Hello everyone! I apologize for this belated post, as I’ve working on a blog related project. I wanted to take the time to thank every blogger who participated in my blogathon, Familyathon! This year’s event was such a success and I liked reading all the articles. I will definitely host another blogathon in 2024! More details about the event will be revealed earlier in the new year.
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
Films are a way to visually tell a story. The subjects can range from the fictional to the historical. With movies belonging in the non-fiction genre, that story can introduce viewers to a particular person, event, or time period. This is the case for the 1985 made-for-TV film, Shadowlands! I will admit I knew very little about C.S. Lewis prior to The Two Jacks Blogathon, hosted by Taking Up Room. While I was aware of his contribution to literature, creating the Chronicles of Narnia series, my knowledge of the author was surface-level. By participating in this blogathon and by choosing to review Shadowlands, I hoped to learn more about C.S. Lewis and the literary world he created! Now, it’s time to open the wardrobe door and step into this review!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: In past reviews, when I talked about a movie’s acting performances, I’ve mentioned the believability of those portrayals. This believability comes from the actors displaying an understanding for their roles, as well as for the talents of their co-stars. As I watched Shadowlands, I could sense the believability from the cast. This element was so strong, it allowed the interactions to come across as realistic. Whenever C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham shared conversations with one another, it seemed like they shared a mutual connection, being on the same page and even on the same paragraph. The combination of Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom’s talents allowed these performances to compliment each other! There were other interactions that appeared realistic in Shadowlands. When a medical situation takes place in the family, Douglas, portrayed by Rupert Baderman, asks C.S. Lewis about the situation itself. Douglas’ eyes display a longing look, desperate for things to get better. As C.S. Lewis reveals the answer, he has a serious expression on his face. These emotional expressions from both actors brought a sense of honesty to the interaction.
C.S. Lewis’ perspective: Because Shadowlands is based on a part of C.S. Lewis’ life, some of his perspectives are included in the script. The delivery of these perspectives and how they were incorporated into the story was insightful and thought-provoking. In a letter to Joy, C.S. Lewis explains how Narnia is a part of something bigger. From how I interpreted this statement, C.S. Lewis is pointing out how Narnia is a key component of the overarching story. It was interesting to hear Narnia referenced this way, as that world plays such a large role in its series, it seems like the star of the show. Amongst a group of colleagues during Christmastime, C.S. Lewis acknowledges how the birth of Jesus is considered a miracle. But he also points out how Springtime is a miracle, when plants are reborn and the world around the characters comes alive. Looking back on C.S. Lewis’ statement, it can be easy to take Springtime for granted, as it is a natural occurrence that happens on its own.
Historical accuracy: The historical accuracy in a historical/period drama can be found in the visual details. These details can also provide clues for the specific time a story takes place. Several scenes of Shadowlands show a rotary dial phone on a desk or on a table. The phones in the film are black, even though these types of phones can boast any colorful hue. In a scene where one of the characters is in the hospital, the bed is built with a silver metal frame. Even the knobs on a medical machine feature a simplistic design and make a loud, clicking sound. With these observations in mind, it appears that Shadowlands takes place in the 1950s or 1960s.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Sudden jumps in time: Shadowlands has a run-time of an hour and thirty-two minutes. This means progression of time is forced to be condensed for the sake of satisfying the run-time. Within the film’s first thirty minutes, however, the condensation of time was jarring, causing events to happen too quickly. After C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham first become acquainted with each other, she tells him that she’ll return to England with her sons, in order for them to meet C.S. Lewis. In the very next scene, Joy has returned to England with her children. Several scenes later, Joy makes plans with C.S. Lewis about spending Christmas with him. A scene after that, Christmastime was already arrived.
An overshadowed brother: When I talked about this film’s sudden jumps in time, I mentioned Joy having two sons. These sons, David and Douglas, travel with their mother to England and eventually make England their permanent residence. Throughout the story, Douglas’ perspective is the one that is prioritized, as he is a fan of the Chronicles of Narnia series. The audience even sees how Douglas deals with a tragic situation. David’s thoughts about this tragic situation are referenced, but never showcased. I know there is only so much story to tell in an hour and thirty-two minutes. But I wish David’s perspective hadn’t been ignored.
Things left unexplained: In my review’s introduction, I said I hoped to learn more about C.S. Lewis by watching Shadowlands. While I did learn some things about the famous author, the story assumed the viewer already had basic knowledge about him. One example of this is how some things were left unexplained. There is a scene where C.S. Lewis is lecturing a group of students in a classroom. No explanations were provided for why he was lecturing these students or why he was teaching in the first place. It wasn’t until after I saw the movie that I learned C.S. Lewis was a professor at Oxford.
My overall impression:
A person or event featured in a movie may be so fascinating, they deserve their own documentary. Some examples are the events that inspired Over the Edge and Evel Knievel. C.S. Lewis is one of these people that deserves a documentary, as he is an interesting literary figure. In fact, I think the story of Shadowlands should have been a documentary instead of a film. Even though I learned some information about the famous author, the movie assumed the audience already knew about him. This was the cause of things within the story not being explained. If the story of Shadowlands had been a documentary, important events could be discussed and prioritized without the program’s run-time being a concern. But reflecting on Shadowlands as a film, there are aspects of the project I can appreciate, such as the acting performances and hearing about C.S. Lewis’ perspective. With all that said, I thought the movie was just ok.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen 1985’s Shadowlands? Would you like to see me talk about C.S. Lewis’ stories on my blog? Please tell me in the comment section!
Have fun in Narnia!
Sally Silverscreen
I will admit I was a bit overwhelmed by my blogathon theme. With the theme of family being so broad, I could have chosen almost any movie, television episode, or book to write about. On a trip to IMDB, however, I came across the 1979 made-for-tv film, …and Your Name Is Jonah. Since I had never seen, let alone heard of, this movie prior to the event, that is what I selected for Familyathon! As I’ve stated before on 18 Cinema Lane, I haven’t had the best of luck finding a television film from the ‘70s I like. Out of these titles, they have ranged from fine, ok, or disappointing. During my search for my Familyathon topic, I also realized how I’ve heard of few programs revolving around a family dealing with a misdiagnosis. So, reviewing …and Your Name Is Jonah is bringing something new to my blog’s table!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: Like I mentioned in my review’s introduction, …and Your Name Is Jonah is about a family dealing with a misdiagnosis. At the beginning of the movie, Jenny and Danny, the titular character’s parents, learn their son is deaf after years of believing he had an intellectual disability. Learning about a misdiagnosis and adjusting to a new diagnosis can be overwhelming for a family. Through their portrayal of Jonah’s parents, Sally Struthers and James Woods make these feelings of stress and frustration come across realistically. During dinner, Jonah throws his peas on the floor, indicating how he doesn’t want to eat them. Genuine confusion can be seen on Danny’s face and heard in his voice as he takes Jonah’s plate away, in order to stop Jonah from throwing his food on the floor. Meanwhile, Jenny tells her son to stop making a mess in a calm, yet stern voice. She even points to her own plate, trying to get Jonah to eat his food. After Jonah receives his plate of food back, he continues to throw the peas on the floor. Agitation grows in Danny’s voice when he finds out the behavior hasn’t stopped. When Jenny decides to move Jonah’s plate into the kitchen, informing her husband about her plan in a calm manner, Jonah has a temper tantrum. This causes Danny to become frustrated over the situation, even sounding agitated with his other son, Anthony. Jenny, simply trying to keep the peace, attempts to stand up for Jonah, her voice sounding like she’s begging her husband for understanding. She also looks exhausted and overwhelmed.
When given a role that has little to no dialogue, an actor or actress must use facial expressions, emotions, and body language in order to show what their character is not saying. Jeffrey Bravin, the actor who portrayed Jonah, effectively utilized these acting techniques! This allowed the audience to learn more about Jonah, even knowing more information than his parents did. When Jonah wears his hearing aid for the first time, Danny and Jenny get into an argument over the hearing aid. Meanwhile, Jonah removes the hearing aid, his face expressing discomfort while doing so. His face continues to express discomfort when Jenny puts the hearing aid back into his ear. Jonah then looks sad and confused as he’s trying to figure out what his parents are saying. Through Jonah’s perspective, the audience can hear that, to him, Danny and Jenny sound like they’re arguing underwater. This scene helps the audience learn, before Jenny and Danny, that the hearing aid is not helping Jonah like it was intended to.
An introduction to deaf culture: Last year, when I reviewed Children of a Lesser God, I discussed how the film served as an introduction to deaf culture. This was achieved by the audience getting to know the characters and learning why they do or don’t want to learn to speak. …and Your Name Is Jonah also serves as an introduction to deaf culture. However, the introduction came from Danny and Jenny learning more about their son’s diagnosis. Toward the beginning of the movie, Jenny and Danny discover Jonah might benefit from using a hearing aid. An audiologist explains to Jonah’s parents how a hearing aid will help their son hear sounds he can just barely hear. This explanation provides a basic understanding of hearing aids for both Jonah’s parents and the audience. Later in the movie, Jenny gets invited to attend a deaf club. While attending one of the club’s meetings, Jenny learns some signs, ranging from describing animals to feelings. This demonstration was a beneficial introduction to sign language for Jenny as well as the audience.
Diversity in education: The idea of education not being “one size fits all” has gained attention in the 21st century. That idea included as an overarching theme in …and Your Name Is Jonah seems ahead of its time, as the film was released in 1979. Throughout the movie, Jonah’s family try to teach him to speak through speech. But these efforts are met with little to no results. Instead of letting frustration get the better of her, Jenny admits that her approach to education is not the right fit for her son. After this realization, she seeks out other options in order to help Jonah learn to speak. By Jenny seeking out a new approach, the story acknowledges how children learn differently and how various teaching techniques are available to best meet a child’s educational needs.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Prolonging Jonah’s break-through: In my review of I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, I talked about Deborah’s recovery process being rushed. This was the result of the film taking so long to show Deborah’s break-through, with that moment taking place in the movie’s last twenty minutes. Jonah’s break-through is also prolonged in …and Your Name Is Jonah. As I mentioned in this review, Jonah’s parents are overwhelmed by their son’s new diagnosis. However, for the majority of the story, they stubbornly try to use the same teaching technique with little to no results. While Jonah does receive a break-through, that moment takes place an hour and twenty-four minutes into an hour and thirty-three-minute movie. I wish this break-through had been reached sooner, so more time could be spent seeing Jonah thrive instead of struggling.
Lack of questions from Jonah’s parents: When Jonah is being released from the hospital, Danny and Jenny confess to the hospital’s director and the audience how their son has been at the hospital for “three years and four months”. When the hospital’s director tries to answer Jenny’s question of how Jonah got admitted in the first place, Jenny tells him, “You went over it and I just listened, and I still don’t understand”. This situation, along with Jonah’s new diagnosis, should have encouraged Jenny and Danny to ask more questions. Instead, they don’t dig beyond the surface. One example involves Jonah receiving a hearing aid. Earlier in this review, I brought up how Jonah’s parents learn about hearing aids and their intended purpose. While Jonah uses a hearing aid for the majority of the film, Danny and Jenny are frustrated by Jonah’s lack of progress. During one of Jenny and Danny’s arguments, the scene is presented from Jonah’s perspective, with the argument sounding like it’s taking place underwater. Had Jonah’s parents asked more questions about the hearing aid, they would have gained a better understanding why their son doesn’t seem to like wearing it.
An antagonistic speech therapist: One of the characters Jonah’s parents turn to for help is a speech therapist named Mrs. Marquardt. While Mrs. Marquardt had good intentions, I didn’t like how the film presented her as a more antagonistic character. When Mrs. Marquardt first meets Jenny and Jonah, Jenny tells Mrs. Marquardt how Jonah doesn’t seem to like wearing his hearing aid. Mrs. Marquardt tells Jenny how “he must learn to like it” and that his hearing aid is “his best friend”. While explaining the purpose of speech therapy to Jenny, Mrs. Marquardt tells her how children are not allowed to use sign language. Mrs. Marquardt explains how “once a child begins to use signs, he becomes lazy in learning how to use his voice and read lips”. I’m aware that some stories require the inclusion of an antagonistic character. But when a story like …and Your Name Is Jonah carries the overarching theme of how education is not “one size fits all”, the emphasis should be a teaching technique not working doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad.
My overall impression:
In my review, when I talked about the acting in …and Your Name Is Jonah, I mentioned how Jonah received a misdiagnosis. After learning their son is deaf, Danny and Jenny become so overwhelmed, they are desperate to find a solution. While watching the 1979 made-for-TV movie, I was reminded of the 2008 Hallmark Hall of Fame film, Sweet Nothing in My Ear, a story about parents trying to find a solution for their deaf son. However, I find myself preferring Sweet Nothing in My Ear over …and Your Name Is Jonah. In the 1979 film, Jonah’s break-through is prolonged, taking place in the film’s last nine minutes. For the majority of the story, Jonah’s parents don’t ask more questions, a cause for Jonah’s break-through being prolonged. This is different from Sweet Nothing in My Ear, where the parents spend that story exploring every available option for their child. Even though the conclusion of Sweet Nothing in My Ear is open-ended, that creative decision was made to allow the audience to form their own perspective. I will say …and Your Name Is Jonah provided a nice introduction to deaf culture. It also showcased good acting performances and a theme that made the film feel ahead of its time. But, overall, this movie was just fine, in my opinion.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen …and Your Name Is Jonah? Are there any made-for-TV movies you’d like to see me review? Let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
Welcome to the Familyathon Blogathon! With Thanksgiving on the horizon and the Christmas/holiday season on the way, the theme of family is recognized and celebrated! Even outside of special occasions, family has been a popular topic in entertainment media for decades. From these on-screen families, familiar faces and beloved characters have won over the hearts of fans. Their stories have served valuable lessons and even stood the test of time. Every entry in this event showcases how the subject of family has been incorporated into movies and television! From the underrated tv films to silver screen classics, let the blogathon begin!
Realweegiemidget Reviews — LISTS…Films Made With Their Own Kind of Family
The Midnite Drive-In — The Family That Slays Together Stays Together
Poppity Talks Classic Film — ‘Sabrina’ (1954): It’s All in the Family
Taking Up Room — Andy Hardy in the Big City
18 Cinema Lane — Take 3: …and Your Name Is Jonah (1979) Review
The Maidens of Green Gables — this is family ❤ (Katherine), Five of My Favorite Families (Grace)
Top 10 Films — The Bonds Of Family In “Running On Empty”
Silver Screenings — Old Yeller: Making the Tough Choices in Life
Hamlette’s Soliloquy — Hamlette’s Soliloquy: “Mr. Mom” (1983)
Pirate films are rarely covered on 18 Cinema Lane. In fact, the only three I’ve reviewed are The Princess and the Pirate (which I liked), Captain Sabertooth and the Treasure of Lama Rama (which I found disappointing), and China Seas (which was just ok). This is one of the reasons why I chose to write about the 1952 movie, Blackbeard, the Pirate! The other reason is Linda Darnell’s involvement, as she is the subject of the Linda Darnell Centennial Blogathon, hosted by Musings of a Classic Film Addict! Blackbeard, the Pirate is the second film of Linda’s I covered on my blog. The first one was The Song of Bernadette, which was also reviewed for a blogathon. The 1943 film was one of the best I saw last year! But because Linda’s role was smaller in that movie, I had to remind myself which character she portrayed. Since her role in Blackbeard, the Pirate was bigger, it was easier for me to remember her performance!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: Since Linda Darnell is one of the reasons why I reviewed Blackbeard, the Pirate, I’ll talk about her performance first. Linda was cast as the lead female protagonist, portraying a character named Edwina. Throughout the film, she consistently carried her character with confidence that radiated off the screen! Edwina was also a head-strong character, going toe-to-toe with characters like Blackbeard and sharing banter with them. Speaking of Blackbeard, Robert Newton shined in this role! What made his portrayal work was how animated and energetic it was. That consistent energy made Blackbeard interesting to watch! Linda shared a lot of scenes with Keith Andes, who portrayed Robert Maynard. I liked his performance for two reasons. The first reason is how calm Robert appeared while under pressure, a protagonist who didn’t let his feelings get the better of him. The second reason is how Keith’s on-screen chemistry with Linda was nice!
Clever dialogue: There were some moments in Blackbeard, the Pirate where I found the dialogue cleverly written! A great example is when Edwina meets Blackbeard for the first time. During this introductory encounter, Blackbeard asks Edwina what her name is. She then says Blackbeard’s name, in disbelief because she’s standing in his presence. Blackbeard replies by telling Edwina she can’t have the name ‘Blackbeard’, as that is his name. That scene was not only funny, it was also an interesting glimpse into Blackbeard’s perspective!
Historical accuracy: Most pirate films take place prior to the 19th century. This means the historical accuracy of the project can make or break that story. In the case of Blackbeard, the Pirate, it looked like the creative team cared about the presentation of their film! There are many ways historical accuracy can be featured in a movie. One way is through the cast’s wardrobe. While trying to escape from Blackbeard, Edwina asks Robert to untie her dress. This is so she can navigate around the ship in less layers. This scene reveals how Edwina was wearing a corset, an article of clothing that was common in the 17th century. Edwina’s outfit alone showed how much research was done to make this project look and feel historically accurate!
What I didn’t like about the film:
A misleading synopsis: According to a synopsis I read, Blackbeard, the Pirate is about Sir Henry Morgan’s attempt to capture Blackbeard and stop his pirating ways. This synopsis turns out to be a lie, as Henry doesn’t appear until fifty-seven minutes into this hour and thirty-eight-minute movie. Even while Henry is involved in the story, he isn’t given much to do. It made me wonder why Henry was included in the film in the first place?
An unclear story: Like any genre, there are several types of stories that can be told in a pirate film. But in Blackbeard, the Pirate, the movie’s creative team tried to tell several types of stories in one production. These include a quest for treasure, a “cat and mouse” chase between Henry and Blackbeard, and the hero rescuing the female protagonist from the villain. The creative team’s attempt to incorporate different types of stories prevented their movie from developing its own identity. The story itself isn’t clearly defined because of this creative choice.
A meandering protagonist: I’ve stated before how some Hallmark movies will center around a protagonist who says they’re going to do something, but spends most of the movie not doing the thing they said they were going to do. This isn’t just an issue in Hallmark films, as that was also an issue in Blackbeard, the Pirate. Through a voiceover toward the beginning of the movie, Robert claims he wants to bring Henry to the authorities, as he wants to receive the reward money. Unfortunately, Robert doesn’t make any attempts to capture Henry. In fact, he does everything but make Henry face accountability for his past actions. This meandering subplot is the result of the creative team trying to tell too many types of stories at once.
My overall impression:
I mentioned in my review’s introduction how I don’t talk about pirate films often. So, it’s disappointing when one of these movies turn out less than stellar. Blackbeard, the Pirate was, sadly, underwhelming. This was due to the weak screenwriting. Too many story ideas were incorporated into one script, preventing the film from adopting its own identity. That creative decision also caused the protagonist to not reach his goal. However, there were aspects of the movie I liked, such as the acting and the historical accuracy. But, in my opinion, the cast deserved better material. I’d like to check out more films from Linda’s filmography. Hopefully, I’ll find a movie better than Blackbeard, the Pirate.
Overall score: 5.3 out of 10
Have you seen Blackbeard, the Pirate? Are there any pirate films you like to watch? Let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silvrescreen
When the terms “American Film Institute”, “classic”, and “Austria” are put in the same sentence, most people would think of the 1965 film, The Sound of Music. While that movie has become a beloved staple in cinema, there’s another title that fits the aforementioned criteria; 1949’s The Third Man. This film also fits the criteria for Hometowns to Hollywood’s Celluloid Road Trip Blogathon: International Edition. I’ve seen several movies from American Film Institute’s list of the top one hundred films of all time. Some of these films have, in my opinion, earned their respective places on that list. Other films have left me confused, questioning why a given film is on the list in the first place. While American Film Institute’s list comes across as objective, I have learned that almost any movie list is subjective. Therefore, I’m checking out The Third Man for myself, determining if I think the 1949 film should be on American Film Institute’s list!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: In The Third Man, Ernst Deutsch portrayed Baron Kurtz, a friend of Harry Lime. Despite appearing in the film for a limited period of time, Ernst, in my opinion, stole the show! Anytime he appeared on screen, Ernst’s facial expressions were very fluid and expressive, allowing his character’s reactions to be on point. His performance makes me wish he had more appearances in The Third Man! Individual portrayals were not the only memorable performances, as I liked the on-screen chemistry between Joseph Cotten and Alida Valli. One scene shows Holly and Anna discussing Holly’s friend, Harry. This scene gave Alida and Joseph the opportunity to give their characters genuine emotion, from Anna shedding tears over how the world grew up around Harry to Holly smiling over a past memory of his friend. Their performances made their characters feel like they were meant to be together.
The set design: As mentioned in the introduction, The Third Man takes place in Austria. With the story set in Vienna, the landscape is urban, boasting a European charm that is reflective in the set design. Toward the beginning of the film, Holly goes to a restaurant in the middle of the city. The crown jewel of this location is the marble columns holding up the ceiling. Carved detailing bordered the edges on the ceiling, adding quaint elegance to the restaurant. Even the police station featured elegant design choices, such as the patterned wallpaper. The set design of The Third Man serves as a visual example of timeless beauty, still holding up 74 years later!
An honest glimpse of post-World War II Europe: The story of The Third Man takes place after World War II. Through visual presentation and the dialogue, the state of Vienna, Austria is showcased in an honest way. In one scene, Holly is being chased through the city. During this chase, Holly runs over rubble and hides in an abandoned car. Holly’s hiding place, as well as the rubble, are remnants of the war. Featuring these remnants prominently in the chase scene highlights the aftermath Vienna, Austria faced.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Tilted angles: The role of a cinematographer is to present a scene in visually appealing ways. Creative decisions relating to cinematography can make a scene memorable, allowing the audience to bring up specific moments. In The Third Man, several scenes stood out because of cinematography, as these scenes were delivered at a tilted angle. However, there was no reason for those scenes to be presented that way. In fact, the tilted angles came randomly. It felt like those scenes were filmed that way simply for the sake of it.
Tonally unfit music: Acoustic guitar served as the only soundtrack for The Third Man. While this sound was pleasant to hear in some scenes, it was jarring to hear in other scenes. When the police, in one scene, dig up a grave in order to solve a mystery, the acoustic guitar sound gave off a cheerful tone. Yet, the scene itself was very serious in tone, as the film’s mystery is a murder mystery. This is just one example of the music being tonally unfit.
Inconsistent sense of urgency: As I just mentioned, the mystery in The Third Man is a murder mystery. In these types of stories, there is typically a strong sense of urgency, as the protagonist wants to stop the guilty party from hurting other people. But in The Third Man, the sense of urgency was inconsistent. Chase scenes and the climax are where the urgency was present. However, these moments were far and few between. Most scenes featured characters talking with one another. While there can be urgency included in these moments, urgency was not prioritized in the script.
My overall impression:
In 2008, the American Film Institute released a revised list of their one hundred films of all time. On this list, The Third Man was replaced by other titles. However, it does make me wonder why this film was on American Film Institute’s original list in the first place? As I stated in my review of The Bridge on the River Kwai, movies that appear on lists such as American Film Institute’s should, in my opinion, fit one of two categories; those that represent the time they were released and those that brought something new to the cinematic table. The only explanation I can think of is how The Third Man shows Europe post-World War II. Yet Roman Holiday takes place in Italy post-World War II and never appeared on any of American Film Institute’s lists. As for bringing something new to the cinematic table, I can’t think of how The Third Man achieved that. Similar to The Bridge on the River Kwai, this movie has left me confused.
Overall score: 6-6.1 out of 10
Have you seen The Third Man? How many movies from American Film Institute’s lists have you watched? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
Hello everyone! This post is to remind anyone who is interested in participating in the Familyathon Blogathon that there is still time to sign up for the event! Information about the blogathon can be found at the link below:
Awaiting My Upcoming Blogathon; Familyathon!
Have fun at the blogathon!
Sally Silverscreen
Recently, I wrote about a movie that was recommended by one of my readers. That film was the 1998 romantic comedy, You’ve Got Mail, a title I chose to review for a recent blogathon! But that’s not the only film recommendation I’m talking about for a blogging event this month. Because September’s Genre Grandeur theme is ‘Movies That Take Place in Mexico’, I had to research titles that would be eligible for the event. When I discovered one of these movies was No Country for Old Men, I remembered how Annlyel, from Annlyel Online, had once recommended the film to me. Finding another good opportunity to review a recommended title, I selected the 2007 film for this edition of Genre Grandeur! No Country for Old Men is a movie I had heard of, as it was nominated for several awards during “awards season”. But since I hadn’t seen the film until this blogathon, I couldn’t form an opinion on it. Now that I have checked out No Country for Old Men, I can finally share my thoughts on the 2007 picture!
Things I liked about the film:
The scenery: In some scenes, the story takes place in a desert. Through screen-writing and cinematography, the desert looked photogenic on film! One of my favorite shots is when Llewelyn is returning to his truck. While he does this, a huge gray storm-cloud is slowly overtaking the sand-colored desert in the background. Thunder can also be heard. This shot looked striking on screen, as well as serving a visual representation of what was to come in the story.
Showing instead of telling: The script of No Country for Old Men doesn’t rely on dialogue. This is to emphasize the visual presentation of the story. Choosing to show instead of tell also allows the audience to figure things out for themselves. Throughout the story, Llewelyn is being chased by Anton. During this chase, it is unknown how Anton knows where Llewelyn is. Until Llewelyn makes a discovery that explains Anton’s knowledge of his whereabouts. This discovery and its connection to Anton are visually presented, with no dialogue included. The audience is given the opportunity to piece the story together because of this creative decision.
Hiding causes of suspense: As I already explained, No Country for Old Men emphasizes showing instead of telling. Another way this is accomplished is by hiding characters that cause suspense. When Llewelyn discovers a crime scene, he sees another truck is parked next to his truck, with characters entering and exiting their vehicle. Because this takes place at dawn, only the silhouette of the characters and their truck is shown. Later in the movie, Llewelyn is being chased through a small town. During the chase, the film’s antagonist can be seen in the reflection of a nearby store window. But only their silhouette is shown in this window, causing suspense to take place in the story. Both suspense and intrigue were incorporated into the film because of the use of showing instead of telling!
What I didn’t like about the film:
The run-time: No Country for Old Men is a movie that boasts a run-time of a little over two hours. While a competently written, directed, and acted story can be captured in a two-hour time-frame, I don’t think it was necessary for the 2007 film to be this long. Scenes were either drawn-out or added for the sake of satisfying this run-time. This creative decision caused the story to take longer to get to its intended point. In my opinion, No Country for Old Men could have benefitted from having a shorter run-time, say an hour and twenty or thirty minutes. The story would have reached its point sooner and the script would have been a bit tighter.
Almost no sense of urgency: Like I just mentioned in this review, No Country for Old Men has a run-time that, in my opinion, is longer than necessary. The film’s run-time caused the story to contain almost no sense of urgency, making suspense and intrigue far and few between. No Country for Old Men has a “cat and mouse” type narrative, with the protagonist constantly trying to get away from the antagonist. The chase between these characters felt like it was taking place in slow motion because of the drawn-out story. This resulted in the picture, sometimes, feeling boring.
Some things left unexplained: While I appreciate the script respecting the audience’s intelligence by allowing them to figure things out for themselves, there are some parts of the story I wish had been explained. One example is when Anton stops at a gas station. He explains to the gas station’s owner how he has a special coin that he’s carried for 22 years, stressing how his coin was meant to be at that specific place in time. Throughout the movie, however, there are no explanations provided for the coin’s significance. In fact, Anton never brings up that coin again after his stop at the gas station.
My overall impression:
Throughout cinema, there have been movies that have received an abundance of praise. Some of these films have left me confused, questioning why it has achieved its positive recognition. For me, No Country for Old Men is one of these movies. While it’s not a bad title, it does leave me wondering why it won Best Picture, let alone get nominated at all? The film has a run-time of a little over two hours. Instead of benefitting the story, the run-time caused the movie to feel too drawn-out and, sometimes, boring. There are strengths within No Country for Old Men, such as utilizing the storytelling technique of showing instead of telling. However, these strengths do not outweigh the flaws. Looking back on the movies from the western genre I’ve reviewed, I haven’t found a film from this genre I actually liked. Similar to made-for-tv movies from the 1970s and my choice for a “so bad it’s good” title, I guess it’s time to go back to square one and continue the quest.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen No Country for Old Men? Are there any movies from the western genre you’d like to see me review? Please tell me in the comment below!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
Every so often, I try to review a movie that has been recommended by one of my readers or a fellow blogger. It’s a wonderful opportunity when I can write about a recommended film for a blogging event. This is what happened when I joined the Everything Is Copy Blogathon! When I learned Rebecca’s, from Taking Up Room’s, event centered around the Ephron family, I realized no one had chosen You’ve Got Mail as their blogathon entry. Since the movie was recommended by Janis from Momshie Diaries, I found the perfect excuse to finally see the film in its entirety! You’ve Got Mail is far from the first romantic comedy (rom-com) I’ve talked about on 18 Cinema Lane. Several Hallmark Channel films have received their own review, ranging from terrible to the best I’ve ever seen. So, where does You’ve Got Mail rank among those Hallmark titles? Log in to this review to find out!
Things I liked about the film:
Tom and Meg’s on-screen chemistry: An ingredient to a successful rom-com is casting an actor and actress who share strong on-screen chemistry. This ingredient creates an on-screen relationship that feels believable. In You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan portray Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly; two literary business owners who have different perspectives on the world of bookselling. Yet, whenever they’re together, Kathleen and Joe share a spark between them, learning over time how they have more in common than they initially believed. The on-screen chemistry between Meg and Tom makes it feel like their characters have known each other for many years. It also helps how Tom and Meg brought a strong sense of likability to their characters. Even though Joe was a businessman who felt there was a time and a place for “big box stores”, his personality was more jovial than some of the businessmen who appear in a typical Hallmark Channel rom-com. Meanwhile, Kathleen’s personality was fun and fancy-free, trying to find a silver lining during autumn in New York City.
The set design: One of the conflicts in You’ve Got Mail was a bigger, chain bookstore affecting the business of a smaller, locally owned book shop. The interior design of the bigger bookstore was meant to imply how impersonal that store’s shopping experience was. But I actually liked the interior design of both stores! At the smaller book shop, the pale yellow walls paired nicely with warm wood shelves. With string lights circling near the store’s ceiling, the space itself felt cozy and quaint. At the bigger bookstore, white supporting columns, dark gray granite countertops, and shiny silver railings boasted a modern space that looked and felt heavenly. Quirky décor, such as a large, spinning silver globe and a replica of the Statue of Liberty reading a book prevented the store from being dull. Even the bookstore’s bakery section was promoted as a hip gathering space, a curved countertop with tall stools providing an area for readers to come together and enjoy each other’s company. Both spaces looked inviting and appeared photogenic!
The dialogue: The strength of dialogue can create or break a script. While the dialogue can be elevated through delivery, its believability and memorability lie in the writing talent. Within You’ve Got Mail, there was dialogue that I thought was cleverly written! One example was when Kathleen and Joe met each other at a restaurant. Using advice from her anonymous pen pal, Kathleen shared what was on her mind with Joe. Frustrated by Joe’s inability to see how his bookstore prevented other bookstores from thriving, Kathleen told Joe his brain was replaced by a cash register and his heart was taken over by the bottom line. While her statement was meant to be insulting, Kathleen’s quote was an eloquent way of illustrating how she saw Joe. Her quote also stressed how her love of literature helped her choose words that made her opinion sound mature and intelligent.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Forgettable secondary characters: In a rom-com, the main male and female character are not the only characters who can make a story work. A collection of secondary characters who interact with the protagonists can add humor, wit, and even thoughtful insight to the film. The story of You’ve Got Mail revolved so heavily around Kathleen and Joe, all of the movie’s secondary characters seemed like an afterthought. This group of actors and actresses did a good job with the material they were given. But the characters they portrayed weren’t as 3-dimensional as Joe and Kathleen. Some rom-coms will give at least one secondary character a subplot. However, no subplots were given to the secondary characters in You’ve Got Mail. Even when there was the possibility for a secondary character to receive their own piece of the story, this opportunity didn’t lead anywhere. It felt like You’ve Got Mail was the world according to Joe and Kathleen, where every other character was simply given permission to exist in it.
The protagonists’ love interests: I have seen some Hallmark rom-coms where the main male and female characters are already in a romantic relationship, only for these characters to end their previously established relationships in order to fall in love with each other. This trope is not limited to Hallmark’s films, as it appeared in You’ve Got Mail. At the beginning of the movie, the story established Kathleen is living with her boyfriend, Frank. Meanwhile, Joe is considering proposing to his girlfriend, Patricia. Because You’ve Got Mail is a rom-com, there is a greater likelihood Kathleen and Joe will fall in love. I’ve also mentioned in this review how, in my opinion, Tom and Meg had strong on-screen chemistry. Therefore, Joe and Kathleen’s previously established relationships feel pointless.
The run-time: You’ve Got Mail has a run-time of one hundred and twenty minutes. This is almost the same run-time as a typical Hallmark movie. Like I mentioned in this review, none of the story’s secondary characters were given a subplot, as the film revolved heavily around Joe and Kathleen. You’ve Got Mail’s plot includes anonymous pen pals desiring to connect in the real world. With the story being so simple and easier to follow, the movie’s run-time feels excessive. Some scenes are drawn out to likely satisfy the film’s run-time. In my opinion, You’ve Got Mail should have shown the anonymous pen pals meeting sooner. That way, they could not only help each other with their professional dilemmas, but the story itself could have become a contemporary retelling of Pride and Prejudice.
My overall impression:
Before and after the release of You’ve Got Mail, rom-coms have found their place in the world of film. Like any genre, there’s a variety of titles, some good and some bad. For me, You’ve Got Mail falls somewhere in the middle. The main romance was well written, directed, and acted. This combination allowed the protagonists to form a relationship that felt believable and charming. While the dialogue and set design certainly helped this picture, it wasn’t enough to outweigh the film’s flaws. From none of the secondary characters receiving their own subplot to the run-time, these things held the movie back from being a stronger story. With the film titled, You’ve Got Mail, and with the anonymous pen pals exchanging emails and instant messages, I’m surprised none of the story’s bookstores brought up the possibility of selling their merchandise online. In fact, I’m shocked the internet wasn’t a bigger topic/theme in this movie! I would say that was a missed opportunity. But with the film itself being just fine, I guess I don’t have much to complain about.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen You’ve Got Mail? What’s your favorite rom-com? Tell me in the comment section below!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
MVP, an abbreviation of “most valuable player” or “most valuable person”, is typically used in the world of sports. When a team member goes above and beyond for their respective team, they usually earn this title. Last year, when I was introduced to The Hobbit trilogy, the Company reminded me of a football team. With Gandalf in the role of coach and Thorin in the quarterback position, Kili is the one who, in my opinion, would be the Company’s MVP. In my “Flaming Hot…5 Reasons Why” tag post I published earlier this year, I stated Kili is my favorite character from The Hobbit trilogy. I even mentioned in that post how I felt Kili was the MVP of Middle-Earth. But claiming Kili is the MVP of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth is not purely based on personal bias. In fact, I will use examples from the trilogy to prove that Kili has, in my eyes, earned the title of MVP!
When I watched The Hobbit trilogy for the first time, I did not know Kili was a prince. I didn’t even know he and Thorin were related. So, imagine my shock when Thorin told Kili and Fili they were his “sister’s sons” in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies! Kili’s humbleness is the reason for my shock. Up until that aforementioned moment between Thorin and his nephews, Kili never brought up his royal lineage. Even in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, when he was interacting with Tauriel in Rivendell’s dungeon, Kili didn’t use his royal connections to impress her. Yes, he did bring up his mom in his and Tauriel’s conversation. But Kili never stated how he and his mom were related to Thorin.
Kili’s humbleness goes beyond his royal heritage. In The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, after his leg became injured, Kili didn’t want any help from the Company. Anytime his health was questioned, Kili would say “I’m fine”. When Thorin instructed Kili to stay in Lake Town because of his injury, Kili was frustrated he couldn’t continue on the journey. Even when he was forced to flee from Lake Town in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Kili wanted to walk by himself, not wanting to rely on anyone for support. This sequence of events shows how Kili didn’t want to be treated differently from the other members of the Company. He also didn’t want his injury to hold the Company back. Kili, simply, wanted to do his part and help his uncle and the Company in any way he could.
Throughout The Hobbit trilogy, each member of the Company had a skill to share, which allowed the Company to get closer to their ultimate goal. For Kili, he ended up having more than one skill to offer. Not only was he a swordsman, he was also an archer. In order to master just one of these skills, it requires many hours of training and a large amount of dedication. To master both sets of skills, Kili had to double his training hours and work twice as hard. The Hobbit trilogy consistently presents Kili’s talents, giving him opportunities to prove his worth as a competent swordsman and archer. One example is when Kili faced Orcs, as using his archery skills allowed him to showcase his mastery of hand eye coordination.
Kili was not known as “the voice of reason” in The Hobbit trilogy. He did not often make statements that would make others think “he has a point”. But in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Kili found the courage to become “the voice of reason”, being one of the few people to stand up to Thorin during his “dragon sickness” period. While in Erebor, Thorin ordered the Company to build a fortress, in order to prevent Erebor from being taken again. Kili points out how Thorin is not the only one who has lost his home, stating “The people of Lake Town have nothing. They came to us in need, they have lost everything”. Despite Thorin failing to acknowledge Kili’s point by reminding his nephew how he lost Erebor, Kili wasn’t dissuaded by his uncle’s stubbornness. After Thorin snapped out of his “dragon sickness”, Kili stands up to his uncle again, saying “I will not hide behind a wall of stone while others fight OUR BATTLES FOR US! It is not in my blood, Thorin”. This time, Thorin agreed with his nephew, leading the Company into battle. When he became “the voice of reason”, Kili was honest and told Thorin what he needed to hear. Even though he was “the voice of reason” for a short period of time, Kili’s statements provided a glimpse into the kind of leader he could have been.
When attempting to escape the Rivendell dungeon in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, the Company needed to open an underwater gate. Kili volunteered to open the gate, climbing out of the water and onto the top of the gate, where the gate’s lever was located. During this process, an Orc shot Kili in the leg, causing Kili to be the only member of the Company to become seriously injured. After the Company’s escape, Tauriel and the audience learn the arrow that shot Kili contained fatal poisons. As the story of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug continued, Kili’s health deteriorated, bringing him on the verge of death. Yet, when a group of Orcs invaded Lake Town, Kili and Tauriel worked together to defeat an Orc. These two scenarios show how Kili took one for the team, risking his health and safety by putting the well-being of others before himself.
In the 1971 biopic, Evel Knievel, Evel Knievel states “heroes know who they are”. He made this statement to make a point how true heroes don’t need to show off their hero status. The more I think about Evel’s quote, the more the quote fits who Kili is. Kili never flaunted his royal title because he didn’t think doing so would be necessary. What Kili did instead was let his actions and choices speak for themselves. As I said in the introduction, the Company in The Hobbit trilogy reminded me of a football team. With Kili as the MVP, that means he’d be the one to not only receive a brand-new truck at the end of the game, but also proclaim his team was going to a theme park at the end of the season. But anyone who knows Kili’s story would know Kili didn’t get to do any of these things. As I conclude this editorial, I would like to say that whenever I think of the abbreviation, MVP, I will think of Kili carrying the title of “most valuable prince”.
Have fun in Middle-Earth!
Sally Silverscreen
18 Cinema Lane 