Cast: Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Claire Foy, Jamie Bell
A screenwriter drawn back to his childhood home enters into a fledgling relationship with his downstairs neighbor while discovering a mysterious new way to heal from losing his parents 30 years ago.
First off before you even redistribute, this is a film that it’s best to go in blind to to get the most out of it. So please watch the film before you read this review as there will be some spoilers.
This is definitely a movie that would’ve been in my top five had I seen it in 2003 when it was released.
The film plays more like therapy sessions of unresolved issues that still exist, mentally, which can also be seen as a vivid confessional. Which might come across as a bit more theatrical or staged for some audience members.
At heart, it’s a love story in the midst of all that develops like his relationship with his parents there’s an unknown history that is slowly brought to the forefront of its kind of acceptance, even though it does have its problems and issues by the end of the film it’s still heartbreaking nonetheless. As we witnessed the breakthrough more was revealed.
Director Andrew Haigh manages to make everything look like almost every frame could be a photograph in a museum.
Watching this film lead actor, Andrew Scott, as always can do no wrong as an actor for me at least he is similar to Sterling K. Brown, as he truly inhabits, their characters, deeper and deeper Sterling K is more of a chameleon who always has a different look with his roles and characters, Andrew Scott here the more his character opens up the more comfortable he becomes with himself, and also the more vivid the performance and memorable.
The director has a way of making the normal look extraordinary at times in simple ways.
It’s a story of nostalgia coming of age and finding peace within yourself as well as acceptance.
At the end, it shows you can go home again not entirely. Always ghosts from the past waiting that need to be released no matter how much you want them to stay.
It’s truly hard to describe exactly the emotional strength of the film how powerful it is and where it leaves you at the end but it’s definitely worth watching.
Cast: Harry Hamlin, Michael Ontkean, Kate Jackson, Terry Kiser, Wendy Hiller, Arthur Hill, Nancy Olson, John Dukakis, Dennis Howard, Asher Brauner
Follows a young, idealistic married couple, Zach and Claire. They seem to be the perfect couple: college sweethearts with similar tastes and opinions, they are each very intelligent, sensitive, and caring individuals who can be both fun-loving and serious, in turn. Zach and Claire like one another as people as well as lovers. Each one is rising in his/her career and they talk about having kids someday; Claire, especially, wants them to have a boy and name him Rupert. When Zach meets a guy named Bart, Zach has a very personal human crisis: Is he happy?
This movie is a dramatic romance from each point of view in an unknowing love triangle.
This is one of the first films to show, gay male characters in a loving relationship. And being intimate the development of their relationship from meeting to being charmed to seduction to finally consummating and having feelings for one another. That might be love or might not be.
No, they have great chemistry.
There are no villains here as each has their reasons for what happens and gets to explain their point of view. Captures great character moments throughout.
You feel sorry for Kate Jackson as she and Michael Ontkean seem like a perfect couple and truly did love one another.
You can definitely feel the love story and dynamics. It’s simple and plain yet has its own clean-cut basic style. That offers a no-frills and conventional film. which leads to some blandness at times. Which makes it come across as a television movie material. That was directed by Arthur Hiller who also directed the movie LOVE STORY might be one of the reasons why it feels this way.
Also brings you back to a time when if you had a big enough budget star and offered a hook that material could still make it to movie theaters even if it seemed like a controversial subject which was a selling point.
The movie goes along with Kate Jackson’s character gaining success as her relationship deteriorates, though that is not what drives her husband into an affair. Even before happy times to flirt with homosexual feelings, though it seemed like it was more out of frustration. With his lover, can’t seem to get it up with her. As it seems he’s a romantic, and he can only be intimate like the one who intrigues him or where his heart or attraction lies.
Kate Jackson is a powerhouse in her role going through so many emotions and situations and she is so fetchingly beautiful throughout.
This was something new and different to general audiences and offered some representation of a community. It’s not all lovey-dovey so much but offers real communication and emotions that take their time with the material.
In particular, I was taken by the character’s love of movies and references throughout On a Roof as a constant reference and character working in the entertainment business.
This is actually the best role. The two male leads have come and they come off as more natural than anything.
There are some strange twists in the film, like one of the characters’ reluctance, and afraid of being emotionally available. His lover has admitted his truth and love virtually destroying his marriage, which seems to scare Harry Hamlin’s character, the single writer off, especially when we learn of his past that might have damaged him.
The psychobabble at the end, manages to let out the feelings, but feels a bit of an overkill as it explains too much rather than ambiguous and lets us make our own decisions and information. It offers an explanation.
Didn’t expect it to be more meaningful. it’s not a true romance or love story. As it allows the characters to open up about something allowing each other to be truthful. Even if it gets overly saccharine probably due to a sensitive subject at the time. Also not looking to. Offend offers a too-safe love triangle. Leaving it to be meaningful if not, a grand romantic tale.
The ending is heartbreaking. as her husband ends up being her first love and best friend and you don’t feel like she truly is over him but must go on with her life, Just as he has.
Cast: Dan Bucatinsky, Richard Ruccolo, Adam Goldberg, Sasha Alexander, Lisa Kudrow, Andrea Martin, Joanna Kerns, Christina Ricci, Michael Harris, Doris Roberts
While the flame of Jackie and Brett’s attraction intensifies, Eli and Tom, the unlikely pair they attempt to bring together, appear destined to spiral out of love rather than make any sort of progress toward becoming a genuine couple.
I can remember seeing bits and pieces of this film before I don’t know if I’ve ever watched it from beginning to end, but now that I have watched it from beginning to end, I have quite a few thoughts and things to say
The way this film is edited for some odd reason. The cuts seem to be perfectly made for a TV movie, which shows you how deep the film gets.
This is ironic, considering this is a gay romantic comedy that has a couple in it that I am guessing helps certain audience, members or allies feel a bit more comfortable in the film or seems to want to parity or be irony of how gay relationships are in straight, romantic comedies where they’re given Very little to do except either be support Relief or help set up the main couple and get them back together in general.
Hear the Straights portrayed by Sasha Alexander and Adam Goldberg feels so predictable in their own way and stereotypical playing the straights or the street best friends of the couple at the heart of it seems to be intentional
This film is filled with irony as it either condemns or criticizes, other gay romantic comedies at the time that are more mainstream while itself being kind of light when it comes to the material that at least gets deeper into the characterization and sex lives of its gay characters
Maybe, because it takes place in Los Angeles major city it seems like none of the films is all that controversial everybody accepts everybody for who they are. There is no prejudice, which is nice as it has a positive supportive message while working that is obviously taking place in the 90s, maybe early 2000s and all of the culture of that time is on full display if it had been made modern-day and at that time it would be accused of over saturation of a time. Because this is totally a time capsule, including the leads and the situation they find themselves in OK because it’s supposed to be a comedy so it works within the perimeters. It doesn’t get too deep, but it is entertaining for what it is.
No color whatsoever like an Ally ship movie it’s written and produced by its star Dan Bucatinsky and a lot of the big-name members seem there to help fill out the cast list, but obviously seem here more for support or doing a favor someone associated with the film because it’s their roles are pretty much cameos as they are not too much to shine in except for maybe Lisa Kudrow And Andrea Martin, who seems to can’t help but be funny when she’s in a film or show, though she has a big role that most of the other big names and she ends up being the most memorable part of the movie. S they get the best material. Especially Doris Roberts’s monologue near the end
No, I am highly critical of the movie watching it through modernize. I’m sure at the time it made its Mark as it was one of the few mainstream, independent gay romantic films back when that was still considered either controversial taboo or strictly for the art housing oh, how the times come, even though the material feel so basic.
The only depth of the film seems to be in one character’s alcoholism, which is more dealt with in the background, than as a major part of the film.
Not to mention a bit of top culture in the form of the Planet of the apes obsession, which gives it a kind of Tarantino tint, and also just helps the geek culture
What are the problems with this film? Is that one character seems to of course, be the more manly and messed up character from years of alcoholism and his family, and not getting along with his parents, or as the other one more uptight, even though his parents have been nothing but supportive, and this is the usual character type in romantic movies, everybody, obviously everybody has a reason for why they are who they are but yet, once a couple seem to be attracted to each other and their basic personalities or even at their worst, but must go through before they can be happily together, which is probably the truest part of these films.
look everyone deserves love, but it’s not that interesting watching too such bland characters. Take their time and finally come together and get their issues in order to try and accept love and have a romance. it seems like you’re asking for much with this film and maybe it’s just me. I just really found these characters not that interesting.
The film offers no real surprises, but at least it’s fun
Cast: Andrea Risenborough, Harry Melling, Demi Moore, Karl Glausman, Ryan Simpkins, Jaz Sinclair, Dana Ashbrook, Mary Lyn Rajskub, Alisa Torres, Cole Escola
Newlyweds Suze and Arthur become the dangerous obsession of a greaser gang that awakens a sleeping quandary into the couple’s sexual and gender identities.
This film is certainly original. It plays like an homage to biker movies of the 1950’s a bit with the gangs of WEST SIDE STORY and THE WILD ONE thrown in. Though the film Dwells on the homoeroticism of the times while being a send-up and satire of them. That offers the characters not as misunderstood but actually very violent and unrepentant.
As the story of the film is a throwback that works. As a kind of lgbtq west Side Story 1950-inspired set. Though supposedly modern. That seems to be more about repression and a bit of fetishization. As well as being free of gender norms. Though showing the hardships of dealing with it in a supposedly repressed society.
Where everyone seems to be doing it in the shadows themselves. While also seeming to take a look at and send up the time it depicts. Making it more of a camp romp. Though it seems like a farce it tackles these subjects head-on and in a brave and revelatory way. That goes a long way for representation and not as a fetish of any kind.
We are with a couple who are witnesses to a murder by a street gang. Who seem to invade their lives and territory more and more. It awakens a wanting feminization for the male in the couple and more of an aggressive masochistic side in the female of the couple.
Demi Moore has an extended cameo that comes out of nowhere but adds to the action. As her character becomes very important overall.
The film is exciting as you watch it. As the audience never knows what is going to show Next. So we are on our toes. The film is campy and avant-garde at the same time. As the film seeks to say something, but the message always seems a bit off. Yet never quite reaches a level of true awe.
Cast: James Cagney, Olivia De Havilland, Rita Hayworth, Alan Hale, Jack Larson, George Tobias, Una O’Connor, George Reeves, Lucile Fairbanks, Edward McNamara, Helen Lynd
Biff Grimes is crazy about Virginia Brush, but his “pal” Hugo Barnstead marries her himself and makes Biff the fall guy for his shady dealings. Though Hugo seems to have everything Biff wants, Biff learns that having what one wants and wanting what one has can be two very different things.
One of the reasons why I love this film so much is I have never heard about this film before. Now while I am a film fan I can admit to having blind spots especially when it come to older black and white movies which to me are considered classics at times because of the time period in which they were made. A peek into a bygone era . Where certain roles were set up and portrayed but even back then knew that everyone was more than what they were told to play and more savvy than they let on.
This is truly the first James Cagney starring movie I have ever seen so while I have seen him in other films in smaller roles and heard about him. This is my first experience with him where I can see the talent and charms all on display. Even in playing someone not necessarily all that smart but watching him start to get the point and realize what and who is best for him.
It’s also fun discovering a film that was out there and many never mention that is practically an undiscovered gem. As it’s a film that while you can beleive the dramatic and romantic moments. It feels like everyone is having fun in and with their roles and one another. It’s heartfelt and entertaining. It’s a show but you take it with you once it’s done. Even though you know It’s not necessarily close to reality.
Part of this film’s charms is that it’s not a big story with high steaks, but more a character comedy that is charming and it’s own right Word not only the star shines, but the supporting characters help.
As the film is about romance and love, and what truly matters in it, so it is full, and we see its nurturing grace, with a note of the next stage, and never or rarely being disguised.
This was one of my first James Cagney films, and definitely my first James Cagney comedy, though not one of his more famous titles or not considered a classic amongst his other films. So far, it is one of my favorites of his, and truly shows he was a star who seemed to be able to do it all saying, dance act, he could be a hero or he could be a villain and quite scary.
This is only the third film of James Cagney that I have seen. I think I appreciate it because it’s not as talked about as his other films.
His performance, here is more as a romantic, and a man, with a quick temper, who threw out, seems to be taken advantage of by those around him yet never let his anger out on them but directed at Phantom threats and challenges whose ultimate goal is to become a dentist.
The way he plays it is genuinely his own as in most of his comedic performances it’s fast and he seems to get so worked up over nothing that the performance is grand, and half of it is watching his history as he gets himself more and more worked up, but gracefully, he also comes down or how much trouble his anger and fast-talking gets him into.
As he is such a force of nature that it seems like the film and characters, more or less revolve around him, and react only in this film, they all get their time to shine, even while he is huffing and puffing.
As the one person who truly does care for him, and looks out for him, he is oblivious to Eventually he wakes up and opens his eyes as he realizes what he has, or what he could lose.
The best thing for him was not getting what he wanted, as it also showed him what was important, which seemed to be the moral of the story.
The film has an earnest story and it’s quite simple but gets so much mileage out of it that it’s no shock that it’s the James Cagney of his films and the Director of the film Raoul Walsh also says it’s his favorite that he made.
The intentional comedy of his character being a hothead, yet always losing fights until it truly matters is a quality the film seems to try to introduce subtly. This also showcases that his character is not that smart, but is good with quips. Is that the character who ultimately is the villain of the story? Did his actions seem intentional, but always seem to take advantage of Cagney’s character or lead his character to ruin.
This also leads to one of the few problems of the film is that his other friend played by Jack Larson, is not that good-looking nor charismatic, So it’s hard to believe him as his rival as the only thing that he seems to have over Cagney is maybe a certain smoothness, which I guess is what works as it is obvious and is really the defining point of his character.
Later, it seems like he envies his friend’s life but eventually can see why it’s best. He didn’t get the girl and had the fate of his friend.
Rita Hayworth’s character is a gold digger but has a soft spot for James Cagney which is romantic, but troublesome as she is the one who has her husband get him a job that proves to be his undoing.
There is even a chance that the romance between him and Hayworth could have worked, but and wouldn’t have been ideal or true. She ultimately buries herself and her chances later in the film. She shows all the things in her character that his character doesn’t like in a woman, yet is more ravishing in her lead scenes physically, though always shows why her character and Cagneys could work especially early in the film when they go on a forced date.
James Cagney and Olivia de Havilland’s chemistry is not the flashes they have so much chemistry and Rita Hayworth is truly his even in comedic scenes with her talking about her ideals and her strange flirtation with some Lothario (Played by Herbert Anderson, who played the father on the show DENNIS THE MENACE) who keeps winking and she can’t help winking at them with Chelsea her character is looking for love and excitement and is just as open to making the wrong decisions.
Though it’s hard to believe that she’s so passive when finding out we’re figuring out that her married friend Rita, Hayworth kissed James Cagney and the lights-out spaghetti scene.
It’s one of those stories where one finds the perfect partner with someone they weren’t really looking at or for and that other person falls for them anyway. Despite knowing they are a runner up. Though making their way to truly being number 1
Cagney’s character played by Alan Hale, is hilarious steals all of his scenes, and proves to have great chemistry with the star. As well as George Tobias, who plays his Greek friend, and who ends up being his only true friend, they are both hilarious.
The film’s more comedic scenes aren’t as physical but more verbal and witty. It is even lensed by legendary (not at the time) cinematographer James Wong Howe (THE THIN MAN, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS)
It’s a comedy with dramatic moments, but a heart for romance.
Cast: Layla Mohammadi, Niousha Noor, Kamand Shefieisabet, Bijan Daneshmand, Bella Warda, Tom Byrne, Shevrin Alenabi, Sachli Gholamalizad, Jerry Habibi
When a large Iranian-American family gathers, a family secret is uncovered that catapults the estranged mother and daughter into an exploration of the past, and to discover they are more alike than they know.
This film is a heartwarming tale of family relationships. While overall being a film about relationships.
It’s ultimately a tale of immigrants building themselves up, As well as their families. While seeking independence being able to find a connection.
So, based on a true story, the film has quite an imagination. As it feels like a storybook at times. It’s full of reality, though has a touch of fantasy. When there is even an early scene that breaks down to a musical sequence of introducing family and friends to the Cyndi Lauper song girls just wanna have fun
The film is so rich you want to hear some more of her many brothers ‘ tales or more stories about the family overall, as it seems, there is some magical realism that is anchored by reality. so much so that this film almost feels like a mystical pilot for a television series.
The film is familiar, and some might feel this film has too much heart or gets lost a bit in sentimentality overshadowing other parts of the story lessons, the tone.
It actually works, it might leave others in the audience, wanting more grit in the dramatic part of the story. That feels overstuffed with tragedy and hardships that are wrapped up a little too nearly. Though this film is all about the heart. after all, it is a story about family and time.
Not to mention, it already provides tragedy with peaks of drama yet plenty of humor.
Just like the main character, it might define itself one way, but it finds itself in many different ways that go against definitions.
Cast: Danielle Macdonald, Hugh Skinner, Joanna Lumley, Gary Lewis, Shazad Latif, Ian Hanmore, Christina Bennington, Vicki Pepperdine
A brilliant young fund manager leaves her unfulfilling job and long-term boyfriend to chase her lifelong dream of becoming an opera singer in the Scottish Highlands.
There is nothing truly wrong with this film that it’s more of a romance than a comedy with musical flare. As it revolves around the world of amateur opera singing.
This leaves the film or at least the audience a little confused as you’re expecting it to be or at least have a few more quirky characters, and maybe a little more interactive, and confused throughout when it comes to the story.
The way it plays is pretty much cut and dry, and I admire that the film doesn’t make the female leads, original, romantic entrance, and fiancé into any kind of villain, or give him any truly negative traits. As it is, they are growing apart when it comes to interests and thoughts of the future.
The film is simple and cut and dry, but the problem is it just seems to lack a certain charm. Maybe it’s because it’s not as cliche to the audience as other romance films are not trying to convince you to like the characters presenting the characters as they are them or not.
Immediately gets into its story and plot and you already recognize where it’s going and what’s going on so you just sit and watch and see which way it will be delivered it’s cute but it doesn’t send the pulse racing. It doesn’t make you excited it just kind of gives it to you and hopes you like it. It’s like going to a diner versus a restaurant now sometimes a diner can surprise you and give you one of the best meals of your life but sometimes it’s just par for the course giving you exactly what you wanted but no effort to make it special or one of a kind. That is how this film feels.
The one thing you will remember is the lead Danielle McDonald, who has been in quite a few films up until now, and as usual, gives a great and memorable performance in the lead.
Cast: Rebecca DeMornay, Vincent Spano, Frank Langella, Donovan Leitch, Judith Chapman, Benjamin Mouton, Gail Boggs
In this variation on director Vadim’s own, more acclaimed Et Dieu Créa La Femme (1956, the same title in French), the vamp Robin Shea marries charming carpenter Billy Moran, only to get out of prison, but soon decides to seduce James Tiernan, who runs for state governor.
The remake was directed by the original director Roger Vadim. Tries to keep the same bets but in more modern dressing and fashion.
The film almost feels pornographic as the sex scenes are that graphic and feel more realistic. The original was a bit more coy. This goes for the jugular a bit. Though this version might be more explicit it Contains the same quality that the original did. An eroticism.
Which makes it feel more like a softcore movie. Stretching to be more of a mainstream dramedy and relatable. This comes across more as a straight-to-cable or horn video at the time. Trying to cash in on the original’s fame.
While star Rebecca DeMornay is certainly attractive and works In the role. She isn’t at the level of the bombshell that was Brigitte Bardot. She comes across as certainly more intelligent, but she is familiar to the audience. As she was the fantasy girl in RISKY BUSINESS. Here she is more down to earth, still a bit dangerous, but somewhat familiar. At least she is fleshed out character-wise.
The film almost feels like a step down for her from RISKY BUSINESS. As the subject of the lust humanizes her more, she is still desired more physically than anything. Where in the previous she remained a mystery. Here she is given a backstory and is all the more relatable, but still treated and shown in more of a carnal way throughout. That thought the material was never quite strong feels cheapened.
Of course in my teenage years when I first saw this film. This was a cable classic like finding a hidden treasure. Though was treasured more for its erotic Value. Sort of like Demornay’s character.
The quality might be a little off as Roger Vadim didn’t write this version only directed it and trusted the screenwriter to modernize it and make it more American. Which would explain the rock n roll angle. Though comes off as barely resembling the original and more in name only, with the two male leads obsessed with the free-spirited female character, against their better judgments.
The cast is respectable throughout. Though don’t know if they signed up more because of the director. All involved deserve better than this. Most of the main stars have sex scenes. Even if they are hinted at or more shown afterward. It Reeks of someone older trying to show that they are still hip and can be cool, embarrassing themselves in the process
This version does expose one essential truth about both films. Your interest is tied to its star no matter what story the film offers. So while it might try to have an extra amino of Merit at heart they are Star making films in the same way a teen idol or a TV star trying to make the move to the big screen and the film is built around them while giving them room to flex their acting muscles. Still, pay up the qualities of what the audience likes about them and hopefully have that built-in audience waiting for them and expose more to their charms
Juliette Hardy is sexual dynamite and has the men of a French coastal town panting. But Antoine, the only man who affects her likewise, wouldn’t dream of settling down with a woman his friends consider the town tramp. While Antoine’s away, his younger brother Michel, who worships Juliette, proposes to her. But what will happen when Antoine returns?
I saw the remake or reimagining from the 1990s first Which seemed to Focus more on Sex scenes and what the director Roger Vadim (who directed both the original and the
Remake) could get away with In The new modern age of cinema at the times. Which seems to be what both versions of heartbeats are.
Roger Vadim has always been interested in presenting the image of beautiful women on screen and more carnal delights. As A provocateur in artistic clothing. As a Frenchman also more interested in relationships and characters rather than necessarily plot lines. Creates more of a mood and atmosphere in his films as well As style than anything of deeper substance.
Here he makes the film all about the beauty of Brigitte Bardot which helped make her a star but also limited her to a degree. Making her a bombshell but especially more foreign gem export, at the time. Never truly let her acting talent come through and thus she never really got a chance to prove herself and was stuck more as an image and star. To be ogled, etched, adored, lusted after but never given anything deeper. As you want to possess and protect without knowing much about her.
Though the film through its critics and characters shows that there can never be a female character. Who is beautiful and her every action or decision not judged and a bunch of people talking or telling what she should be or should be doing. Everyone has an opinion about their relationship and their behavior.
She is a Symbol of unattainable beauty that men want by their side and women want to be.
It shows a changing moral code in a more innocent time. That showcases desire amongst the other things going on in the character’s lives. Every decision is questioned and Idealized
Women of beauty but never actually Considered for their other qualities. Who is Commonly Used and Judged. When their lifestyles and so-called attitudes don’t match the refinement they are expected to have. In other words when they show any traces of being human or normal.
The film offers Elegance but at times has a revealing peek-a-boo quality.
What might have once been seen as racy comes across as tame or classic like boudoir photos for couples. Luckily the film is not as exploitive as expected by the poster or reputation.
As Though Bardot’s character can’t be with the one she wants. she agrees to a marriage of convenience to truthfully a rebound relationship with a man who does love her and seems to pay the price. Only for her to stay and seemingly to stay in his life. Her behavior is troubling to many in his family.
Though she has many suitors and many men who desire her. It’s also about values, especially of character. As the rich man whom she Talks to, he has the power and means to give her what she wants and he truly only desires her more when she resists and thinks she is considering it. She knows he only wants her truly for her beauty and to have her just as he wants the shipyard that her husband owns.
Though her husband might not be Rich. he truly loves her and wants to make her happy. He appreciates her for who she is, who she knows she can control. Once her old lover his brother comes back the only man she has ever truly loved and has feelings for. she keeps flirting and tries to seduce him more throwing her marriage in his face.
As she is a Small Town beauty stuck and weighing the best out of her options. As Everyone is living in the moment. They reveal Themselves to be Broken characters seeming to punish themselves and never think about tomorrow.
The film pushes cinematic rules at the time and conventions. Though she is the main character the film never gives her drive or reason more just a fantasy of certain expectations and given none, other than beauty and what she can provide.
What I thought going in was that, You’re worth more than a smile and some nice words that Don’t focus on anything more penetrating than your beauty.
You deserve non-broken promises, Actions, and pampering not to owe or be paid back later
But done out of caring and love.
Even her old lover finds her hard to resist. even though he tries and when he fails jealousy comes with it. She loves her husband but is weak when it comes to her attraction to his brother who consistently disrespects her to others.
She seeks to not be so lonely all the time, Though shows a fair amount of glimpses.
The relationship started before she ever really met him. He had a crush when she was dating his brother.
In the end, everybody gets screwed and the only honest character seems to be her husband
Having to deal with the repercussions of her actions. As Every decision is judged.
No matter what she does or carries herself. As it is seen as lustful by other men and shameless by other women.
If he can’t have her or truly control Her, no one can as he almost kills his brother over her and then in the end. When she chooses to dance and have fun. He views it as disrespectful and wants to kill her even as he is seen as the romantic one.
They Make each other crazy, though it is seen as romantic when he slaps her as he is taking control and she has seen how much she believes he loves her by almost shooting her.
Even the man who desires her eventually is scared of her power but also has the overview to see everyone’s true emotions. Knowing it will come to an explosion eventually. He steps in to defuse the situation but pays for it violently.
This is a movie to talk about more than necessarily watch and praise what is on screen. Though you just see it to see how it is presented and the subjects that come up.
Maybe people back in the past felt the way the modern version plays. A wolf in sheep’s clothing meaning it tries to have artistic resonance and show at the time the vhs gong sexual attitude and more open nature of European films and relationships. Not necessarily show sex scenes but plenty of titillation and many excuses to show a bouncing Bardot in risqué states of undress and tight clothing as well as an open sexual attitude and willingness.
This film also seems to be almost a tribute to the beauty of Ms. Bardot and writing a film around her and maybe the filmmaker’s obsession with her made it into drama.
Written by: Baltasar Kormakur and Hallgrimur Helgason
Based on the Novel By: Hallgrimur Helgason
Cinematography: Peter Steuger
Editor: Skul E. Eriksen and Sigvaldi J. Karason
Cast: Victoria Abril, Hilmir Snaer Guonason, Hanna Maria Karlsdottir, Baltasar Kormakur, Pruour Vihjalmsdottir, Olafur Dari Olafsson, Prostur Leo Gunnarsson, Eyvindur Erlandsson, Halladora Bjorn Sdottir
Will the 30-year-old, Hlynur ever move out of his mother’s apartment in Reykjavík? Social welfare keeps him passive but things change when his mother’s Spanish friend, Lola, arrives and stays through Xmas and New Year’s Eve.
Before going off to make more action-oriented Hollywood films. Director Balatasar Kormakur (2 GUNS, BEAST, EVEREST, CONTRABAND) came through with this very visual erotic coming-of-age story of late maturity and being in a love triangle with your mother.
I would like to say this film can be easily categorized, but this film is one you can never quite take too seriously. So that one minute It’s a romance then it seems like an aimless character study. Then it seems like a woe-is-me for a character we can never quite feel sorry for. So if anything we can say this film is a quirky comedy.
There isn’t much substance to the material. A kind of love and lust triangle between a son, mother, and lodger. So that it ultimately becomes a film about relationships or connections.
A lodger is a free sprint and flamenco teacher played by Victoria Abril. Whose performance full of life, charisma, vitality, grace, and spirit is what saves the film. Not to mention her obvious beauty. She truly saves the film and is the only reason to watch it. It’s what got me to watch. As when she isn’t in the film it drags. You wonder was the character written around her or was she cast perfectly and it worked out?
Only wish she was in a better film that matched her talents and made her just her own thing to admire and love about the film. Rather than the only thing.
The main character is an unlikeable selfish jerk, but he is our guide. So when he gets his comeuppance. We aren’t as upset as it is expected. The film tries to come off as a foreign Woody Allen-inspired film. Only less artistic and more aimless.
His mother finally found a relationship and forced him to grow up. The downfall of his responsibility. Though originally seemed like it might focus on a lesbian relationship. It ultimately adheres to the male gaze and sexual fantasies and actions of straight sex.
The film is pretty open-minded for its time and has a liberal openness as it offers no judgments on anyone. It ultimately becomes about a young man learning to grow and become responsible. Learn how to truly have an adult relationship. So in certain moments is a relationship comedy.
Which leads to the increasingly complicated situations he finds himself in. That proves to be his downfall and maybe his saving grace.
The film is a time waster and has some good ideas and tries to twist it so that instead of playing the victim the main character is almost a villain at times, but learns to grow up somewhat. Though none of it Is compelling enough to keep a major interest.
Cut To The Chase 