From Sarah: A "Horrifying" Weekend!

Hello all!

One this past Memorial Day weekend, I took some time (because my arthritis in my feet forced me on the couch, not that I made much of a fight...) to step outside my comfort zone and watch some horror films from different eras.  Digging deep in a couple cases into what my Amazon Prime membership had to offer, I saw a few things that caught my eye enough to watch from start to finish.  Here's what I found:

Fall of the House of Usher (1948)

I'm a HUGE Edgar Allen Poe fan and I am well acquainted with the Vincent Price version of this particular story. I was not, however, aware (because I'm only now just digging into the deepest recesses of old films, thanks to my many streaming service subscriptions) that there were other, earlier film adaptations of Poe's story about familial insanity.

If you keep IMDB.com handy while watching movies, (which I do) you'll find that the trivia for this particular version is telling. No actor other than Gwen Watford (for whom this was a film debut) made another movie after this one.  Let's think about that.  NO ONE ELSE MADE ANOTHER MOVIE after this one.  Was this going to be the finest work of film EVER? Did the actors finish this one and say, "I simply cannot do any better than this...this is the height of art."

Ummmm, no.

I'm not going to say the film was bad. And I do give them points for having the nerve to attempt to convey that Daddy Usher was into some pretty heavy bondage and sadism in his personal life. That's pretty out there, given the times. However, I have to mention that much of the dialogue was tossed in post production (ponder that) and that film opens...not on a dying mansion, but in a reading room of an exclusive upper crust men's club where dusty old white guys are sitting around talking about books and one of them decides to grab a copy of Poe's completed works and read from it to prove Poe's work is superior to any others.

Well, Poe's work is superior, but this film is not.  Unless you are really into films with zero production value, maybe leave this one alone.

Asylum (1972)

If you've read any of my reviews, you know I believe there is a film DEAD ZONE between 1969 and 1980 where the vast majority of films made are simply unwatchable either because the editing or filming technique is bad or the acting is just awful.

"Asylum" has many great pieces. The opening music is great, the set up for the plot is really, really good. A young psychiatrist goes to a mental asylum to interview for a job. As part of the interview he must meet each of the patients and, after completing his interviews, tell the doctor in charge which of the patients was the now insane head doctor of the asylum, If he gets it right he gets the job.

GREAT set up.  What follows are four separate stories from each of the patients...and this is where the film falls apart. Not in the stories themselves, but in the quality of the filming. Seriously...this was done in 1972. Granted, it's a British film, and their sense of horror/special effects is different, and I'm they weren't working with Hollywood money.  Still, there are moments, especially in the first story, where the effects are so beyond ridiculous, you wind up laughing at the campiness.

That said, with everything "Asylum" had going against it from the outset, I stuck with it and find some moments of real entertainment and an over all sense of time well spent at the end.  This is a very, very, very British film, and the ending is indicative of the bigger problems I find in films in the dead zone.  But, overall, this is a worthy 88 minutes.

Dr. Sleep (2019)

When this movie was first announced both my daughter and I were excited for it. She is a hard core horror film fan, and I love Stephen King's genius novel about a writer completely losing his crap in an empty hotel.  Unlike most of the movie going public, I do not worship at the alter of Stanley Kubrick, so I prefer the 1997 mini series adaptation of the book to the 1980 classic film. All that said, We were excited to see this movie.

Which we watched yesterday.

Friends, I'll be honest. I haven't read the book. But I have read the trivia comments and this film, Dr. Sleep, is a sequel to the Kubrick film...not necessarily the book. And, being a sequel to the film, means, director/screenwriter Mike Flannigan took up some of the film techniques used in the 1980 classic.  Unfortunately, he used the bad elements instead of the good ones.

The movie is too long by about 45 minutes and if you ask my daughter or me, we can tell you exactly what to cut.  We did not need the long intro to the bad characters or the reminder footage using a fake Danny and fake Wendy. Basically, the first half hour is not needed, it's confusing, and, if you've seen the Kubrick film, (and why are you watching Dr. Sleep if you haven't?) then you don't need the bits with fake Danny.  The first half hour drags the film down.  Ewan McGregor and young Kyleigh Curran play well off of each other and Rebecca Ferguson is plausible as a villain.  Once we get to the meat of the plot, the movie starts rolling along nicely, but then Flannigan remembers he's writing a sequel, so once again we get dragged along in a direction that is not necessary and wind up with an ending that is befuddling at best.  This film could have been great, there are many great pieces to it. But it feels way too much like the pieces from two puzzles shuffled together in one box.

If you're a hardcore horror fan, there are some thrills and chills, but really, this is too much of a first draft mess to really bother.

From Sarah: "Love Affair" or "An Affair to Remember," a classic movie battle.

Hello everyone!

With COVID-19 limiting just about everyone's entertainment options, I have, it should surprise no one, delved deeply into the lower layers of my streaming services' offerings.  Which is how I ran across the Irene  Dunne/Charles Boyer 1939 movie: Love Affair.

"Love Affair," as some of you may know, is the ORIGINAL film version of "An Affair to Remember," which popped up, with the same director, in 1957 starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr.  (And it was the second version made ultra famous in the Nora Ephron masterpiece (Sleepless in Seattle.")

I'm like almost everyone else, I'm sure. I've see "Affair to Remember" several times. And yes, I've cried.

But the 1939 Dunne/Boyer version?  Ummmm, nope, never seen it.

Until this weekend.

So, side by side, how do these two movies compare?  Which one is better?

First of all, the movies have the same director. Which means the pacing, the angles, the basic overall aesthetic is the same. The same. Basically, it's the same movie with different faces.

Except it isn't.

Watching these two movies is the best (and possibly only) chance we movie lovers have to say, "well, if this actor had that part, the movie would have been better," and really get to see if that works. All things being equal, who's better: Boyer or Grant?  Dunne or Kerr?

Because Boyer is French, like really French, he might be a little tiny bit hampered for American audiences with his accent.  And, let's face it, he's not as good looking as Cary Grant. But for those of us who know Cary Grant's work as a comedic actor, it's a little challenging to take him seriously in that final scene.  Which, by the way, Boyer SLAYS.

So...the male lead...complete toss up.

Which brings us to the ladies.  Irene Dunne and Deborah Kerr.  Both are lovely, snarky, and hold up well against their male counterparts. Here's the one difference:  Deborah Kerr didn't sing the songs her character sings in the movie. Irene Dunne did.  BUT...I really didn't love Irene Dunne's singing (I'm not a fan of soprano solos...it's a personal thing.) so that sort of evens out.

Which means...the female lead...toss up.

Since both movies are the same scene for scene and the director is the same, I really found only one other element in the movies I could compare, and it's a tough one:  The orphan choir.

Really, Sarah?  You're judging singing orphans?

Yep, I am.

And the winner is...An Affair to Remember.  Why?  Because their orphan choir sounds like kids.  As opposed to Love Affair which literally has a trio of grammar school girls singing like they're all 20 year old Broadway stars.  And the choir of kids toward the end also sounds pretty much like a college group.  I mean, you're going to try and sell me the idea that those rag tag kindergartners can sing base?  Really?

That said, movie lovers, comedy lovers, romance lovers, you cannot go wrong with either film. I'm not saying you're going to have the same reaction Rosie O'Donnell and Meg Ryan had in "Sleepless in Seattle."  But if you've got a rainy day on your hands and you need something charming and sweet to watch...either of these movie will fit the bill.

Movie Review by Linda!: The Battle of the Sexes (2017)

 "The Battle of the Sexes," starring Emma Stone and Steve Carell, is about the epic tennis showdown between Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs back in 1973. Thank you to my trivia team for recommending this film. It is fascinating, has a great cast, and in my humble opinion deserved more award nominations than it received. (Only two Golden Globe nods to Stone and Carell, which they both lost.) 4.5/5 stars.

Movie Review by Linda: March of the Penguins (2004)

                                                  
This Oscar-winning documentary from 2004, "March of the Penguins," focuses on the Empire penguins in Antarctica, and their long treks to and from the breeding grounds. I learned a lot about the Empire penguin, mainly that I hope to never be reincarnated as one. LOL. The adults, both male and female, have a tough life.  This really is not a "feel good" film, although there are some cute and endearing moments. Stay for the end credits to see how close the filmmakers could get to the penguins. That's fun to watch. 4.5 stars.

Moms, Wine Drinkers, Movie Lovers...WELCOME!

Welcome to the NEW blog for Moms, wine drinkers, and movie lovers!  

After publishing four volumes of movie reviews (with our very unique, wine infused take) my friend and fellow author, Linda Schmalz, and I decided to not only offer our books for those of you who are looking for movie perspectives such as our, but also our NEW reviews right here, for all to see!

WELCOME, Moms, WELCOME, Wine Drinkers, and WELCOME Movie lovers!

If you're familiar with our books (which your can purchase here: in book or digital form on Amazon) then  you know we don't just review the big flicks, the block busters, and the main stream offerings. We are open to films of all genres.  With all the streaming services available now, there are literally millions of films out there to watch and believe me, we've watched some funky, weird stuff, and we have opinions about it all!

I should also warn you, Linda and I rarely agree on movies.  So...if you see a review from one of us, check in again later...there will most likely be a rebuttal!

All of our movie reviews are based on the number of glasses of wine we need to get through it.  One wine glass is an excellent movie.  Five glasses is probably a movie you should avoid.

And hey, readers, if you have a movie you'd like us to review, don't be shy!  You can reach us here in the comments section of this blog or reach out to my facebook page.  Right now, thanks to Covid-19, we have a lot of time on our hands!

Sit back, relax, pour yourself a glass of vino and check in with us to see what we think of YOUR favorite films!

Who's going to win Best Picture and why it won't be "Parasite." (But it should.)

Hello everyone!

I realize I'm an author, not a screenplay writer or director, but I'm obsessed with movies, especially this time of year. That's right!  It's OSCAR time!

This year I've managed to see every single Best Picture nominee. Not easy for a girl who lives in suburban fly over land where many of the more artsy movies have a theater run of about five minutes.  But yes, I've managed to see them all, and here's how I rank them, 9-1, in order of least deserving the win to most deserving.


9.  The Irishman

Bad movie. Bad cast.  Bad idea.

One wouldn't think I was talking about a movie starting De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and directed by Scorcese, right?  Well, here we are.  They got the band back together and instead of using younger actors to represent the characters in their younger years (ala "the Two Popes") these Hollywood giants decided to use technology to "young up" the senior citizen cast.  Terrible idea.  I thought the addition of a Jimmy Hoffa angle might give us some fresh material, but no. This is just a geriatric version of "The Godfather" or "Goodfellas" and honestly, at over 3 hours, it's not worth it. Thank goodness it was streaming on Netflix. At least I didn't have the guilt of paying full price at the box office for this dog.

8. Little Women

One of my favorite books growing up, "Little Women 2019" has been touted as a modern, feminist remake.  One question:  Did we need that?  Did anyone ask for it?  The gold standard of movie adaptation for Louisa May Alcott's already fairly feminist gold star novel is the 1990 Winona Ryder/Christian Bale version. While 2019 is nice and everyone does a good job, it feels like Hollywood just wanted a  movie with an all woman cast and director wedged into the awards so no one would ding the Academy for always looking at movies starring white guys.  It's a nice movie...but it's unnecessary.

7.  A Marriage Story

Again, I did enjoy watching this movie about a perfectly reasonable, friendly married couple try to divorce without acrimony and failing, thanks to their well meaning friends and lawyers.  Adam Driver is wonderful here. Scarlett Johansson does NOT deserve a best actress nom, but what can you do?  It's not that this movie was released on Netflix that somehow cheapens it, quite the opposite.  I think had this been released a couple years ago, it might be a stronger entry, but not this year.


6. Joker

The more I think about this movie, the more angry I get.  As with movie based on popular comic book icons, liberties are allowed. They are, after all, fictional characters. The thing is, this 2019 Joker is not a genius villain. He's a victim.  He's a victim who doesn't even take part in the one crime he's almost universally credited for: The murder of Batman's parents.  He's an onlooker.  Also, Bruce Wayne's parents, again, universally considered philanthropists prior to this film, are the villains in a very millennial "eat the rich" reconstructing of comic history.  While the film is compelling as a movie and the performances are strong within the construct of the movie, I feel this is irresponsible film making.

5. Ford Vs. Ferrari

Yes, I am a sucker for a biopic, I've never made any bones about that.  And I love Christian Bale. But when I heard about this car movie with a horrible title, it was a hard pass for me.  Had it not been nominated for Best Picture I probably still would not have seen it.  I'm glad I did, ultimately, because the performances are strong, and the movie is entertaining.  Best Picture?  Maybe some other year, maybe not.  Matt Damon and Christian Bale do well together, and yes, the car races are fun to watch.  Not a bad date movie, but not Best Picture. But, hey, I was wrong about "Green Book," from last year, so what do I know?

And now we come to the top four movies of the year, and I take a break here because the distance between these four movies and the previous nominees is huge.  This year they could have nominated more films, they could have nominated fewer. These four would still be in the top four.

4.  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Gun play loving director Quentin Tarantino takes a bit of a break from his typical all out gore fest and gives us something of a fairy tale. Pairing movie marquee giants Brad Pitt and Leonardo di Caprio, and dropping them into Hollywood during the reign of the Manson Family and the Sharon Tate murder would be only two of many pieces of genius in this film. There are no bit parts here, everyone shines in one way or another.  Margo Robbi brings a sweetness not normally found in a Tarantino picture.  At over 3 hours, it is a long film, and yes, it might just take you to the very end to understand what the heck is going on. But the entertainment value along the way is well worth the ride. This is a level of film making maturity we haven't seen from Tarantino before.

3.  1917

Again, yes, I'm a sucker for big war movies, and lately  I've been watching everything I can about World War I, so this was perfect timing for this film.  Basically using two unknown British actors (several cameos by film fan favorites like Colin Firth and Mark Strong), director Sam Mendes brings his grandfather's stories to life with brilliant scene sets, cinematography, and acting.  At certain points the scene is so bright, so beautiful, it's almost too much.  There isn't a dull, boring moment along the way because every minute brings its own tension and/or relief.  This is one that will be in the permanent collection.

2.  JoJo Rabbit

When I first saw the trailer for this movie I said two words, "Hard pass."  Had this not been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, I would never have seen it.  Seriously, a movie where Hitler is a kid's best friend?  And it's a comedy?  What's the about?  Well, yes, "JoJo" is just about the weirdest concept for a movie ever.  And yet, this one works so well, so brilliantly, I was shocked.  Seeing World War II Germany through the eyes of a young boy on the verge of joining the Hitler Youth, we witness how Hitler's indoctrination of the young worked. Yet, we are also shown how, in the word of Whitney Houston, "Children are our future."  The movie is dark, super dark, but somehow the humor, even the stuff involving Hitler, is funny enough to make us feel like there's hope in this world. How good is this film?  I truly, deeply, and honestly believe Scarlett Johannsen should win her Best Supporting Actress award for this. And if you've been reading my reviews and blog long enough you know how I feel about Scar-Jo. Definitely adding this one to the collection.

1. Parasite  

Let's see a Korean film about the socio-economic differences between rich and poor.  Sounds like a knee slapper.  Let's run out and see that!

But seriously.  "Parasite" is the best film that came out this year and it absolutely, positively, without a doubt win Best Picture. The movie transcends language and culture barriers, and gives us a hard, honest look at how the clash between the classes is NOT always the fault of the rich, it can be a two way street.  Loaded with dark humor and just enough Korean history to make you feel smarter once you've seen it, this is the most astounding film I've seen in a long time.  It's stuck with me over the last week since I've seen it.  It didn't matter that I had to read the film. It didn't matter that I didn't know any of the actors.  The humanity each actor brought to their character is universal.

And now, here's what I think will happen on Sunday when the Best Picture award is handed out.

"Parasite" will not win. It will win for Best Foreign film, just like it did for the Golden Globes.  I don't think the Academy is going to award a film that so strongly pictures the ruling class as not only intolerant, but also really, really stupid.  It absolutely should be Best Picture, but it won't be.

"JoJo Rabbit," which I think should also win, will not. It's just too weird of a film. Scar-Jo will get her best supporting, but it won't get Best Picture.  Which is a shame, because I haven't seen anything this creative in a long time.

The real fight will be between "1917" and "Once Upon a Time".  They split Best Picture Awards at the Globes, but this is the Oscars. They don't separate comedies from dramas.  Maybe they should. Both are relatively safe choices in terms of being controversial.  I think "1917" has the ultimate edge because, well, it just does, and it should.  BUT, Hollywood is known for awarding movies about itself to itself (I'm looking at you, "Birdman" you hopeless steaming pile of grossness.) so that may put "Once Upon a Time" in front.

If I had to pick, and since this is my blog, I'm making myself pick, I'm going to go with "1917 as Best Picture.  There you go.

A Tale of Two Movies: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and "1917"

Hello everyone!

It's that time of year again, that frantic time when movie lovers everywhere scramble to watch the movies nominated for Best Picture (recently, movies that would likely go unnoticed if it weren't for an Oscar nomination.  And...and some cases...still unnoticed because, hey, they're not good.  I'm looking at you, "Moonlight" and "Shape of Water.")

The Oscars, perhaps more than any other awards show, brings out the movie critic in all of us.  The only difference between me and, let's say, a casual reader of this blog (which would be pretty much the globe since I seem to be a very casual contributor to the blog) is that my writing partner and I have actually published our movie reviews in books.  (Look in the margin for links to our collections or just click here.)  Based on that, I feel I can review the two movies that will most likely take the Best Picture award this year.

This year, the two movies that stand out to me so far are the two that won the two Best Picture awards at the Globes:  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and "1917."  As luck would have it, I've seen them both recently and I see great parallels and differences within the two films.

Both are masterclasses in storytelling.  For me this is key because if the storytelling is no good, what's the point? Then you're just watching a Star Wars film after Disney got its hands on the franchise.  (If I'm found dead in a ditch somewhere, it's because henchmen from Disney have killed me.)  Both are based loosely on true events.  "1917" is based on stories Director Sam Mendes' grandfather's stories of his service in World War I.  "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is written around the Sharon Tate murder in Hollywood in summer 1969.

Grounded in real events and with master writers and storytellers at the helm, both movies give viewers everything and anything they can hope for in a film. This is real, deeply moving, well thought out, movie making at its finest.

Each film has something that separates it from the other.

"1917" is an unbelievable study in cinematography. Much has been made about the "one shot" method of shooting, but for me, there was a moment in the film, a night shot, that was so transcendentally beautiful, it was no longer a movie, it was life.  For a film that spends the better part of two hours moving the viewer through mud and muck and barbed wire and dead bodies, this moment was as unexpected as it was glorious and for me, that puts it over the top in the Best Picture category.  Also, Mendes does it with a largely unknown cast.  (Tell me, did Colin Firth even get paid for his part?  I mean, I've swallowed pills that took a longer time to get down my throat than he was on screen.)

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a long movie. Tarantino takes his time telling this story and somehow, even though we feel like we've seen this all before, he slowly, patiently, carefully gives us something we've never seen before and didn't expect, and he's got an A list cast around him that understands the vision. He avoids the violence that pervades his previous films (although he doesn't cut it out entirely) but this is a seductive film. You don't realize you're being drawn into anything surprising until the very end.  That's when I stood up and yelled, "What did I just see?" (fortunately I was at home.)

I've seen my fair share of movies.  I've seen most people's fair share of movies.  I am telling you, it takes a lot to surprise me when it comes to films.  And these two did it.  I'm giving both 5 stars. Both will be in my permanent collection.  But I give the edge to "1917" on Oscar night.