Diehl's Film Journal

Director: Woody Allen
Screenplay: Woody Allen
Featured Cast: Woody Allen, George Hamilton, Tea Leoni, Debra Messing, Mark Rydell, Tiffani Thiessen, Treat Williams.
2002

It pains me to give such a low score to a Woody Allen film, but if I don’t it would not place this film in the proper perspective to Woody’s career. I have mentioned in a previous review that Woody really struggled for fourteen years with a very few exceptions. This is one of those films he struggled with. During the peak of his career Woody could use his throw away material for good effect in his books or other outlets. What we have in Hollywood ending is an interesting premise which is funny, but not enough to support a full feature film. This would have made a great short story, or material for his stand-up, but not a feature length movie.
In this film, Val is given a big chance for a comeback film when his ex-wife convinces some studio executives to take a chance on him. Woody takes some swipes at Hollywood for sure, but he does not seem to spare himself from a few jokes. Val is a hypochondriac who suffers a stress induced illness (I won’t say what because it will ruin the one long gag that gives the film a little bit of humor), that results in what most studio executives would describe as a travesty, but results in a Hollywood Ending for Val Waxman (the Woody Allen Character). While this is Woody near his absolute bottom I still recommend it to Woody fans.

Director: Woody Allen
Screenplay: Woody Allen
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Featured Cast: Woody Allen, Mira Sorvino, Helena Bonham Carter, F. Murray Abraham, Olympia Dukakis, Donald Symington, Claire Bloom, and Jack Warden.
1995


One of the few bright spots for Woody in the years between
1987-2005. This story follows Lenny (A New York Sportswriter) as he and his wife adopt a gifted child. When Lenny marriage threatens to hit the rocks, he decides to try and find the child’s mother. He soon discovers that the mother is a prostitute/porn actress whom he contrives to meet without her discovering that he has adopted her child. The results are hilarious. The inclusion of a Greek Chorus that provides commentary on the proceedings of the story (and a nifty soundtrack for the movie) is another of Woody’s more creative ideas. This is one of the few movies where Woody uses some pretty colorful language, but it is the sort of language one might hear from a prostitute. The movie makes good use of the Greek tragedy genre for telling the story as well. I will not spoil the ending, but be forewarned that it has a marvelous twist Recommended for those who enjoy romantic comedy. .

Director: Christopher Nolan
Story: David S. Goyer
Screenplay: David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan
Featured Cast: Cristian Bale, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Kem Watanabe,
The first of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy. A young child inherits a fortune when his parents are murdered in front of him. As a young man he wishes to avenge his parents death but is denied the opportunity to kill their murderer. He is brought into the league of Shadows as a student. He is taught to fight and the importance of becoming more than just a man or vigilante, and to become a legend. he has a falling out with the league of shadows and seeks to place himself between the league of shadows and the people of Gotham. This is the foundation piece for the entire Batman trilogy, it establishes the mythology, the source of Bruce Wayne's fortune, the source of Batman's arsenal. The cast is solid with good performances by Bale and Holmes,and Neeson. Also good supporting performances by Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. They did a good job in establishing the story line for the series. A solid beginning for the Dark Night Franchise. Recommended for those who want their superheroes to be "of this world". No Kryptonite or radiation enhanced powers, etc. It is a shame that Nolan seems to have stopped with three movies, but perhaps it is best as a TV series such as "Gotham" Where you have much more potential to introduce and develop the amount of characters required to tell the batman story.

Story: David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan
Featured Cast: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Maggie Glynenhaal, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman.
The second installment of the Dark Knight Trilogy. I know from what I have read that I am not the only fan who believes that this is the highlight of the trilogy. I am of the opinion that the one element that caused this movie to be the gem in this series is the acting of Heath Ledger. Ledger was on his way up the star ladder when he died. If he had lived there is no doubt in my mind that he had the potential to be one of the best of his generation. As it is he left us with a great performance as the Joker. I remember the TV series when I was young and the character of the joker in the later comic books and this movie takes the madness of the joker to a whole new level. Instead of a crackpot in a purple suit you have a nihilist who is totally unhinged. I do not tend to watch action/adventure films or thrillers. I watched this series because I liked Momento and Inception.I bought the blue ray box set last week and i am in the process of re-watching the trilogy now and I thoroughly enjoy this story. I also thought that this was the type of film that shows blue-rays advantages over standard DVD's. All the dark scenes show off the resolution that Blue Ray adds to the picture. It is obvious that this movie should be recommended to those who like the comics or action/adventure stories; however, I believe that this movie moves the whole trilogy into a place where it could be enjoyed by many, like myself, who rarely watch this type of film. That is what moves this film beyond a four and into the five category for me.

Nice read through,have added 3 of the movies to my watch list

__________________

2012
Screenplay: David O. Russell
Based on Novel by: Mathew Quick
Director David O' Russell
Principle Actors: Bradley Cooper, Jenifer Lawrence, Robert Deniro,Jackie Weaver, Chris Tucker.

Review: My approach to discovering new films to watch always leaves me several years behind the current movies. if it is not Christopher Nolan, David Lynch, or Woody Allen, I am usually watching movies that have passed the test of time. That is movies that are on my rather long list of movies found in the Halliwell guide that ranked *** or above or things I have discovered from sources like this site. Thus I have only recently discovered this movie which I personally feel is a gem. Pat has just been released from a mental hospital after severely beating his wife's lover. As he returns to society he is seeking a "silver lining" to the events which sent him to the hospital. Will that silver lining include a reconciliation with his former wife, or is there some other scenario that might provide Pat's "silver lining". Pat's Doctor has an unusual approach to discovering his new patients mental health status, and a new friend who can be just as nutty as Pat is. Pat also discovers that since he has been to the mental hospital his friends like to confide in him about their mental struggles. The result is comic but not insensitive, and touching without being melodramatic. Recommended for those movies that explore psychological and psychiatric themes, as well as those who like quirky romantic comedies.

1985
Screenplay: Terry Gilliam, Charles Mckeown, and Tom Stoppard
Director: Terry Gilliam
Principle Actors: Jonathan Pryce, Robert Deniro, Kim Greist, Katherin Helmond, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, Ian Richardson, Peter Vaughan, Jim Broadbent, and Charles Mckeown.

Review: If I were basing my review strictly by my personal preference I would give this movie a five. The only reason I did not give it a five is because it is a niche movie. It was written for a particular audience; those who enjoy "dark" or "black" comedy. For that audience this movie is most likely right down your alley. Sam is a government drone. Some would say that he is stuck in a dead end job, but Sam has no complaints about his working environment. e has turned down the promotion that is mother has attained for him by pulling the strings. He has a recurring dream about meeting the love of his life and becoming he hero or protector. Everything is fine for Sam, until he is sent to correct a clerical error, the infamous Tuttle/Buttle confusion. From this point on Sam soon experiences the oppressiveness of the system of which he is an integral part, and finds himself in an uncomfortable spot to say the least. The performances are great. Noted performances by Deniro as Harry Tuttle, and Katherine Helmond as Sam's mother as well as the lead actor Jonathan Pryce as Sam. This movie has been described by many as a hybrid of Monty Python and George Orwell's 1984, even though Gilliam claims he has never read the latter. The movie also is famous for its struggle to be released in the US. The studio's allowed it to be released in Europe with great success. The holders of the rights to the movie in the United States would not permit it to be released. Instead, they edited the movie down from 142 minutes to something they could release on TV. The recut version, which has been released as part of a box set by Criterion is cut so drastically that it is clear that they were hostile to it's creator. The recut version is just a collection of scenes with no continuity and a "Happy ending" which they entitled "love Conquers all". If you like the movie the documentary is worth watching, and if you like the movie enough you should check out the "Love Conquers All" version. It will teach you to appreciate Gilliams version all the more. In my opinion this movie was a seminal work for Gilliam. You see how much of this film has influenced much of his later work when you watch "Twelve Monkey's", "The Mirror of Dr. Parnasus", and I suspect "The Zero Theorom" although the latter is still on my watch list. Recommended strongly for audiences that like Dark Comedy.

The Graduate
1967
Screenplay: Calder Willingham, Buck Henry,
Based on the Novel by Charles Web
Directed by Mike Nichols
Principle Actors: Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross, William Daniels, Murray Hamilton, Elizabeth Wilson, Buck Henry.

Review.
There are many movies that people claim summarize a generation. Among these would be "Easy Rider", "Rebel Without a Cause", "Clockwork Orange", etc. My favorite among this type of film would be "The Graduate". In this movie we have a recent college graduate (Benjamin) who feels the pressure from his family and peers to decide what he will, "do with his future". The most that Benjamin can say in response to these questions is that, ".. I want it to be different". As he is "thinking" about his life, Benjamin allows himself to be seduced by his father's business partners wife, Ms. Robinson.Benjamin spends the next few months content to drift, not really giving any thought to his future until he is set up on a date with Ms. Robinson's Daughter, Elaine. From here the movie quickly moves to it's conclusion and Benjamin is shaken out of his malaise and is forced to act. He must act in a way that pits him against his past and cast him into an unknown future. In the end it seems that was what Benjamin was looking for in the first place.
The movie has a good script, and the direction is excellent. Nichols was criticized for not taking advantage of the full potential of having Simon and Garfunkle performing his soundtrack. The title song "Mrs. Robinson" and the "Sound of Silence" where used to good effect, but man of the songs seemed like filler. Dustin Hoffman was playing a student who was 21 or 22 years old when he was actually pushing thirty when he made this film. The film won an Oscar for best director and was nominated for six other awards.

2012
Dark Knight Rises
Screenplay: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan
Story: David S. Goyer
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Principle Actors: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Goran Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Mariaon Cotillard, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman.

Review:
Batman is forced out of retirement when a new super villain threatens Gotham with nuclear annihilation. He is no longer young and is beginning to feel the physical tole for his time as the Batman. He is not getting any younger and the villain he is confronted with is younger and in better shape than Batman. He is also someone who once belonged to the league of Shadows, but was cast ought because of his ideas. Bane is holding the city for ransom with the threat of an armed nuclear device. he must gather what allies he can against bane, but he must be mindful of who he can trust. He has old friends: Gordan, Albert, and Fox. We know less about his new allies Miranda Tate a rich women who is seeking to help Bruce Wayne after he is wiped out by a stock market scheme; and a young cat burglar who shows near the beginning of the movie that she cannot always be trusted. We also have a young cop on the beat who has been a fan of the Batman for nearly a decade. The film has a lot of good action sequences and the story is exciting. My big reservation is how the film ends, which you will have to see for yourself. I'm afraid that it will difficult to carry the story line further in the movie format. Those who watched the early Batman series which was full of camp and play, know that the sky is the limit in terms of the possibility of expanding the story line. This is being attempted by the Cable Series Gotham which is a prequel to the Dark Night Series, but it won't be the same without the Nolan brothers. I have heard some speculate as to how the Dark Knight would return, and I have to admit I would look forward to further installments, but I don't know if anybody can tell the story like Nolan, and he does not strike me as the type that would want to commit to one story more than he already has.

The General
1998

Director:John Boorman
Screenplay: John Boorman
Based on the book by the same title by Paul Williams
Principle Actors: Brendan Gleesan, Adrian Dunbar, Sean McGinley, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Angelina Ball, and John Voight.
Review: The story of Martin Cahill, a very successful crime boss who sparred wits as well as brawn with both the Irish arm of the law and the IRA. I say successful because his lifetime haul has been estimated at 60 million dollars. He was able to accomplish this by making use of ordinary street thugs with very few exceptions. The movie emphasizes Cahill's wit and his tendency to openly taunt the police with his crime and alibis. The book emphasizes his brutality as it describes occasions such as the time Cahill literally nailed an accomplices hands to a pool table. This was referred to people in his circles as the crucifixion. The police were so frustrated with Cahill that they created a separate unit whose sole task was to tail Cahill and all his associates twenty-four hours a day. Cahill still managed to operate his organization without being caught. Inspector Kenney, Cahill's nemesis, was so frustrated that it has been suggested in the film that the police were in collusion with the IRA when they finally caught up with Cahill. Brendan Gleesan delivers a performance of a lifetime by making such a brutal character likeable. For this reason alone, you should not substitute the movie for the book. Doyle and Kennedy, who both appeared together in the commitments, play Cahill's wife and sister-in-law; who seemed to share Cahill between them. (The sister had a baby by Cahill). John Voight, who plays inspector Kenney, also delivers a notable performance. Also Adrian Dunbar, who plays Cahill's most reliable cohort; and Sean McGinley another of Cahill's regulars deliver good performances. This movie does contain some violence, but if that does not bother you it is a good story, that is exciting, funny, and generally entertaining. At Cannes Boorman won best director. In all the film won best film at two festivals, best director at two festivals, and best actor for Brendan Gleesan at 3 festivals. A must see for those who enjoy crime dramas.

Chinatown
1974

Director: Roman Polanski
Screenplay: Robert Towne
Featured Cast: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston, John Hillerman, Burt Young, Daryl Zwerling, and Diane Ladd.
Review:
"Godard once said that the only way to review a movie is to make another movie, and maybe that’s what Polanski has done here. He’s made a perceptive, loving comment on a kind of movie and a time in the nation’s history that are both long past. “Chinatown” is almost a lesson on how to experience this kind of movie." Roger Ebert.
This being said Ebert goes on to say that this movie is not just a period movie. It goes beyond telling a story that occurred in the 1940's to creating a contemporary movie that conforms to 1940's conventions. It is a 1940's movies shot in 1974.
Gettes, a streetwise, no-nonsense LA detective is approached by a women to perform some investigative work for her but is clearly not revealing her motives for wanting the investigation. Things get tangled up in a hurry when her husband turns up dead. Gettes knows that he is being lied to, but is unable to determine the motive behind these lies, which serves to draw him deeper into the case. The plot revolve around a complicated scheme to float a bond issue and build a dam to steal water from Los Angeles, in a time of drought. Gettes knows he is on to something big, but does not seem to realize the enormity of the scandal he has become entwined in. Townes takes great care to move you in to the plot so that you are always one step behind Gettes so it would be inappropriate to reveal much more of the story line. suffice it to say that by the end the film has several lose ends to tie up.
I gave the film a five because it achieves excellence in storytelling, plot development, acting, cinematography, etc. It succeeds on so many levels. In discussing Chinatown one must acknowledge Nicholson's success of capturing the character of Jake Gettes for the big screen; it seems tat Nicholson barely acting.This movie was filmed fourty-two years ago and Nicholson was already hitting his stride. Between 1973-1975 Nicholson appeared in seven movies including Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest.
This movie achieves o much while maintaining a broad appeal to many audiences. The story moves, the mystery draws you in, the acting causes you to experience empathy with the characters. This movie is recommended highly to most audiences.

Play it again Sam
1972
Director: Herbert Ross
Screenplay Woody Allen
Based on the Play by Woody Allen
Featured Cast: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts, Jerry Lacy and Susan Anspach

Review:
When Allen Felix's wife leaves him because she claims he is one of life's great watchers and she wants to be a doer he is encouraged by his friends to get back in the dating game. When Felix gets nervous about meeting women he turns to his hero, Humphry Bogart, for advice. Allan does not seem to get the disconnect between Bogart's advice which has a definite 40's sexist bent and the type of women he wants to meet. Phrases like , "I haven't met a dame who did not understand a slap in the face or a slug from a forty-five" don't seem helpful in the 1972 dating scene. He not only gets advice from Bogart,, but also from his ex-wife. Some of the funniest scenes involve Bogart and His ex-wife arguing in a grocery store isle over Allan's dating strategy. .I don't want to spoil the plot, but suffice it to say that things get complicated and in the end Allan uses the major plot points from the end of Casablanca to sort out his love life.
I have heard it said that Woody's films are very derivative, which I interpret to mean that his stories are not very original. I find many of Woody's films to be incredibly original. He may have picked up ideas here and there, but what he ends up with almost always seems original to me. Films like Play it Again Sam, Mighty Aphrodite, The Purple Rose of Cairo, etc all seem fresh to me. When you consider that he made this film in 1972 that means it was proceeded by Take the Money and Run, Bananas, and followed by Sleeper, Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex but were Afraid to ask, and Love and Death. What I am saying that the spark that was leading up to Annie Hall and Woody's very creative period between 1977 and the early and Mid Eighties was already present in Play it Again Sam..This is incredible when you think that the play on which it is based was written even earlier in Woody's career. I interpret this to mean that Woody was capable of making the transition to serious film making that began with Annie Hall, five years earlier with this film. Don't get me wrong, I know that many of the films I listed above were commercial successes, but is it not possible that Woody was held back from starting the most productive years of his career five years earlier than he did, because his films would not have been commercial enough? For years i have been asking what if Woody had not Crashed and burned over this thing with Mia that resulted, in my opinion, in some less than stellar contributions from Woody. I mean it is way past time to ask what if when it comes to Woody's career because we can never know what could have been.All I am saying is that an artist only has so many years to create, and now I wonder what might have been if Woody was able to transition into serious films earlier and not crashed and burned in the nineties, in my there could be no doubt that he could have improved on an already stellar career. This movie is recommended for those who enjoy romantic comedy, especially if you are interested in Woody's other work.

Manhattan
1979
Director: Woody Allen
Screenplay: Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman
Featured Cast: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, Anne Byrne
Review:
If you have read my other reviews, you will have realized by now that I am a Woody Fan, but I do not hide the fact that I think some of his movies do not live up to his full potential. In my opinion Manhattan has been his greatest achievement to date.He decided to write a movie that embodied the spirit of New York City, his hometown. The cinematography is fantastic, he uses black and White film to capture the spirit of the city. The soundtrack, making heavy use of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, seems like the perfect pick for this film, By this time in his career Woody was able to attract top talent to his films and the acting reflects this. I would single out Diane Keaton's character, Mary.It is hard for me to determine if her character is an intellectual or a pseudo-intellectual, but Keaton's portrayal is humorous either way. Another good performance is delivered by Hemingway. One of the greatest lines in the movie comes when Mary asks Tracy (Hemingway's character) what she does and Tracy replies she goes to High School. The humor is more subtle than some of Allen's earlier films, but if your paying attention it is hilarious
This is the film that keeps coming up when people discuss Woody's relationship to Sun-Li. Iasak (Woody's character) who is past forty is dating a high school girl. Grist for the rumor mill when it comes time to speculating if Woody was involved with Sun-li long before it would have been legal. The story moves in an almost complete circle. He is in love with a young women, he questions whether he should be with her, he hooks up with a woman closer to his age, they break up, he returns to young woman who....(you need to watch the movie) Hemingway was nominated for best supporting actress and Allen was nominated for the screenplay. I'm surprised it did not win best cinematography, but I'm not sure what it was up against that year. Most the time I am comfortable with the idea that Woody has a niche audience that he writes for, but I feel that in this film and Hannah and Her Sisters he wrote two films that drew in a more general audience. Recommended for nt only the Woody audience, but also for those who want to see Woody at his brightest appealingg to a wider audience than usual.

1965
Director: Clive Donner, Richard Talmadge
Original Screenplay: Woody Allen
Key Cast members: Peter O’Toole, Peter Sellers, Romy Schneider, Capucine, Paula Prentiss, Woody Allen, and Ursula Andress.

Summary: A womanizer (Peter O’Toole) comes to Dr. Fassbinder (Peter Sellers) in order to overcome his women problems with humorous results.

Review. I’m giving this film two stars based on what can be discerned of Woody’s original screenplay. The core story revolving around Michael’s (Peter O’Toole) and Dr. Fassbinder (Peter Sellers’) is hilarious. A sexually frustrated quack (he likes to treat his patients by locking them in dark closets) finds himself with a new patient whose problems only serve to reveal how incompetent he has become. If the film’s producer and Directors could have kept the film focused on this relationship rather than on the various models who show up in the film or the tagged on canned ending involving the dated idea of, in this case, a go-cart chase through the city streets; we might have a much better film, and Woody might have matured as a writer/director much earlier in his career..
Woody shares a few insights into how the film came about as well as some of the issues that arose from the time Woody wrote the screenplay and the actual release of the film. When Charles Feldman (the producer) asked Woody to write the film he said he wanted a film where the characters go to Paris and chase women. In the end Woody gave him a script that some thought was to “intellectual, basically Feldman had the directors to steer it closer to Feldman’s vision rather than Woody’s script. To give Feldman the credit he deserves, the film was the highest grossing comedy of all time upon its release, however that was of no consolation to Woody. Many would be interested in seeing Woody’s original screenplay, however the screenplay that has been published reflects Feldman’s version. To my personal knowledge the original has never been released. I am sure the experience taught Woody a great deal about film, and probably influenced Woody to gain control of what was done with his work. He formed a working relationship with his producers and eventually became a great director.

2014
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Screenplay: Steven Knight
Book: Richard C. Morais
Genre: Drama
Featured Cast: Hellen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal, Charlotte Le Bon, Amit Shah, and Farzana Dua Elahe
Summary: A Family who is persecuted in Mumbai India is forced to flee, first to London and then to France, The family has had restaurants for generations, so they open one across the street (100 feet to be exact) from the best restaurant for fifty miles in any direction. They have a Michelin Star ( A rating from the food critics which is very difficult to maintain and figures heavily in the plot). The movie chronicles the Indian family's (The Kadans) attempt to find acceptance in the French town they have chosen to Settle in. I have noted that one other Mofo had reviewed this film and gave it a three. I have rated it significantly higher, and I will attempt to explain why.

Hallstrom is a good director, who is pretty good about choosing diverse material to direct (exceptions might be Hachi and a Dog's Purpose; and Chocalot and 100 Foot Journey. In the case of the latter both films deal with food and also foreign ideas influencing the culture that an outsider, or outsiders, find themselves in. More specifically they deal with spices like chilly pepper and Indian spices such as cardomen. (reminds me of a phrase in a notable book about "the salt of the earth") I believe that the main point of the movie is to say that differences between people allow them to transcend their prejudices and create something else, a synthesis. Although I like the film and happen to agree with what the movie has to say, I believe that it can open up the path to meaningful dialog on this issue. I think this message is very relevant today, not only in the states, but across the globe at this particular time. I recommend this film to those who are looking for something that is entertaining with a good message that is not beating you over the head, this is an excellent movie.

2016
Director Danielle Chazelle
Screenwriter: Danielle Chazelle
Principal actors: Ryan Goseling, Emma Stone


Summary: Two people meet in L.A.. One an aspiring Musician and the other an aspiring actress. They begin to date and begin a budding romance. They almost immediately find that they have to make difficult choices concerning their desire to be together and their individual careers. In the end.... well you need to watch the movie to see what happens.



Review and recommendation:
Judging from some of the entries I have recently read on the Mofo site, I would say I am not the only one who was beginning to feel that Hollywood was using way too much of their resources recycling old ideas. Remakes of old movies, episode 3,4,5 and in the case of Star Wars 7,8, and 9 of movie franchises. It was like Hollywood was running out of ideas. In the last few years I have noticed that there has been a few films that were either new ideas or recycling old ideas in a fresh way. The three films that have come to my attention are: LA LA Land, The Man Who Invented Christmas, and The Greatest Showman. The first of these was LA LA Land which I will review first.

The movie begins with a massive traffic jam in L.A.. The movie begins with a fantastic musical dance number that involves a very big cast. it is full of movement and long traffic shots. The cinematography was great in this scene. We are introduced to our main characters who have not yet met, or at least formally introduced (Ryan Gosseling's character flips off Emma Stones character), but that can't be counted as a formal introduction). They run across each other as each is trying to purse their individual careers. They meet and begin to date, but it is not long before they begin to make a choice between their individual careers or their relationship. I thought the movie doing a good job of portraying the difficulties of juggling a relationship and pursuing your individual goals. if you have not seen it I won't spoil it for you. Musical dramas are definitely not new. At various points in film history, they were so common that almost every movie had a song and dance number (even the Marx Brothers); however in resurrecting this old genre I believe that Chazelle has brought a breath of fresh air back into on old format. You may or may or agree. Recommended for those who would be entertained with a good story set in the song and dance format.

2017
Directed: Bharat Nalluri
Screenplay: Susan Coyne
Author: Les Standiford
Primary cast: Dan Stevens, Jonathan Pryce, Christopher Plummer, Miriam Margoyles, Simon Callow, and Morfydd Clark


Summary: An imaginative account of how Charles Dickens was inspired to write A Christmas Carol.

Review and Critique: I tend to look at professional views when I begin to write my reviews for this site, and I have to say I was surprised at what the reviewer had to say (Peter Sobczynski). He begins by saying that he had seen enough of the cinematic depictions of the story. He claimed that this movie was a, "sacharine stab at a new holiday perennial that tries to fuse the classic Yuletide yarn with a "Shakespeare In Love" style origin story and manages to let both of them down".

I'm glad I read this before I wrote this review, because I realize that I am going to have to defend what I have to say. I thought the story was incredibly imaginative. It probably has only an incidental correlation with how the story was actually written. In fact I have read that Charles Dickens was another of those artist types who was incredibly messed up. I understand that he built like a partition in his home, and his wife and children lived in one part of the house, and he and his young mistress lived in the other. Seems like another Turner, Pollock, or Rodin type, who seemed fine with neglecting his own family for a mistress in the name of their creative genius.

In this movie he is not portrayed quite that bad, but he does expect his family to revolve around his writing activities. He is also generous to a fault with his money, but stingy with his affection for his father, whom he blames for a past hardship placed upon his family. The movie does seek to imaginatively communicate a creative process that Dickens follows throughout the writing of his book. He collects unusual names, he seeks to incorporate the behavior of, let's say "unique" people he meets in his day-to-day life. It is somewhat reminiscent of the type of things that occurred in Shakespeare in Love, and perhaps the film is more derivative than I first imagined, however I think it is well done, and was thoroughly entertaining. In th end this film did indicate that the film was not quite as imaginative as a thought, but it was innovative in the way it executed the kind of ideas found in Shakespeare in love. I had to lower my originalrating of 4 to a 3. I don't do this in submission to a professional reviewer. it is rather that I see his point, and I did not see the very close parallels between the two stories.

An Awkward Halloween Movie Moment
This was roughly 20-22 years ago when I had recently gotten married. My brother brought his daughters to my apartment for trick-or-treat. We are fussing over the girls costumes and I notice the girls are looking at the TV with their jaws dropped. Imagine little girls approximately 4 and 6 years old (maybe younger) seeing a priest impaled on a cross, thrashing around in his death throws. It was paused, but the picture was clear as day. I live in constant fear that I'll get a call from some psychiatrists telling me that one of my little nieces is i a padded room trying to extricate that memory