When Harry Met Sally...

Review #1491: When Harry Met Sally...

Cast:
Billy Crystal (Harry Burns), Meg Ryan (Sally Albright), Carrie Fisher (Marie Fisher), Bruno Kirby (Jess Fisher), Steven Ford (Joe), Lisa Jane Persky (Alice), Michelle Nicastro (Amanda Reese), Kevin Rooney (Ira Stone), Harley Kozak (Helen Hillson), and Estelle Reiner (Female Customer) Directed by Rob Reiner (#108 - This Is Spinal Tap, #180 - Stand by Me, #232 - The Princess Bride, #363 - North, and #640 - The Bucket List)

Review:
"I try to write parts for women that are as complicated and interesting as women actually are."
"I'd never ask an actor to do something I couldn't do - not that I'm the best actor in the world - but if I can do it, then I know that anyone I hire can do these things."

How many people know about this film? Or, more specifically know the film more than that one great line about having what she's having? It is a testament to director Rob Reiner and writer Nora Ephron in how they managed to generate a classic for the age. Reiner came from a distinct background of comedy like no other, the son of singer/actor Estelle Reiner (whose one line in this film being perfect deadpan) and comedian/director Carl Reiner. A graduate of UCLA Film School, he started in show business through appearances on television beginning in 1966 while also doing some writing for The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour the following year. In 1971, he jumped into national prominence with his starring role as Michael Stivic in All in the Family, which he appeared in for over eight years. He moved onto directing with This Is Spinal Tap (1984).  Ephron had her own distinct background as well, the child of playwrights that originally aimed for a career of journalism. Ephron had her own distinct background as well, the child of playwrights that originally aimed for a career of journalism. She worked at various news outlets such as The New York Post and Esquire while also writing essays and novels, and she shifted onto screenplays as well with the TV film Perfect Gentlemen (1978) and Silkwood (1983, co-written with Alice Arlen). The genesis for this film came from Reiner's experiences while single and divorced, for which Ephron would interview him and producer Andy Scheinman to make a script out of; the title characters were based in some part on Reiner and Ephron.

If Crystal and Ryan had to be remembered for any film they were ever part of, I would say this is definitely the best one for each of them to have taken part of. You don't need me to tell you this is a classic, you can tell pretty quickly that it is a bona fide romantic comedy because of how smart it is about what makes people tick at times when it comes to passion and not-quite passion with each other. Its tale of friendly neuroses make for plenty of quirky enjoyment that builds interest without being consumed by clichés or impatience, both being enjoyably high maintenance with each other. Crystal is quite amusing, capable of juggling funny lines alongside moments of interplay with Ryan that border from combative to friendly, while also being interesting in the perspective of someone by themselves with expressiveness that doesn't grate on you. Ryan provides warmth and plenty of smart timing as well, being quite convincing in grace and charm that account for plenty of interesting moments, whether involving faking an orgasm in a diner, or just having a moment in conversation that makes us feel close with them. Not lost in the shuffle is Kirby and Fisher, who both are pretty amusing when paired with the respective other in casual conversation but also make for an interesting pair together. The film is well-paced at 96 minutes with just enough balance and humor from both actors and direction/writing to make a funny film with a good deal of honesty and warmth to serve as an example of making a romantic film without too many contrivances or fuzzy things to get in the way of a good story.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Serious Moonlight.

Review #1259: Serious Moonlight.

Cast: 
Meg Ryan (Louise), Timothy Hutton (Ian), Kristen Bell (Sara), Justin Long (Todd), Nathan Dean (Detective), Andy Ostroy (Police Officer), Kimberlee Peterson (Trashy Girl), Derek Carter (Man #1), and Bill Parks (Man #2) Directed by Cheryl Hines.

Review: 
Some movies are just meant to stay in the movie bin. This isn't even a case of just being dreadful - this is a movie is too lame for even ironic watching like someone could do for Troll 2. The film can be summed up through three questions: Where is the comedy? Who thought this would be a good idea? Why is the film predictably pathetic? The best answer I have for any of these questions is this: Someone really thought this was going to work. This was written by the late Adrienne Shelly, who had written/directed/co-starred with Hines in Waitress (2007), with her widow being one of the producers of this film. This was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in early 2009 before being acquired by Magnolia Pictures, who released it through their Ultra Video on Demand program one month before theatrical release. I am curious to wonder how many people decided to check this out on the streaming platform (barf) out of curiosity and how long they lasted before shutting it off. It amazes me that one can make an 84 minute movie seem interminable to go through. This is evidently a black comedy, and I say evidently in the loosest sense because it is roughly at the enjoyment level of lemon juice squeezed right onto your face in terms of humor. It is a film that is filled with contrivances in order to drive a romance angle that never really takes off - maybe there could be something funny about taping up your husband until he is persuaded that he still loves you and not his mistress, too bad this isn't the one to do it with. I shouldn't have been surprised that this scheme actually works, but maybe I really thought someone facing consequences for something so stupid could actually lead to a laugh. Obviously I should know better from a film with a title not to be confused with a David Bowie concert tour.

Who does one blame for such a blandly derivative film? You really can't blame the quartet of actors saddled with this material, who either got a memo to scream in every other scene or just really thought this was the way to go. Ryan (years removed from mediocre rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle) is stuck in such a thankless position, where the dubious honor of trying to serenade her husband with a guitar is compounded by him being taped to a toilet after being knocked out (again). She is meant to have some sort of high-strung energy, but it never really comes out in a useful way to make me care. Hutton (spending most of his time acting from a toilet, a sentence for which I have to compose myself before I collapse from laughing) is similarly stuck with either having to shout or trying to be snide, which could be funny if the film wanted to do so. After all, it is just these two for over half the film. To say nothing of Bell, energetic yet not in the film enough to make more laughs. Long playing a robber sounds like a punchline already, but he mostly spends his time either hitting Hutton or lazily robbing them with his friends, which isn't as fun as it sounds. It gets stuck between the gear of sentimentality and cynicism and never gets out, where the direction and the script harmonize into ridiculousness that disappoints and irritates the audience at once. Nothing ever feels like it matters, with no real sense of consequences in any sense to be found. Why should I care about this loveless marriage and the attempts to revive it? Why should I care about them being tied up in their own house? Why make an implication with the ending about the couple seeing the robbers in the street after reconciling if you won't actually go anywhere with it? Is this really a film that needed to end before it even reached 90 minutes? As the questions ride over my head like a never-ending drumbeat, I can only say that this is the weakest kind of terrible movie - a whimpering and pathetic piece that can be mocked to oblivion and still have the insolence to linger there in its defeated state until the magnifying glass is taken off. The best thing to say for this film isn't to yammer about how awful it is for an essay longer than needed - if you see it sitting somewhere on a shelf or as an option on a streaming service (again, barf), just ignore it. By not watching it, you've saved those minutes for something better. Whether spent alone surfing the Internet, or spending time at work, or spending time with friends (whichever seems realistic), Serious Moonlight makes the case for appreciating doing those things more often as opposed to seeing the film more than zero times.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

You've Got Mail.

Review #1020: You've Got Mail.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Joe "NY152" Fox), Meg Ryan (Kathleen "Shopgirl" Kelly), Parker Posey (Patricia Eden), Jean Stapleton (Birdie Conrad), Greg Kinnear (Frank Navasky), Steve Zahn (George Pappas), Heather Burns (Christina Plutzker), Dave Chappelle (Kevin Jackson), Dabney Coleman (Nelson Fox), and John Randolph (Schuyler Fox) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle)

Review: 
Remember Sleepless in Seattle (1993)? I watched and reviewed the film three years ago, and while I will admit that Hanks and Ryan had a fine enough chemistry with each other, I found it to be fairly okay but not something I'd probably watch again, with a love story that certainly seemed to take inspiration from older films, such as An Affair to Remember (1957). As for this film, the inspiration this time around is the 1937 play Parfumerie by Miklós László, which had already served as the basis for The Shop Around the Corner (1940). Fittingly, the bookstore featured in this film is named after the older film. In any case, this is a movie basked in its time, or more specifically romance on AOL, a thing that I vaguely remember my dad sometime in my childhood (and yes, that noise during the connection and disconnection sequence is still stuck in my head). Ultimately, this is a mediocre movie, although the performances in it are pretty tolerable. Hanks and Ryan are fairly likable, and it is interesting to see their dynamic evolve over the film's run-time, managing to never really drag the film to any sort of ridiculous level (in a movie about online romance, anyway). They help the movie feel charming without soaking itself in sentimentality. The film starts with the two characters involved with other people, and while you know that they are eventually going to not end up happy with those people, the movie doesn't make anyone out to be selfish or needlessly annoying. Posey and Kinnear provide some amusement, and while I'd say they don't have much to their characters, they aren't entirely caricatures. The film goes through the cliches you might expect, but at least there isn't some sort of adversary or big message that the film wants to push other than one of romance, so there's something for you. The rest of the cast is pretty acceptable, contributing to some light fun, with my favorites being Stapleton and Chappelle. For a movie that is light on substance, it is a movie that is inviting for anyone in the mood for a rom-com. Like with Sleepless in Seattle, I can't really see myself watching this film ever again, but I can at least appreciate this film and its romance aspect a bit better than the other film, for what it's worth. It may feel a bit gimmicky, but the basic plot structure still works enough to carve out some sort of winner. This is a predictable film, but it's also comforting for people in the right mood or mindset, and I suppose at the end of the day that means something.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Sleepless in Seattle.

Review #554: Sleepless in Seattle.

Cast
Tom Hanks (Sam Baldwin), Meg Ryan (Annie Reed), Bill Pullman (Walter), Ross Malinger (Jonah Baldwin), Rosie O'Donnell (Becky), Gaby Hoffmann (Jessica), Victor Garber (Greg), Rita Wilson (Suzy), Barbara Garrick (Victoria), and Carey Lowell (Maggie Baldwin) Directed by Nora Ephron.

Review
This is a hard movie to grade because I really don't know if this a movie that's heartwarming and also slightly funny, or a movie that's a tad overrated. Hanks is a good actor, he seems bring a certain level of charm to this movie. Heck, every actor (even Rosie O'Donnell) are certainly warming enough for this movie, and they are entertaining to watch, and it is funny when Hanks and Victor Garber's characters talk about crying at the end of The Dirty Dozen. But does this movie have a flaw? Probably. It's not the acting, not the comedy, it's just...Walter. Pullman does a great job playing this mostly perfect character (, and...he's dumped by Ryan for someone she barely knows after being lured to the Empire State Building while on a date with Walter. So basically, if you listen to a radio show and hear some lonely guy/girl talk, go out and try and find them, nothing can go wrong, it's all supposed to happen due to "magic" and such. That makes sense, doesn't it? I'd like to add that both genders can be characterized as either insensitive jerks (the men) and "weepy romantics who cry at the end of An Affair to Remember (seriously, every woman in this movie cry to it, even a little girl. Is this normal to cry at An Affair to Remember? You might as well cry at the end of Old Yeller), and let's not forget that Ryan's character hired a private investigator to take pics of Hanks, follows him to Seattle and only says "hi" to him. I'd like to point out the kid doesn't like the girl Hanks asked beforehand out (Barbara Garrick's character, who doesn't do anything as insane as Ryan's, yet still gets dumped anyway) because the kid selected someone else for Hanks to meet. The whole movie seems sweet and fun, but if you look into the movie more, it seems to have a secret layer of unintentional lunacy. Whether that breaks the movie or not, watch this at your own risk.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.