Kurtz9791
Joined May 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews11
Kurtz9791's rating
In some film portraits of famous people, it can be common for filmmakers to not directly focus on the prominent historical figure, but to have a side character (sometimes fictional) tell the story from their point of view. Sometimes this is done because the celebrity at the film's focus might be so larger than life that it is too difficult to tell their story their way. The side character becomes an extension of the audience, a way for them to get inside the world of the film and let them into the private lives of public people. Think about the 2006 film "The Last King of Scotland" about Idi Amin, only told through the perspective of his fictional Scottish doctor. But in the case of Roger Michell's "Hyde Park on Hudson", it might be because the filmmakers are not sure what story they really want to tell.
We start the movie with narration from Daisy, a distant cousin of FDR who begins an implied affair with the leader of the free world in the spring of 1939 while the President stays at his mother's home in upstate New York, the title of the picture. Practically all of the film's problems stem from this character. There are some schools of thought that say narration in a film is the easy way out. I think it can be used quite creatively, but in "Hyde Park on Hudson", it feels too much like it's filling in the expository details that the script couldn't manage.
While this relationship might have some historical fact to it, it really doesn't warrant a feature length film. What's worse is that they got a great actress in the form of Laura Linney to play such a thankless and empty role. And it's the main character! There are some humanizing touches that reveal how she is caught in between two worlds, but the filmmakers would have been wiser to focus on another aspect to tell the story.
The film never feels like it starts until the King and Queen of England are introduced. They come to visit the President at his home away from the White House to confirm that they are in fact allies right before Europe goes up in flames. Played by Samuel West and Olivia Colman respectively, they add some of the films funniest moments as well as dramatic. History buffs will be disappointed after a little research to learn that this film and what it depicts are mostly a work of fiction, a historical chamber piece that takes great liberties for the sake of entertainment. However, the most enjoyable moments come from watching the King and Queen's fish out of water take on their American hosts.
I haven't even mentioned Bill Murray's performance as President Roosevelt, the film's saving grace and perhaps the best thing about it. Because of the confused script, Murray only has about one scene of meaty dialogue and a chance to showcase his acting. It is a late night drink between the two world leaders where they exchange vulnerabilities that is the heart of the film. Murray's witty sensibilities as an actor work well with the laid back depiction of FDR. Whether he is arguing with the women in his life or mentally messing with his Royal guests, he is brilliant.
So what we end up with is a missed opportunity. We have a film that doesn't really know what it wants to say, and thus ends up feeling like two different movies, one very good and the other meandering. Still, the whole thing is a harmless (and short) affair, and worth seeing if you are a fan of Bill Murray.
We start the movie with narration from Daisy, a distant cousin of FDR who begins an implied affair with the leader of the free world in the spring of 1939 while the President stays at his mother's home in upstate New York, the title of the picture. Practically all of the film's problems stem from this character. There are some schools of thought that say narration in a film is the easy way out. I think it can be used quite creatively, but in "Hyde Park on Hudson", it feels too much like it's filling in the expository details that the script couldn't manage.
While this relationship might have some historical fact to it, it really doesn't warrant a feature length film. What's worse is that they got a great actress in the form of Laura Linney to play such a thankless and empty role. And it's the main character! There are some humanizing touches that reveal how she is caught in between two worlds, but the filmmakers would have been wiser to focus on another aspect to tell the story.
The film never feels like it starts until the King and Queen of England are introduced. They come to visit the President at his home away from the White House to confirm that they are in fact allies right before Europe goes up in flames. Played by Samuel West and Olivia Colman respectively, they add some of the films funniest moments as well as dramatic. History buffs will be disappointed after a little research to learn that this film and what it depicts are mostly a work of fiction, a historical chamber piece that takes great liberties for the sake of entertainment. However, the most enjoyable moments come from watching the King and Queen's fish out of water take on their American hosts.
I haven't even mentioned Bill Murray's performance as President Roosevelt, the film's saving grace and perhaps the best thing about it. Because of the confused script, Murray only has about one scene of meaty dialogue and a chance to showcase his acting. It is a late night drink between the two world leaders where they exchange vulnerabilities that is the heart of the film. Murray's witty sensibilities as an actor work well with the laid back depiction of FDR. Whether he is arguing with the women in his life or mentally messing with his Royal guests, he is brilliant.
So what we end up with is a missed opportunity. We have a film that doesn't really know what it wants to say, and thus ends up feeling like two different movies, one very good and the other meandering. Still, the whole thing is a harmless (and short) affair, and worth seeing if you are a fan of Bill Murray.
Perhaps the greatest treat that can be found in Clint Eastwood's 1990 film "White Hunter Black Heart", a fictionalized account of the pre-production phase of the 1951 classic "The African Queen", is Eastwood's leading performance. His trademark acting style is usually stereotyped as the tough guy persona; he squints a lot and speaks only when he has to. An act of violence would usually suffice instead. But here we have Eastwood in rare form, showing us a side that we seldom see in his movies.
The film opens with a man riding quickly on horseback over a British estate, his face obscured by a riding helmet. We are given some brief narration by Pete Verrill (played by Jeff Fahey and based on screenwriter Peter Viertel), who is flying in to see this masked rider. Verrill is the extension of the audience; he is our eyes and ears as he works alongside Eastwood's character to develop the film that would be known as "The African Queen". Eastwood plays John Wilson, a thinly disguised version of iconic director/actor John Huston. Introducing his character on horseback is a way we've come to recognize Eastwood in films, but the way he acts for the rest of the picture is anything but what we would normally expect from him.
Wilson, despite staying at his friend's estate, is down and out and deeply in debt. Verrill is here to get the creative wheels flowing again, helping to finish the script for "The African Trader" (the name given to the film within the film), however Wilson only seems interested in going to Africa to hunt elephants; the picture is more of an afterthought. Viertel wrote the book this film was based on, which in turn was based on his experiences with Huston while making "The African Queen". Viertel also had a hand in the screenplay for this film.
Now that I've gotten some of the plot out of the way, let me get back to Eastwood's performance. He nails Huston's distinctive speech pattern and way of presenting himself. It is a rare sight to see Eastwood play such a flamboyant character, a suave and sophisticated gentleman who whips people into shape with long monologues and anecdotes instead of his fists, with one exception that also plays against audience expectations. I honestly can't think of another film where he has so much dialogue.
Despite this spectacular leading performance, the film is flawed by its overall ambition. It is as if Eastwood the director, after the acclaim of his previous biopic "Bird", had finally decided that he was an auteur. You have a film that wants to take on the creative process, a look behind the scenes, and show how one man's genius can be undermined by his selfishness and obsession. There is also some "Moby Dick" inspired stuff with the hunting of the elephant being about something more profound and enlightening. All of these themes don't exactly click together as they should, but the journey getting there is enough.
What you are left with is an underrated character study. As usual with his period pieces, the attention to detail of both time and place is exquisite. And like most of his films, the movie builds to a climactic showdown, with an ending and closing moment that are among the best of Eastwood's entire filmography.
The film opens with a man riding quickly on horseback over a British estate, his face obscured by a riding helmet. We are given some brief narration by Pete Verrill (played by Jeff Fahey and based on screenwriter Peter Viertel), who is flying in to see this masked rider. Verrill is the extension of the audience; he is our eyes and ears as he works alongside Eastwood's character to develop the film that would be known as "The African Queen". Eastwood plays John Wilson, a thinly disguised version of iconic director/actor John Huston. Introducing his character on horseback is a way we've come to recognize Eastwood in films, but the way he acts for the rest of the picture is anything but what we would normally expect from him.
Wilson, despite staying at his friend's estate, is down and out and deeply in debt. Verrill is here to get the creative wheels flowing again, helping to finish the script for "The African Trader" (the name given to the film within the film), however Wilson only seems interested in going to Africa to hunt elephants; the picture is more of an afterthought. Viertel wrote the book this film was based on, which in turn was based on his experiences with Huston while making "The African Queen". Viertel also had a hand in the screenplay for this film.
Now that I've gotten some of the plot out of the way, let me get back to Eastwood's performance. He nails Huston's distinctive speech pattern and way of presenting himself. It is a rare sight to see Eastwood play such a flamboyant character, a suave and sophisticated gentleman who whips people into shape with long monologues and anecdotes instead of his fists, with one exception that also plays against audience expectations. I honestly can't think of another film where he has so much dialogue.
Despite this spectacular leading performance, the film is flawed by its overall ambition. It is as if Eastwood the director, after the acclaim of his previous biopic "Bird", had finally decided that he was an auteur. You have a film that wants to take on the creative process, a look behind the scenes, and show how one man's genius can be undermined by his selfishness and obsession. There is also some "Moby Dick" inspired stuff with the hunting of the elephant being about something more profound and enlightening. All of these themes don't exactly click together as they should, but the journey getting there is enough.
What you are left with is an underrated character study. As usual with his period pieces, the attention to detail of both time and place is exquisite. And like most of his films, the movie builds to a climactic showdown, with an ending and closing moment that are among the best of Eastwood's entire filmography.
