and "ballin like wall street". It played like a poor person's film: flashy, big chested, long di¢ked, frat house rude. There was no sophistication in it. It felt like the outcast step brother to Leo DeCaprio's Wall Street junk stock mayhem. Sure, Steve Carroll has his moments, but this certainly was not one of them. And Christian Bale, he could have done a better job if he just grunted through the entire film like he did in "Batman".

...tis a shame that the 2012 film "Capital" was received less than this new rendition of "why I got rich." The Big Short felt like a home brew from the local men's club after hours.... I didn't stay tuned to see if the breasts from Jordan Belfort and Jonah Hill's version made a cameo.

Georgia O'Keeffe (2009 TV Movie)

Honestly, this was less than disappointing; it was an absolute borefest.

[2/10 · 17 April 2016]

I am not sure what I expected when I inserted this film in the player, maybe something fun about Georgia O'Keeffe's work, or maybe a neat coming of age story or an unknown facet. What I found was that Georgia O'Keeffe literally was about as dynamic as a old dish rag left to linger in the yesterday's dishwater. And what about that creep Stieglitz!? Seriously, the film should have been called "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for sun-bleached color".

But really, I could have found some fun in watching the paint dry on a real O'Keeffe painting, as opposed to watching the entirety of this film. I pulled it out and relayed it to the two star category, because at its very least some New Mexican film crew had to labor their talent through what can only be imagined as some of the most dullest sides ever handed out to a film crew. I can't blame 'Lifetime: Television for women' entirely, because "Lizzie Borden Took an Ax" with Kristina Ricci was incredible for its modern take on an old tale, with some pretty fun soundtracks, and some pretty chic costumes.

Meanwhile, "Stieglitz - with some O'Keeffe thrown in for color" was tiresome in the first five minutes. I must admit, I love Jeremy Irons. Scar; Simon Gruber; Aramis, these are roles worthy of his talent. But wow, Irons must have been like, "'I can't' with this film, so I'll make Stieglitz the foremost Spencer Pratt of the O'Keeffe age." Which is why I warn, that this is a film about Stieglitz, who is portrayed as the quintessential Male chauvinist. And who knows, maybe he was, absolutely; but after viewing this film you are left without any doubt that he wasn't anything else.

O'Keeffe on the other hand, as portrayed in this film, lives up to the notion that the Art is what speaks, and that it is okay to relegate the artist to the background of humans making folly in their personal lives. And its best to ignore all their failings, because as I said Joan Allen's portrayal didn't leave you much room to imagine anything else. You end up incredibly disliking Joan Allen's O'Keeffe, not because what can be surmised as O'Keeffe's super subordinate life in the shadow of Stieglitz, 'male ego premier!', but because Allen brought absolutely nothing to portray O'Keeffe as anything but a means to an end to Stieglitz's career.

This film was less than disappointing, it was less than a borefest, it was something worthy of being pulled from the player barely 20 minutes into the show; it didn't even make for good background noise. Spare yourself the change in renting this film, and just go out and buy a copy of O'Keeffe's work, or better yet, buy an original, you'll learn far more in its presence than in this Lifetime: television for women rehashing of why 'heterosexual men are bad.'

Snails in the Rain (2013)

Its an okay film.

[6/10 · 24 February 2016]

I enjoyed the film. But I was expecting something a little more involved, than this one sided story. That being said, I still recommend seeing it.

Boaz is the usual 'gay' dream. Which Yoav Reuveni lives up to in the most photogenic way. However, that is all you get. You never know anything more than the notion that his love interest is a writer who loves to write about Boaz. The viewer only barely gets to know the secret writer until well into the final moments of the film, and then when he is revealed, we don't get to know the writer in the way we got to know Boaz.

As a one sided story, the story of Boaz is quite stereotypical. Bi- sexual man has repressed feelings for male touch, and every time he gets touched in that special way by a man he's into, he reverts to over- masculinity, and beats up said man-interests every time.

Sure, you could call this an emotional investigation into Boaz, as he wrestles with his yearning for male touch, while accepting that his life is with his girlfriend. But that's all you are offered. Take it or leave it, seeing Yoav Reuveni rise and fall in sweaty homoerotic lust has its moments. But, you're kind of left wishing there was some resolution to the letters and the writer, that takes a more creative approach to this ultimately quite common gay story; rather than taking the film in that direction, we are left with the ever old stereotype caricature of gay guy likes man, man doesn't like gay guy. Man moves on with girlfriend...

Had the script and timeline of the film started with the ending, and moved backwards to the beginning, maybe we could have had a more tidy ending, with some depth to the secret writer. Alas though, we are left with as much insight on the writer at the end of the film as the beginning. Such is life.

San Andreas (2015)

Ignore the naysayers and definitely go and see San Andreas!

[10/10 · 2 June 2015]

I usually read the bad reviews before seeing a movie, so definitely read them and then still go and see San Andreas. It is a viably entertaining series of events that leap from one catastrophe to the utter destruction of San Francisco. If you ever wanted to see the peninsula of San Francisco go up in smoke Sodom and Gomorrah Style?! Then this is the film to see it happen.

I mean the gay old city of Saint Francis by the Sea, literally wiped clean with the help of the Pacific, or at least that's what the viewer might infer from some of the smaller lines of the people in the aftermath.

And what about that Hugo Johnstone-Burt! Talk about a man in a baby blue button up shirt you want around when the California fault lines open up. The only disappointment was that Hugo didn't take his wet shirt off being the ever able British gentlemen caring for his young lad brother.

The Rock, well what can you say? When you want a Rock to stand on, Dwayne Johnson is your man. Carla Gugino and Alexandra Daddario, the mother and daughter troupe – Bravo! The script wasn't much to work with, and the viewer may not have wanted to know either you before the first earthquake, but definitely, Ms. Gugino WAS Dwayne's wife. When all hell breaks loose, she sternly faces death valiantly as her white knight battles falling sky scrapers and dares gigantic waves to defeat them. And Miss Daddario, like mother like daughter. And finally, Paul Giamatti, ladies and gentlemen... Text book Scholar and Savior, using his staff and his university's resources in a tight spot to save the Bay and the Coast from what could very well be the re- alignment of Golden State.

This is everything all the other movies of 2015 thus far have lacked, someone to root for amidst the ruin of the City named for Saint Francis in San Andreas.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Maybe reading Mrs. Hawking's book is a better investment than watching this film

[2/10 · 31 May 2015]

This film took an incredible amount of dedication to get through; I even had to break it up between two days. Eddie Redmayne's portrayal did such a good job of showing the 'silverspooned' flippancy, and associated arrogance of anyone lucky enough to get into Cambridge, that half way through you're almost glad that Hawking's ego was tempered by fate and ALS. Guy gets into boys' club, Guy gets into aristocracy, Guy gets pretty girl, and it's all about the Guy, with very little science thrown in.

Certainly the script was gleamed from the first Mrs. Hawking's work, but after some thought at the film's end, you wonder if Hawking's ALS was the single most deciding factor that provided the 'thinking man' time to think himself to greatness. After all, great men come from great sacrifice, and Mr. Hawking's great sacrifice was that he no longer could experience life the way the rest of humanity experiences it. The film certainly had an air of 'Cambridge guy does film about another Cambridge guy' love only a fellow Cambridge guy and the old boys' club would appreciate., The rest of the 99.9% of us are left with less than a real look into the source as to why Hawking was famous (as was the compelling root of similar films like Russell Crowe's "A Beautiful Mind"). Even after desperately waiting for Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) to share some much needed humility we're even grasping for deeper development of Dennis Sciama, PhD. But after trudging through the fiction that was Alan Touring's re-telling, it's not hard to believe that Cumberbatch and Redmayne are friends, as they are more apt to tell the story as they see it, as opposed to the way the story was as history experienced it.

To quote Kirk Lazarus from "Tropic Thunder": 'Everybody knows you never go full retard.' Eddie Redmayne certainly took that advice to heart, supposedly almost to the point of experiencing his own spinal damage in the making of this dull film. You'd certainly get a better return, and a heck of a lot more "Stephen Hawking" watching television's "Big Bang Theory" than you could from Redmayne's the theory of making a very boorish film. For every intellectual movie-goer out there who already knows Hawking's disabilities, you'll get nothing more than what you already knew from Redmayne's portrayal, and for those searching to know Hawking more, well then you just may not like Hawking after Eddie Redmayne's rendition of him.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Left desiring a lot more with a film budget like this, more about Cage than aliens

[4/10 · 24 June 2014]

I had hopes for "Edge of Tomorrow," because Tom Cruise was rumored to have actually done a decent job for the film. The plot started out even enough, and of course got interesting when the main battle sequence got started. Then it all fell apart, and the entire film amounted to a repeat of the last 10 minutes of the first 20 minutes of the film for the entire 113 minute running time.

The alien storyline was great, different, and had legs before you knew their weaknesses. But those legs were cut off in the mundane replay of watching the leads' hunt down the real reason behind their adversary's success which had little to do with the aliens themselves and more to do with watching Tom Cruises race through the same old paces. This, in the totality of the film, completely stopped the involvement of the actual aliens in the storyline action; and shifted the entire storyline to watching Tom Cruise repeat himself. Over. Over. Over and Over again.

On Tom Cruise's character, viewers got a little background, as the apt "Groundhog Day" story style comparison truncated this development because the time-line jumped back so many times, that viewers had an opportunity to cease caring about the character. Tom Cruise did a great job on not being Tom Cruise. Sadly though, the script left him with little to work with. Now had the story kept pace - without the always questionable suggestion that time could be meddled with, merely by a single alien intelligence – we would have gone on to find a serious story about alien technology or some other interesting creation. Alas not though.

The one world paradigm of the film's society glimpse was dull too, and didn't do much to convey the story; the film didn't have the community ownership as in the way "Twenty-eight Days Later" offered British connection to the Island, and its landmarks. In fact it was a distraction as you never knew anything about the type of society Tom Cruise's character was coming from, except to know it was in the future and that the Eiffel Tower & I.M. Pei's Pyramid lasted long enough in history to be destroyed in the film (though the prize of the film was not located in the same place as the Holy Grail is in "Da Vinci Code"). Aliens, yes. Relatable humans, no. The military themselves seemed pretty much a transfer of the crew from Sigourney Weaver's "Alien", right down to the stereotypical 'Latina' character, and of course the obligatory half-naked-eight-packed "sexy white guy" in the thread of Casper Van Dien's "Starship troopers."

The success of the story is that you are never given a chance to know anything more about the alien intelligence, except that they really don't like humans. Much in the same way of "War of the Worlds." We get the "all powerful alien, with glaring weaknesses" fit into a 113 minute time-line; but this is to a viewer-ship that never gets a detailed film/story about aliens, like we get a detailed "Mission Impossible" story of conspiracy in other Cruise films - we are left to wonder whether a good alien take-over film can be done in 113 minutes. There also seemed to be some "Scientology" rhetoric thrown into the story line for good measure as well, especially in the tone of "past-lives".

At any rate, the film was great going in, but petered out twenty minutes after the story rolled. I'll be blunt and say, Emily Blunt was awesome carrying the film, though I could have waited for the Red-Box debut!

The Great Gatsby (2013)

10 for Fitzgerald. 5 for this remake

[5/10 · 19 May 2013]

I loved the book as did everyone else, but as the age old advice heeds, "see this movie with an open mind." Well I did, and I can say that I am not so disappointed, it is okay, but just okay.

From the start it was hard to divorce the voice of the Nick Carraway from the nasal interpreter found in Tobey Maguire. I never imagined Nick Carraway as annoying, but Tobey Maguire certainly did inspire my want to reach into the screen and slap him for making the character into such a sullied bore. Though the opening sequences were okay enough, it was really the original work shining through the cracks that made this film entertaining. Sure the shots were beautiful, the CGI Mansion was large, and the parties at West Egg looked interesting, but this new film adaption made me wanting for something new, the exact feeling I had after watching Robert Redford's attempt.

Of course, Gatsby was like Titanic; you knew the ship was going into the drink, but DiCaprio had a harder challenge with Gatsby, because everyone knew what and who Gatsby was - unlike Jack Dawson. Perhaps that was Maguire's problem, being that he had such huge shoes to fill, frankly he was a very bad choice as this lead character. Maguire's attempt came off as yet another high school rendition of Shakespeare's best without the spider-man tights.

All of this is not to say that this film wasn't entertaining. In fact, as the credits began to roll the audience was captivated at its end. As the silence crept into peoples' awareness, that in fact, the movie had indeed ended, I wondered whether it was the book's echoed emotion that had gripped the movie-goers so much or this film. I did conclude rightly, that it was Fitzgerald's words that had stunned the theater, and not Baz Luhrmann. You can put a pig in a dress and apply lipstick, but you know it's just a pig. On the other hand, the strong base of this novel can give wings to any interpretation, good or just okay, and that is what this film is – another okay interpretation of a storied and favorite book (a modern book that does not age, unlike the modern film that gets dated and old). Ten stars for Fitzgerald, five stars for effort, and those stars all go to DiCaprio alone because Jay Gatsby came alive in DiCaprio's eyes, where Redford's didn't.

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

Great illustration of the Hudson River life at Springwood

[8/10 · 16 January 2013]

"Hyde Park on Hudson" is an entertaining fictional snapshot into the life of President Franklin Roosevelt, the home of his mother Sara, his family and staff; which takes advantage of the situational opportunity of the first June 7-12th, 1939 visit of the British Monarch and Queen, to the United States. This film is not a flash and jingles film, so it may disappoint many who come into this movie expecting a song and dance - especially as it is seen through the narrative of FDR's affection interest, the affable but shy Daisy portrayed by Laura Linney. This movie is great, at once, for illustrating the Hudson River life of the New York aristocracy in 1939. Bill Murray does a stupendous job of taking the oft times stereotypical portrayal of the 32nd President of the US and turning the man into a living and breathing individual with character flaws and aspirations for the summer of '39. Olivia Williams also brings to life First Lady Eleanor in a way that warms her to the viewer and rejects history's cold perceptions of this famous Lady Activist.

Many people presume the rambunctious portrayal of FDR by Edward Hermann in 1982's "Annie" to be a valid likeness. But Murray's Roosevelt turns away from the cartoonish man, and brings to vivid vision a gentleman that is not only marooned in his own bubble, but brilliantly illustrates the difficulty of his physical handicap and all of the challenges presented by his body's limitations. This role for Murray is quite valid for a man of many talents, and those who expect a "Ghostbuster" rendition are better apt to spare those history loving moviegoers by seeing a lesser film.

"Hyde Park on Hudson" takes place at the Roosevelt Family home Springwood above the Hudson River, and all of the scenes take place in or around the roads to, grounds and Springwood estate. The photography of the landscapes is vivid and details to color are apparent as the green and blue hues of land and sky are dazzling. In sequences at the middle of the film, the night sky is luminous for the juxtaposition of the darkened heavens against the gleam of star and full moon is beautiful and is photographed in a way quite unlike any other cinematic night sky has been seen.

The Celia Bobak set design of Springwood is brought to vivid invitation for the viewer. And unlike other historical fiction films like "Lincoln," where the warmth of the White House is obliterated to a cold stereotypical portrayal of a faded and ugly black and white photograph, the home of Sara Roosevelt is stunning. The Study of FDR is one of the rooms in which calls out to the book lover, as the walls are graced by book shelves elegantly merged with utility of a workroom that serves also as a retreat for a professional man. The Living Room and Dining Room of the home are also lit by lighting technician Adrian Mackay in ways that highlight the textures of the furniture, beautiful wall paper, and even the chinaware used in the dinner sequence. The script itself is also filled with apropos use of details that could only be found at that moment in time, for example the joke concerning Mrs. Astor's Chinaware.

Of course the screen play must take license in recreating the dialogue of people long passed. However, the conversational interactions of the characters are both apt and agreeable to the house and staff of FDR. Of course, the writers and viewers would never truly know what was said in the bedroom chambers of Edward VI and the Queen Mother, but subtle insight is envisioned much in the same manner of the private home scenes as portrayed by Helen Mirren in "The Queen." Sadly as a film that does so much to illustrate the course of days experienced by the Royal visit to the Roosevelt family home, the film falls far short in the lunch scene at Top Cottage. There, despite the overall attention to detail, the Indian dances, songs, and costuming are both cartoonish, and terribly stereotypical. It is almost a shame to Eleanor Roosevelt and her attempts that day to bring to life Native Indian America for the Royals that the film makers would use such cheap roadside show regalia, and encourages the slight that FDR purges upon the dancers and singers as he interrupts them to stop.

Aside from this, the narration of Daisy is charming; even as we experience the obvious truth that FDR was a polyamorous man, and that Daisy herself was a part of a larger hierarchy of women-in-waiting to the 32nd President. Linney's portrayal of the shy woman is agreeable, and at the end of the day, the viewer is grateful for her experience at Springwood in the summer of '39. Though this film is narrated in most part via the lens of the Linney's Daisy, the film itself is mostly about the life, at that time, at the Roosevelt Estate. FDR, Sara Roosevelt, Eleanor, Daisy, the Monarchs and the staff and flavor of the Hudson River summer experience are brought to life in "Hyde Park on Hudson" in a refreshing manner. In turn this film definitely is an enjoyable entertainment, and a welcomed portrayal of Franklin Roosevelt the man. Though, the script takes on the slow rhythm of a NY summer, the viewer is enlightened to experience FDR the man, with his shortfalls and handicap. And for this we can certainly be thankful to Daisy. Cheers!

Lincoln (2012)

Wait for the DVD to come out, or buy a Lincoln Standee.

[2/10 · 16 November 2012]

Though I went to this film with great hopes of some artistic integrity teamed with a modern lens, I was very disappointed in "Lincoln." It is yet another poorly executed film with all the best intentions that fails to do anything more than add yet another bad time piece to a long line of dull stereotypical portrayals of Lincoln and Washington D.C. in 1865 Civil War America.

All around this film is best seen at home; where the viewer can willfully decide to change the channel, or stop the DVD gladly knowing he paid little more than a dollar at the rental machine as opposed to suffering through a $15 dollar ticket "razzie" nominee. This film is a grotesque platitude to the 2012 genre of politically correct films that does nothing more than prop up a Daniel Day Lewis pretending to be Lincoln - where a cardboard standee of Lincoln would do just fine. For all those people who find this movie gripping or amazing, I can only say that these are the same people that would find paint drying compelling.

A recent movie "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" did far more to add to the collection of time piece films than this awful Spielberg work. In the former vampire film, Lincoln is human and believable with a Mary Todd that is both alive and strikingly relatable. In Sally Fields' portrayal she is "the" faded photograph that is deservedly buried under the annals of more agreeable history. Fields' Todd Lincoln is both an anachronism of bad 1980s housewives, and a questionable recreation of a history you can't but help scratch your head asking, is this really how the 17th First Lady was? The staging of the film was needlessly dark. We all get this is a time piece, but Spielberg decided against better judgment that 1865 was the literal dark ages, as most of the scenes were shadowy juxtaposed against glaring back lighting the flooded out most detail of the sets, the costuming, and the actors themselves. The lighting designer was a willing accomplice as the only bright and lively scene of remark in the film was the white washed facades of a far too bright Capital that architecturally looked no different than the White House. All the manner of costuming also seemed to find inspiration in the clothes rubbish bin that even Fieval from "Fieval Goes West" would be apt to pass on as just outright dull for humanity.

But let's return to Daniel Day Lewis. I had difficulty discerning whether he was portraying Abe Lincoln or fellow modern day actor Jay Baruchel. Lewis' portrayal was forgettable at how unremarkable it was; as I said before, a cardboard standee would have made a better performance because cardboard can't speak. Lewis was so full of himself in his portrayal of Abe Lincoln, his monotonous rehashing of Lincoln quotes was like watching a high school acting troop trying to pull a full blown production of Macbeth, and carried the same acting value.

The rest of the ensemble did little to add/ save the film, and in some cases made it worse. The Lincoln sons were… well dull. Lincoln's cohorts weren't portrayals of fellow contemporaries, but came off as - Lincoln turned religious icon - subscribers bowing to a man who couldn't utter a wrong opinion. Todd Lincoln's lady in waiting was questionable and utterly lost in the PC portrayal of the Free African life let alone the slave situation. And the free Africans themselves were relegated to the peanut gallery as mere props. In one scene, an entire telegraph war communications room fell silent so Lewis' Lincoln could wax plastically on the strategy of his legacy. All around, the dynamics of the economic war that was the Civil War was lost in the political correct portrayal that only went so far as to say that "slavery was bad, mmkay" and did nothing to illustrate the situation in the House of the Representatives of the Nation at war up to that time.

Tommy Lee Jones, Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Jared Harris, Christopher Boyer, et al. – all great men who struggled to do their best in a film that struggled to even do just okay. And the stereotypical final Ford's Theatre scene is omitted, after Spielberg painstakingly forces the viewer to sit through January to April 1965, and then the viewer isn't even invited into Spielberg's Ford's Theatre. Overall, this film was a sad attempt among many sad attempts to bring to life History. That being said, perhaps Lincoln's true life can't be envisioned without bowing to the religious following Lincoln's legacy has become, where the man can do no evil because he was never human to begin with

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Artistic license that entertains

[7/10 · 2 July 2012]

This was an entertaining movie (haven't read the book), I'd give it a 5 for effort. Two more points for CGI. So 7. There were moments where you cringed at the historical presumption and various inaccuracies, and I laughed at the candles that didn't flicker; and sometimes Walker's close up made you want to strangle him for his Abe portrayal (see it in 3D). Sure I'd watch it maybe once more, for the really artistically mindful CGI, costuming and set dressing. The opening storybook deconstruction of the District of Columbia really made your eye wander if you know the layout of that city; and the White House sets brought to comfy life many scenes in 1860s Washington that are otherwise historically black and white ((less the errors in some of the south facing outdoor sequences with the monument) (that blue and white blanket on the bed! Where can I get one?)).

This of course all comes after I divorced myself from the ethics of using the Civil War era with slavery based on some large stereotypes. The assumption of Mackie's character was a novel one none-the-less. At least Cruise's Lestat had the decency to keep history as a side story, and not turn the back story of the 16th president into make-believe. Regardless of the latter, yes, two thumbs up as something to do. Cooper is very stylish, as well as Winstead (who knew Mary Todd could look that warm), in costuming that even you might consider wearing in modern 1860s. Frutiger, Carasik, Avdyushko & Poggioli did a good a job. And all around, if you like vampires and got nothing better to do with 15 bucks to burn, sure, it's a fun interpretation that a President is a vampire slayer named Abraham. Be warned this is not historical fiction; this is a vampire slasher story with a man named Lincoln who acts and looks like someone else we know who also lived in a cabin outside Springfield, Illinois.