steveneaklor
A rejoint le janv. 2006
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis2
Note de steveneaklor
Of all of the post-1985 Perry Mason movies I have seen, this one is my least favorite.
I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.
The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.
I confess I have never liked Diana Muldaur as an actress. She only seems to know how to play one type of character - a hard-bitten career woman with some undefined chip on her shoulder who for that reason is extremely difficult to in any way sympathize with. This one is no exception - it runs true to form.
The only thing that saves this movie, in my opinion, is an earnest performance by Scott Baio as the prosecutor - I actually found myself rooting for him to win, and the movie is worth seeing for him alone.
If you are a man-hating feminist who has read every word of Susan Brownmiller, Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin and hung on every syllable of their writings as though they were incandescent truth, have I ever got a film for you! First of all, I did not go to see this movie about three women who plot revenge on their husbands for having committed the unspeakable crime of leaving them for younger women, or rent it. It happened to have been playing on a tour bus I was on, and try as I might, I could not ignore it. I have resolved on the basis of this movie never to ride another tour bus if any movies whose titles or content I do not know in advance are playing. I found this a thoroughly disagreeable film.
Looking at it, I found myself thinking of a review by the late Richard Grenier of the movie M*A*S*H. Writing in the October 1981 issue of Commentary, Mr. Grenier said: "...I have never watched an ostensible comedy with such stony grimness..., and this for the simple reason that I found it to be inspired by no humor..., but entirely by cruelty, malice and an inordinate craving to humiliate. It would have been like laughing at a dog running frantically in circles, driven mad by a tin can some boys had tied to his tail. And also being asked to admire the boys." As noted, the center of this film is the relationship between three women (Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, and Diane Keaton) whose husbands each leave them for younger women, which in the context of this film is the unpardonable sin. The heart of the film is their elaborate revenge plots, all of which seem wildly disproportionate - rather like setting an arson fire to a hobby shop that sells you a model airplane kit with parts missing. Continuing from Mr. Grenier: "What makes (the movie) even more repellent is that the torment our heroes inflict on their adversaries is administered so smugly, with an air of overweening sanctimony, as if anyone who stands in their way deserves what he gets." But enough. I have wasted too much time on this ridiculous film already. Let me close with one final Grenier quote, which applies perfectly here: "...every foot of (this film is) marked by...smug hooliganism.... Its most essential trait is the complacent assumption that if one is in the right...one can commit any brutality, any cruelty, any humiliation. If one is right, human dignity no longer applies."
Looking at it, I found myself thinking of a review by the late Richard Grenier of the movie M*A*S*H. Writing in the October 1981 issue of Commentary, Mr. Grenier said: "...I have never watched an ostensible comedy with such stony grimness..., and this for the simple reason that I found it to be inspired by no humor..., but entirely by cruelty, malice and an inordinate craving to humiliate. It would have been like laughing at a dog running frantically in circles, driven mad by a tin can some boys had tied to his tail. And also being asked to admire the boys." As noted, the center of this film is the relationship between three women (Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, and Diane Keaton) whose husbands each leave them for younger women, which in the context of this film is the unpardonable sin. The heart of the film is their elaborate revenge plots, all of which seem wildly disproportionate - rather like setting an arson fire to a hobby shop that sells you a model airplane kit with parts missing. Continuing from Mr. Grenier: "What makes (the movie) even more repellent is that the torment our heroes inflict on their adversaries is administered so smugly, with an air of overweening sanctimony, as if anyone who stands in their way deserves what he gets." But enough. I have wasted too much time on this ridiculous film already. Let me close with one final Grenier quote, which applies perfectly here: "...every foot of (this film is) marked by...smug hooliganism.... Its most essential trait is the complacent assumption that if one is in the right...one can commit any brutality, any cruelty, any humiliation. If one is right, human dignity no longer applies."