Nell, 1994

Nell, 1994
Director: Michael Apted
Cast: Jodie Foster, Liam Neeson, Natasha Richardson


Stage: Home Theatre, lonely Friday evening


Nell in short: Nell is a girl who's been brought up in an isolated world. The only people she knew were her mother and twin sister. They lived together in a cottage in the forest. Nobody has ever met Nell. After her mother's death, she's discovered by the local doctor Jerome. He's fascinated by her, since she speaks a mangled language, developed by her sister and herself growing up, "twin speak" if you will. But Paula, a psychology student, wants her observed in a laboratory. The judge decides they get three months to observe her in the forest, after which he'll decide about Nell's future.



Preps: Wow, a long time since I took a shot at this one. Have seen this a long time ago and I need to review the position :) Plus, I am in the mood for Foster and Neeson.


Reality: A breathtaking drama, with some standards we are ready to pursue until the court, later on we see, they don't hold value. Is taking someone from the environment he's used to, justified.. I mean this with every breath of my spirit.. the movie shows how devalued our standards are and how ashamed we should sometimes feel with ourselves. On the other hand, the movie shows deep respect to simple life, simple ways and means. And a touching story of a girl (now a woman), left behind when the mother dies and she being discovered by accident.

The first half of the movie is dedicated to us, reminding us what the life could have been, without it being complicated with things we are familiar with nowadays, and even more, used to. Like electricity, running water, cable, etc. Nell lives without it. And manages to get by quite easily and in a life, rich with other values. Obviously the storyline of a wild thing being caught in a scenery that can be easily discovered by "well behaved society", is intriguing, yet it shows how we are forcing everyone live up to our standards. Yet noone asks him/herself, whether our standards are good or are they just intimidating to someone's way of living. Should Nell be brought into an institution or should she be like a wild beast, with us just observing her? This is the main story inside this piece. A side story, love romance, obviously happening between the two doctors. Could have been avoided, still it gets somehow inside the main stoy in the and, so I can feel good about it.

Nell is a good thinking about how we treat wild and unknown entities that come on our path. And I believe this outcome we see in movies cannot be real. Because we are worse, we would never have left a person like Nell intact. We would really bring her into an institution and let her rotten there. Sadly, but probably more true than what was shown in the piece. Still, loved it. Jodie Foster is brilliant in this role.


My personal rating: 7,0 (solid, good piece, makes you wonder what the real virtues are and what are we ready to fight about)


Nell on IMDB

Disclosure, 1994

Disclosure, 1994
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Michael Douglas, Demi Moore, Donald Sutherland



Stage: Home theatre



Disclosure in short: With his company about to merge, a happily married and successful computer expert is expecting a promotion. Instead the job goes to a woman from another plant with whom he had an affair in his bachelor days. His new boss, not only dangerously sexy but equally dangerously ambitious, has climbed the corporate ladder by exerting undue influence on the CEO. She apparently tries to pick up where they left off but he just about manages to resist. This liaison is soon revealed to be part of her master plan to consolidate power and use Tom as a scapegoat to cover her technical misdeeds. As his position at work comes under increasing pressure he decides to file charges of sexual harassment. This is the last thing the company needs.


Preps: I can watch this on an very awqward evening, as I am thinking about someone getting on your ass over something you weren't a part of. So it seems a nice suggestion someone from TV has made on my behalf.



Reality: This is an excellent piece on getting hit by your own management and your own boss. It is amazing, how (for a change) a guy gets swollen by system and his own weaknesses. A fine learning point for anyone that gets involved with this kind of deal and needs to know what is he/she fighting against. Douglas here is the swollen man by a woman as a superior. To get weak is one thing, to abuse power, something completely else. Defined by a brilliant Crichton script, the movie has its flow, its protagonists and main message - screw or get screwed. Or put it another way - if get screwed, fight back. Don't be a small ant, be the ant with the attitude. Even though Douglas fights, he simultanously loses the game by losing things he feels dear about. Regardless of the outcome of the dispute he's having with the company, he's unemployable, man with a mark, man that will always wear a shadow, and most important, this despute importantly reflects in his personal life.

How far can the company go to cover up for something and find a guilty person among those that don't know they represent collateral damage? And how many people really have time, energy and money to back it up? Put it on the other side of coin - what is worth more, honor or normal life? And, is the life really normal, if you swallow something like that? A very old and still fresh question, fits perfectly into nowaday environment in business.

My personal rate: 8,0 (solid, straight piece. Will keep you to your knees and with mouth open until its end).


Disclosure on IMDB

Getting even with dad, 1994

Getting Even With Dad, 1994
Director: Howard Deutch
Cast: Macauley Culkin, Ted Danson



Stage: home theatre, NY selection on local TV - afternoon

Getting even in short: Ray, an ex-con and widower, is planning a coin heist with two accomplices to help him to buy his own bakery. However, he doesn't expect his son Timmy, who was living with Ray's sister, to show up at the house right in the middle of planning. Timmy is ignored and Ray and his buddies pull off the heist. Timmy gets his father's attention by stealing the coins and hiding them. To get them back, his father must take him to a number of different places and treat him like he enjoys his presence. They grow fond of each other but Timmy won't stay with his dad unless he gives up the coins.


Preps: None whatsoever. Since I don't have a better idea for a Sunday afternoon I will look at what the decent TV folks are recommending for the after NY party mood.


Reality: Yuk. Macauley Culkin in another sync of Home Alone. Hmmmmm. Well, I guess he needed to cash in the fame he had in those years. After that they would always connect him with the main character he played in those HA movies. But.. there's also Ted Danson, who shot himself into the star world with this genre. In this case, he plays a foolish dad, that doesn't want to be recognized as dad, and that in any chosen moment in the movie states this aloud without any shame or doubt. And yet, (so Hollywood like), changes his mind in one week and wants to be a father after all. Yes, also the villains and robbers have souls and urge to be daddies. The story is underestimating the viewer, more than obvious exploiting the fame of Culkin (the script is so similar to Home alone funny scenes, it's pretty straightforward what the director is trying to pull off). And most of robbers are really jackasses, but do they need to be so dumb as they show in this piece?

I strongly disrecommend this, as it will give you nothing more than a headache. Predictable flow, predictable ending, horrible script, vague cast.. hm. Don't waste your time. It's not really a family comedy, mere a family copy of Home Alone. I know, even if you see that can turn over those steps for the xxxth time, it still feels funny. But this is only because we kinda grew up with Home Alone. And everything that looks up to that movie and tries to be a better copy, only fails badly.




My personal rate: 2,0 (I wouldn't call et even decent enough to recommend it a bit. However, if you like family comedies of low intel, then it's the right choice)


Getting even with Dad on IMDB

Speed, 1994

Speed, 1994
Director: Jan de Bont
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock, Dennis Hopper


Speed in short: A young cop must save the passengers of a bus that has a bomb set to explode if the bus goes below 50 MPH.

Stage: Home TV selection


Preps: None in perticular. I have seen this in the local movies as a young girl and I adored the couple, the adventure, the idea that I could be as bold as she was and adopt a cute guy like I thought he was. Or be a brave police officer. Has to do a lot of childhood dreaming and interaction with movie characters.


Reality: I see this for the millionth time. Through this movie I became a deep fan of Sandra Bullock and am still now (although when I see her act in this case or for this time, I cannot tell why. Because it's simply said, horrible. It's not just the words or the scenario, it's the whole package). The same goes for Keanu Reeves. You can see in one of my critics (Top Gun), that I claim that to be one of the movies of my childhood. Well, the same goes for Speed. I have wanted to see this for million times and every now and then I saw it again. Now the gap between the last viewing and this one is more than 10 years and when I see it again, all the soft hystorical feeling is here, but from the critic point of view, the movie lacks energy, believability, or dare I say reality (you just don't jump over a gap with a bus and stay solid, you don't crash with a metro and survive (not like this).. it lacks true scenario and some energy between the actors. Although when seeing this as a young lady, I saw it straightforward (probably wanted to see it, anyway) - now I don't even though I try really hard.

Speed was a synonim for successful US cop forces at that point and in that time, did a great job. Looking it again from a whole different aspect and with a different approach, besides from memoirs what it was like seeing it as a child, nothing else remains. Pity.




My personal rating: 6,0 (for the sake of my memories as a child. As Top Gun, Ghost, Pretty Woman, etc, also Speed was one of my favourites and the one I could watch over and over again)


Speed on IMDB

It could happen to you

It Could happen to you, 1994
Director: Andrew Bergman
Cast: Nicholas Cage, Bridget Fonda, Rosie Perez


Stage: Home Tv selection (amazingly, they know what to show sometimes :)

It could happen in short: Charlie and Muriel Lang have led simple lives - for most of their existance. That's until they win $4 million on the lottery! There is a problem, however. Prior to winning the lottery, Charlie had eaten at a cafe and hadn't been able to tip the waitress. He had promised her, jokingly, that if he won the lottery he'd give her half of it. This is why his wife, Muriel decides to leave him. She doesn't want the waitress to get a cent of their money. Infact she wants all $4 million for herself!


Preps: I have seen this once, however do not recall it. I see that it's shown on TV and I decide to see it. Cage, Fonda,.. kind of have a clue, but am not sure. So I see it again.


Reality: The whole movie is around samaritanism.. and giving away, even if it takes the last dime you have in your pocket. Sometimes you get lucky. And sometimes you don't. For these two characters everything turns out lucky. Cage casts his all time favourite role of a victim (see him in City of angels, or something similar). Perez is this chick you have to hate. And I hate her in all her roles. I cannot believe you can be that annoying. See it in this movie, you will know what am I talking about. The whole time you wonder what in the world he is doing with her and how can she be that stupid or annoying. I wouldn't stand one hour with her, but him, for some reason, just takes on her silly way of life she's handling. Fonda's cast isn't that brilliant, however, she is supposed to make some magic with Cage, but doesn't succeed at all.

In my opinion, the movie is a good reminder of good deeds that some people still carry within themselves and the way we could look at the world if we wanted. As I said at the beginning, sometimes you get lucky and most of the good stuff you give away comes back in some shape. How about when it doesn't? Who's to blame? To blame god or some upper being is just so.. naive. And to blame yourself if you were good and did well and didn't get anything back?

The movie is a cute Sunday workout in front of TV, nothing really more to it. But it has a good message - with the samaritanism, I think. I don't suppose an undecisive and blury guy like this gets a girl ever in his life. And I don't buy giving away 2 mio USD, if you have 4. People like this just don't grow on the trees. An interesting idea, though :) (both, to have actually that amount and to give it away :)



My personal rate: 6,0 (cute and gets into your moral veins - you would love to be a samaritan if you had so much money, I am sure ;)

It could happen to you on IMDB