Avaliações de MissSimonetta

Having seen two Anna Sten vehicles during her brief collaboration with Samuel Goldwyn, I've come to the conclusion that Sten's Hollywood sojourn was horribly mishandled. Sten herself is charming, particularly in comedic scenes. She was undeniably beautiful too. She does handle a few dramatic scenes awkwardly, though this could have been from discomfort in the English language.

The big problem is the films themselves. NANA and WE LIVE AGAIN are glossy, tame versions of 19th century novels. NANA in particular has a patchwork script, a case of parts being better than the whole. The best scenes involve Nana and her fellow ladies of the night interacting, or her misadventures in wooing foolish men. The moment the serious love plot rears its head, the movie clomps. Sten is also called upon to do her best Dietrich impression in the film's one musical number and it's okay-- but it's better to be a first rate version of yourself than a second rate Dietrich.

I'm too exhausted with these pointless live action remakes of animated classics to get angry anymore. This Netflix redo of AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER is at best competent, with handsome production design and costuming. Storywise, it strips out the humor of the original, leaving us with grim imitations of the characters we so loved. The sadsack reimagining of the feisty Katara is particularly horrid.

The acting is spotty. Some of the performers are pretty good, but so many of the line readings come off like community theater. Where's the passion?

While not the fiasco the previous live action feature was, this new AVATAR is just pointless. Yeah it's not bad, but why settle for not bad when the original show was great? I'd rather just rewatch the old one for the hundredth time.

One of the most frustrating things about being a classic film fan is keenly knowing how many talented people's careers were inhibited by the racism of the period. Anna May Wong was a gifted actress with a unique, beautiful face, and yet her roles were often limited due to her Chinese heritage. DAUGHTER OF SHANGHAI was allegedly her favorite of her films because for once the Chinese characters were the heroes-- and they were actually played by Asian characters rather than white actors in yellowface.

DAUGHTER OF SHANGHAI is a better than average potboiler. It's fast-paced like a serial and the atmosphere is one of heady adventure. But it is Anna May Wong who is the central attraction, outthinking her enemies and kicking ass. I really loved her character and am so glad this film still exists. It's such a shame opportunities like this were so few for Wong.

I'm not a Woody Allen fan and only watched ALICE because of its description as a loose remake of Fellini's JULIET OF THE SPIRITS. I found the Fellini film beautiful but tedious and one-note, whereas ALICE is less flashy but far richer in characterization and far better at pacing.

Mia Farrow is a woman reaching a midlife crisis. Married to a rich man, she spends her days shopping and gossiping, while a potent sense of dissatisfaction creeps into her days and then manifests as back pain. A trip to herbalist Dr. Yang starts her on a journey of self-discovery, in which she comes back in touch with the compassionate, daring woman she used to be via a love affair with a musician, Yang's bizarre herbalist treatments, and encounters with figures from her past.

I mentioned earlier I'm not really an Allen fan and this film does feature some of the things that grate for me in his work. The dialogue is sometimes on the nose and the neurotic protagonist schtick is annoying-- though Farrow's character is sympathetic enough that I was able to stomach it this time around. However, this movie is so human and warm, and the way it ended surprised me a little bit. I enjoyed it very much though and could see myself revisiting it someday.

The surviving reels of CONFESSIONS OF A QUEEN do not suggest some lost masterpiece, but they do seem to indicate this was melodramatic fluff of the highest order. Jazz Age Hollywood was fascinated by the inherent drama of the Russian Revolution and the fall of the Romanovs. The complicated history and political reality behind it, not so much. This film is more interested in the romantic lives of the royals and the revolution seems to only be a deciding factor in the love triangle between the lovely Alice Terry (in one of her few appearances in a film not directed by her husband Rex Ingram), Lewis Stone, and John Bowers.

In the west, I feel like knowledge of Isao Takahata exclusively extends to GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES, and yet he has one of the richest bodies of work in cinematic history. Takahata had that rare ability to surprise with every new film. It was always hard to know just what he would do next. Following the tragedy of FIREFLIES and the heartfelt meditation of ONLY YESTERDAY, he made this goofy little slice of slice comedy and it's among the best comedies I've ever seen.

If you need a main dramatic throughline, then MY NEIGHBORS THE YAMADAS will disappoint. This is an episodic piece, unashamedly adapted from a newspaper strip, and to be honest, the film benefits from it. I like the episodic approach because a single throughline would likely end up being cliched and sappy in this instance. However, there is depth to the gag parade and moments of poignancy that never feel unearned or out of place. It's a very real movie with flawed characters in an everyday setting. If I had seen it as a teenage weeb, i would have dismissed it, throwing on PRINCESS MONONOKE immediately after. As an adult, it all rings very true.

HOT WATER has a dismal reputation among silent film scholars. It's seen as a stylistic regression from the more sophisticated likes of SAFETY LAST and GIRL SHY. Its plot is episodic, little more than three two-reelers strung together loosely.

Episodic it may be, but the film is still hilarious and the characters are all incredibly vivid and enjoyable, particularly Josephine Cromwell as the moralistic, overbearing mother-in-law from hell. Lloyd's mounting irritation at having to host his in-laws is amusing. Some of his more subtle reactions, such as a slight stiffening of the jaw or the glee slowly fading from his eyes, are particularly funny.

(This movie has me wishing Lloyd had made a silent film equivalent of the National Lampoon Vacation films. That's the kind of vibe the characters gave me here.)

-- which is like saying, "It was more like a train wreck than being caught in a nuclear blast."

DU BARRY, WOMAN OF PASSION is a badly paced early talkie with the kind of melodramatic, declarative dialogue that got John Gilbert laughed off the screen in his sound debut. Norma Talmadge is certainly not braying out lines in a Brooklyn accent as Hollywood myth has it, but she is miscast as the enchanting yet vulgar Du Barry. It's hard to see how king or commoner could become so obsessed with her, and this goes beyond Talmadge being a bit long in the tooth to play a frivolous young thing. She does not exude sex appeal in the least nor the earthy sensuality the script demands.

Story-wise, the film is standard romantic sop: Talmadge is torn between the honest love of a good man and the wealth of a king. Oh, and the French Revolution happens. Honestly, you could change the character names and set this in Fantasy Land, and it would be about the same as setting it in 18th century France.

One gets the sense that Talmadge's heart wasn't in the work. Her performance is flat, with only flashes of the lovely expressiveness that made her name in silent pictures. This would be her last movie altogether-- she was not interested in a vain struggle against new technologies and younger stars, and to be honest, I empathize.

At the very least, the film opens with an intertitle declaring none of this is historically accurate. If only certain modern filmmakers could be so honest (side-eyes Ridley Scott).

While a little long and plodding, THE INVISIBLE WOMAN is a handsome, melancholy film about the mysterious relationship between Charles Dickens and his much younger mistress Ellen "Nelly" Ternan. Much of the film is concerned with the gender dynamics of Victorian society, in which Nelly is forced into the shadows to keep the relationship a secret and salvage both her reputation and Dickens'. The unfairness of this is subtly highlighted throughout, as Nelly experiences both disgust over having to occupy such a socially derided role and love for Dickens, a man she can never be with legally.

Felicity Jones is soulful as Ternan, but I have to be honest, Ralph Fiennes as Dickens is the best thing in the movie. He really brings the man to life in all his complicated glory: witty, charming, and energetic, while also being selfish as hell when it comes to his wife and girlfriend. I found myself wishing that Fiennes had played Dickens in a miniseries biopic-- he was that good.

I enjoyed the movie overall, though it does feel like a one-and-done deal.

A common misconception about the decline of silent film stars at the dawn of the talkie revolution is that their subsequent unpopularity came from bad voices or an inability to recite dialogue. This idea ignores how much society in general was shifting during the late 20s and early 30s, what with the Great Depression puncturing Roaring Twenties decadence and optimism, as well as the usual shifts in audience taste that had always been occurring among moviegoers. These shifts had a lot more to do with the decline of old favorites than squeaky voices.

Lillian Gish's decline as a movie star was already in effect before moguls accepted sound was more than a fad. Her last few silent films had either underperformed or flopped. Gish was a phenomenal actress, but her tragic ingenue image was falling out of favor, even with attempts to complicate the persona with madness (THE WIND) or innocent sexuality (LA BOHEME and THE SCARLET LETTER). Stars rise and fall on the whims of their public, and the public was losing interest in Gish.

ONE ROMANTIC NIGHT is Gish's first talkie and it's often purported to be a showcase for how bad early sound filmmaking could be. I've seen it twice and honestly, there are way worse early sound films than this one. The acting is largely stiff and the action stagebound, but the script is a diverting trifle. Gish was too old to play the princess, but she had the proper patrician look and the ability to play girlish characters well. She's certainly better than Rod La Roque as the rakish prince, who comes off way too nasally and foolish to strike one as a properly enticing bad boy. Conrad Nagel, Marie Dressler, and OP Heggie all give Gish proper support and there's enough modest entertainment value in the whole affair to keep the film from being a bore.

Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON feels like the highlight reel of a lengthy miniseries. Considering there's a 4-hour cut of this film, that explains it all.

NAPOLEON is certainly good spectacle. The battle scenes are breathtaking. Unfortunately, it's also shallow. I know Scott has sneered at viewers criticizing the historical inaccuracies in the film, but I'm more bothered by a total lack of interesting character psychology or even coherent storytelling. Characters pop in and out, leaving little impression in their brief scenes. Relationships between characters are barely fleshed out, including that of Napoleon and Josephine, which dominates the running time. Also, potentially unpopular opinion, I thought Joaquin Phoenix's performance was a one-note bore.

Perhaps the 4-hour version is a richer piece of work. As is, NAPOLEON is a let down, especially after Scott's brilliant 2021 period piece THE LAST DUEL, which had all the drama and psychological depth this movie lacked.