Jeff Marshall

This is a shockingly inept movie that fails on pretty much every level imaginable. What's even worse - it isn't even entertaining in its awfulness. It's the Energizer Bunny of bad movies, and just when it graciously seems to come to an end, we have 30 more minutes of alleged shocks and surprises. What were these people thinking? Kidman is arguably the hardest working actor in Hollywood, but with movies like this and A FAMILY AFFAIR recently, one wishes she would be a bit more selective. She is actively bad in this movie - I don't know if I can say this of any other performance she's given. McFadden is basically doing a Kevin Spacey impersonation circa 2002. Only Bernal walks away unscathed, but this won't be high on his list of accomplishments. The tone of this movie is all over the place, we're bored with overused cliches, including at least three dream sequences, and the ending makes no sense whatsoever. Potential subplots, including one involving an act of racism toward Bernal, are forgotten about like they never existed. This thing was edited in a food processor. Even the biggest of Kidman fans are encouraged to skip this one. It probably ranks with THE STEPFORD WIVES as the worst of her career. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

I knew absolutely nothing about this movie except that it received an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Short a couple years ago. It's only about 11 minutes long, but I hardly expected it to be 11 of the most haunting and ultimately disturbing minutes I have had with a movie in a long time. It would be criminal of me to go into detail, but even though it's an animated film, I would recommend definitely watching it first before letting anyone under 13 view it. I'd be very curious to know why the filmmakers chose to tell this abbreviated story in animated form. The animation itself is quite memorable, like the pages of a storybook. I'd love to discuss more, but it's impossible to do so without divulging what the story is ultimately about. If any of you subscribe to Kanopy and watch it, I would love to get your feedback. I've been thinking about it quite a bit ever since I watched it. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

Movies are like food. Sometimes you're in the mood for a steak and lobster, other times maybe a hamburger, and then there are times you're satisfied with a bag of Cheetos. This movie is definitely the latter, but you know, it satisfied my craving. Nothing substantial, you won't remember much about it in a couple days, but it tastes good even with no nutritional value whatsoever. If there is one outstanding element here, it is definitely the persuasive performance of Faia as Cher. Not only is the resemblance often downright eerie, but she inhabits rather than impersonates, and I never thought the performance veered into caricature. It's also a nostalgic delight to hear those wonderful songs, and I actually learned a thing or two about Bono's early life that I didn't know. As long as you don't expect WALK THE LINE or COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER, you might have a fun time. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

There are a couple of small, very fleeting moments in which Lohan vaguely resembles Elizabeth Taylor physically. But then she speaks, and the illusion breaks like Beverly Sutphin smashing a Faberge egg. This is a really shoddy movie! Most of it feels like a high school production - both in terms of craft and performance. An irritating dramatic device is used in which Taylor and Richard Burton sit around talking about themselves like they were appearing on INSIDE THE ACTORS STUDIO. The irritating musical score feels more suited to a sitcom than a supposed dramatic biography. And, God bless her, but Lohan is just plain bad. I laughed out loud at a couple of her line readings. And her attempts at portraying Taylor in her later years look like SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE sketches. Bowler doesn't embarrass himself, but he never makes one think of Burton, and he isn't asked to do much but walk around in a drunken haze. There's not a moment that feels dramatically potent nor a scene that feels authentic. It's excruciatingly bad at time and almost uncomfortable to watch. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

It's very interesting to compare this film with the original that was released just two years prior - same basic concept, many of the same cast, it feels like even some of the same jokes... but one is a comedy classic, and the other is merely acceptable. This has a few laughs (a couple big laughs) especially at the beginning, but it comes nowhere close to the raucous humor of number one. What happened? The humor feels a bit forced this time and a lot less classic - much of the comedy here seems very topical for its time. Those repeating their roles from the original don't do anything fresh - they are simply been-there-done-that rehashes. And the thrill is gone. I'm sure most sequels are made with more financial than artistic goals in mind, but this one feels unnecessary.

The word I keep coming back to is EXQUISITE. From its lush cinematography to its captivating performances to its spellbinding musical score (this is the film that introduced me to my favorite aria "O mio babbino caro"), there isn't a moment in which it isn't running full throttle. I'd like to suggest that this is the movie that first made people realize that English costume dramas could be more than just stuffy Masterpiece Theatre fodder. And I think a lot of subsequent motion pictures owe a debt of gratitude to this Oscar-winner. I think the reason it rings so true is that the basic emotions portrayed are wholly universal, even though they may be slightly hidden by the corsets and parasols. These are living, breathing human beings with emotions and desires as strong as any of us but constrained by their time and place. I have a couple very minor quibbles - Daniel Day Lewis' Cecil veers dangerously close to caricature at times, and it feels just a hair bit long. But that's like complaining about a few specks of dust on a beautiful Monet. I can't think of much else to say other than to bookend the way I started - this is EXQUISITE. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

Sometimes I think the almighty movie gods take over and lead you where they think you should be. I had never heard of this movie in my life - I was totally unaware of its existence. I was flipping through the options available on Tubi, and something just drew me to it. It turned out to be the right movie for me at the right time. Let me explain... I've been struggling mightily (probably more than I should) about today's political climate, and namely how so many people in America are enraptured by a vile, disgusting, hate-filled individual who is the antithesis of everything I stand for as a human being. And even though this movie takes place in the era of McCarthyism, it's to the film's credit, and the sad state of current affairs, that it feels so very relevant to events happening today. It's about politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes, be it ignoring their own morals and judgment or betraying those close to them, in order to achieve success - and re-election. That's a lot to take in, but what's most remarkable is that, at its heart, this is a small, simple story about a woman willing to take a stand. The film does a splendid job of conveying the potential ramifications, both personally and as a community, of what can happen when those in charge try to impede on our rights and freedoms - and spread mistruths and exaggerations. Davis is just great here, as usual - she overplays it a bit at first, but once she gets into the groove, she is frequently devastating. The film isn't perfect - it starts a bit rough, the ending is a bit overwrought and there are a couple scenes with really bad supporting performances. But I found myself enthralled throughout. And I'm not sure why, but it gave me a sense of hope at the end, a sense that my feelings and frustrations are not mine alone. And for that I'm thankful. (And apologies to those who disagree with me politically - I only share my feelings to help convey my surprising strong connection to the material.) - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

This is a disaster of epic proportions and quite possibly the worst movie with the best cast in motion picture history. Absolutely nothing works here - nothing. Well, the houses are pretty to look at, but that's about it. One performance is worse than the next, and the actors look absolutely lost - it feels as though they are flailing around without a script waiting to be fed their next line of dialogue. I never thought I'd say this, but Glenn Close actually gives a worse performance here than she did in HILLBILLY ELEGY. Kidman and Broderick have below-zero chemistry - they don't even seem to be in the same time zone. The story goes nowhere, and it's impossible to determine what the goal of the filmmakers is here. Multiple cast and crew have later said what a bad experience this was, and it shows in every single frame. Calling this movie a trainwreck is an insult to trainwrecks. I felt sorry for every single person involved in this fiasco - and I feel even more sorry for the people who will waste 93 minutes of their lives sitting through this in the future. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

I can't imagine this film being of much interest to anyone beyond die hard Taylor and/or Hepburn fans. Or perhaps acting students looking for a good Tennessee Williams monologue or two. Both actresses were Oscar-nominated, and they are both excellent, particularly Taylor. Hepburn's role doesn't have much of an arc, but I can't imagine anybody doing it much better. Taylor, on the other hand, is given a much more complex and interesting role, and she delivers, particularly toward the end. Clift by comparison feels a bit stuff, although he is also hampered by the parameters of the role. The film itself feels strikingly overwrought and eventually anti-climactic. It seems as though the most interesting parts of the story are either just talked about or shown in minimalist flashbacks. The movie touches upon some controversial material that was probably taboo at the time, so the filmmakers were probably limited with what they could show and discuss in detail. Unfortunately, that substantially affects our connection to the material, and we are basically left with four or five scenes with a lot of talk but not much action. This is one of those occasions where I could see this working much better on stage than screen. The actresses are a privilege to watch - the film itself not so much. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook

Although this is an intense, involving and exquisitely made motion picture, I'm the slightest bit surprised it was such an awards juggernaut last year only because it is basically just a procedural and courtroom drama. Were the filmmakers and actors of a lesser caliber, this could have easily devolved into something you could find on LAW & ORDER or CSI. But the expert craftmanship and stunning performances make this something special. And no one deserves more praise than Huller, who is absolutely magnificent in a difficult role. Hers is a prickly and often distant character, and there's never a moment when we're not in doubt of her guilt or innocence. I appreciate that the filmmakers never reveal the actual truth of what happened, and we as the viewer are left to our own devices to put the pieces together. Also excellent is Machado-Graner as the young son caught in the middle of this painful ordeal. The courtroom scenes are electrifying and never bog down the energy. An extended flashback scene of a heated argument between Huller and her husband the day before his death is particularly extraordinary. This often reminded me of 1988's majestic A CRY IN THE DARK, in which another difficult woman was put on trial for murder. This movie doesn't hit the heights of that film, but it is a tight, believable drama that grabs you emotionally more than you realize. Huller and Machado-Graner give two of the best performances of 2023. - Jeff Marshall, Movie Blogger on Facebook