Q: I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.

Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?

I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.

Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan".
A: negative
Q: Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliche, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.
A: positive
Q: In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.

The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of cliches with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dancar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")
A: negative
Q: Although the movie is clearly dated, audiences can still easily identify with the plight of hapless Buster in this timeless and very funny underdog tale. Buster fights against unkindly odds in three different ages: the Stone Age, The Roman Age, and the Moden Age, playing almost the same character with just a change of scenery to help us identify the different "ages". In this movie we see one of the earliest comedic depictions of the "caveman" stereotype, who wins his love not by romance but by brute force, as well as a funny twist on Roman gladiatorial combat, two comedic sketches that long predate such spoofs as Mel Brooks' "History of the World: Part I". The underlying theme of the movie is simple yet convincing: Although the times may have-a-changed, we still face the same struggles even in modern times that we fought in prehistoric times in order to "win the girl" (keep in mind this is the theme of 1923 America, a time when chauvinism was still en vogue). It is interesting to look at this movie over eighty years later, and consider how dramatically things have changed from this movie's "modern times" to now.
A: positive