OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
Oh good. Please let me know what you think.
What Was the Last Movie You Watched?
- Thread starter Ruthanne
- Start date
I met John Gotti at the Brooklyn court house when he was probably 40 ish. Yes, he was a terrible criminal but even though most of the mafia are charming men, Gotti was almost magically charming. His persona was so different from his deeds. How was the movie?
I'll have to try that one Meringue. I like black comedy.Any comedy really.
ChiroDoc
Senior Member
- Location
- The Dixie Riviera
IMO it's mostly a good film. I normally don’t enjoy pictures that are designed to tug at one’s heart strings, but this story about a poor, disabled folk artist painter was very absorbing.It was chiefly Sally Hawkins’ film, and no one plays waifs, sorrowful or pitiable women better than she. It’s impossible to view her performance and not feel sympathy for Maud Lewis’ situation, while at the same time admiring her outlook, stamina and art talent. Hawkins slightly overplayed her role, but the melodrama absorbed her portrayal.
One reason for my interest in the movie was that I had conflated Ethan Hawke with John Hawkes, so I was eager to see another master stroke by John Hawkes. Wrong guy. But Ethan Hawke did a creditable job in a part that was unevenly written.
This was basically a female production, so it’s going to focus more on feelings, emotion, and hardships. However I was curious about the actual Maud Lewis (nee Dowley) character, so I researched it a bit. Turns out that there was a large amount of “Hollywood license” taken to embellish the story.
Maud actually had polio as a child, which caused her deformities, and lack of dexterity with the paint brushes, although she did develop rheumatoid arthritis. She was taught as a child to paint Christmas cards, which she later created to sell alongside her husband as he peddled fresh fish. She gave birth out of wedlock to her daughter at aged 25. Maud gave her up to adoption, as she had no means to support her.
Later her daughter tried to locate Maud, but could not. After Maud answered Everett’s ad for live-in housekeeper, they were very shortly married. He was never brutal to her, and in fact it was he that encouraged her to paint, buying her a first set of oil paints. He did the house-keeping. She then started painting on larger media, the “canvas” size limited only by her ability to stretch her arm. Interest in her work grew naturally out of local interest and exhibiting.
In actuality there was no Sandra character from NYC who started buying Maud’s work. Maud’s paintings eventually brought her $7 to $10 apiece. She could not keep up with the orders. Later at auction, some brought as high as $22K. Maud died in 1970 at aged 67 of pneumonia. Everett was killed in 1979 at their tiny home by a robber.
One criticism is that the characters weren't aged enough during the span of the story. Even at the end, the actors barely looked over 50. Despite the liberties taken with the real story, and the uneven writing for Everett Lewis’ part, this is a film worth watching. Hawkins and the others received several awards in both Canada, Ireland and London.
Later her daughter tried to locate Maud, but could not. After Maud answered Everett’s ad for live-in housekeeper, they were very shortly married. He was never brutal to her, and in fact it was he that encouraged her to paint, buying her a first set of oil paints. He did the house-keeping. She then started painting on larger media, the “canvas” size limited only by her ability to stretch her arm. Interest in her work grew naturally out of local interest and exhibiting.
In actuality there was no Sandra character from NYC who started buying Maud’s work. Maud’s paintings eventually brought her $7 to $10 apiece. She could not keep up with the orders. Later at auction, some brought as high as $22K. Maud died in 1970 at aged 67 of pneumonia. Everett was killed in 1979 at their tiny home by a robber.
One criticism is that the characters weren't aged enough during the span of the story. Even at the end, the actors barely looked over 50. Despite the liberties taken with the real story, and the uneven writing for Everett Lewis’ part, this is a film worth watching. Hawkins and the others received several awards in both Canada, Ireland and London.
ChiroDoc
Senior Member
- Location
- The Dixie Riviera
I agree. An enjoyable movie. It's a good old fashioned entertaining monster movie. It holds one’s attention from beginning to end. And what’s surprising is that virtually everyone who sees the picture knows what to expect, and eagerly expects it, despite their being 36 previous Godzilla films. We know we are going to see a gargantuan monster who causes catastrophic urban damage, and will likely not be completely eradicated in the end.
Much has been made of the picture’s minuscule budget, with reports in the neighborhood of $10-15 Million (easily one-tenth of a similar U.S. picture’s cost). And that is eyebrow raising. But it’s even more impressive that one man, Takashi Yamazaki, wrote, directed, and did the visual effects for the film. And all three were facets were first rate.
What differs from the movies of this type that we’ve become accustomed to is that there is a basic human story, both along with, and undergirding the abundant monster scenes. At the end of 1945 a kamikaze pilot returns his troubled airplane to base on a Japanese island. That night Godzilla surfaces and attacks the island. The pilot is tasked with trying to destroy the monster by use of his airplane’s powerful machine guns, but the pilot freezes up, cannot pull the trigger, and is subsequently knocked unconscious. Only one other soldier survives the attack.
When the pilot returns home, he discovers that his parents and most people he knew were killed in the bombing of Tokyo. There is devastation everywhere. He comes across a new widow with a baby, who he commences to protect and provide for. The carnage he sees, along with his previous experience on the island gives him the incentive to be determined to help destroy the monster. The story develops along those lines which provide the settings for some impressive and frightening monster attacks.
Most of the dialogue, along with the actions of the main characters, seemed emotionally overly exaggerated, which often seems typical in movies featuring Japanese culture. In fact for a moment I thought that the picture might be a spoof, satirizing that aspect of the style. But it’s not. The picture simply seems patterned after 1950’s monster movies, and to good effect.
I kept thinking that the story’s premise was adding insult to injury, given that Japan was beaten to a pulp during WWII. Then I realized that was probably what the title was referring to: nothing, and then some. Japan couldn’t have been lower, then Godzilla showed up and made it even worse!
It was the first Godzilla picture in history to be nominated for, and win, an Oscar for Best Visual Effects, as well as the first non-English language film to win it. So the great special effects will wow you, but you might find yourself fascinated by the side story as well.
OldFeller
Well-known Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
1985
John Cusack
Daphne Zuniga
A North East college freshman is going through a sexual dry spell, and a friend from high school arranges a beautiful woman for him to meet in California. He and a classmate he has a crush on end up hitchhiking all the way out to Cali.
I had to watch it for the second time in my life. It was directed by Rob Reiner.
It was kind of boring the second time, but the two stars are likeable.
After trying to sit through Maudie, it was an easier experience.
Agreed. I thought it was an "intelligent" Godzilla movie because of the backstory about Japanese families and the kamikaze pilot suffering from PTSD who gets back into the fray to fight Godzilla. It was touching and aspiring, something that can rarely be said about "monster movies".