Michael (1996).

Review #1312: Michael.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Michael), Andie MacDowell (Dorothy Winters), William Hurt (Frank Quinlan), Bob Hoskins (Vartan Malt), Robert Pastorelli (Huey Driscoll), Jean Stapleton (Pansy Milbank), Teri Garr (Judge Esther Newberg), Wallace Langham (Bruce Craddock), and Joey Lauren Adams (Anita) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle and #1020 - You've Got Mail)

Review: 

It may have already been said before, but it bears repeating: some movies are just easier to write about than others. Some are involving pieces that can deliver on laughs while others can do that and a bit of romance. This is not quite one of those films, as it seems I have stumbled onto yet another mediocre Nora Ephron effort, although at least it isn't one with some sort of following (sidenote: this was a fair hit with audiences upon release). It is fundamentally a mediocre movie, wracked by middling humor that seems to be the work of too many cooks at writer (there are four credits for screenplay, one of them being the director) while also being too hokey when trying to inspire any sense of passion. Its one highlight is a lead performance from Travolta, an angel with a devil-may-care attitude that occasionally imparts wisdom.  He is eccentric enough to almost push this forward, but we're dealing with a road movie with otherwise empty others. That sure is a shame, because Hurt and MacDowell are capable actors, but it takes too much time to really build hints for a romance and it leads to a mild payoff that can't satisfy anyone. So they're both too cynical to open their hearts to love at first, big deal. The antics of its lead character almost seems enough for its own film without any attempts at comedy-drama, or even just a silly television movie. On the road with a fellow like its lead should be more interesting than what plays out here, aside from its one barfight scene and trips to random landmarks. The supporting cast is fine, but they aren't too special, mostly serving as one-hit wonders (such as a brash Hoskins) that carry the film with a mild relish (although the dog is cute, I guess). My expectations for this film were fairly middling, where I didn't think it would be a silly time or a particularly moving film - 105 minutes seems okay when it comes to mediocrity, I suppose. Once one gets behind the idea of Travolta playing a rascal from above (complete with wings), the possibilities could be endless (for hilarity or ridicule, you be the judge). It just seems a road movie isn't exactly what one has in mind (especially with how obvious its story beats are). Even a scene of a dog being run over doesnt have a pull, because one knows it's going to be reversed a few moments later anyway. If a film is about the journey and how it gets there, this is one where the journey seems to have a few too many dead ends. It needs more laughs and shocks to really pull something to the skies and above. At least this is the kind of film you could watch a few minutes on television without trouble -before either switching to find a better Travolta lead to view or going to sleep.

Overall, I give it 6 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.