Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: "Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel).

Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.

The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.

Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie.

The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I'm not much of an expert on acting or other movie details, but this movie just hit me deep. I don't think I'll ever forget it. One scene especially (I think that anybody who has seen the film will know of which one I am speaking) is imprinted on my brain.

I also watched the similar movie Lilja 4-ever (as referred to by a previous commentator). It was also very moving, but not quite as straight to the point and brutal. If you are sensitive at all, either will bring tears to your eyes, but Anjos Do Sol (Angels of the Sun) may stay with you forever.

This is very depressing subject matter, but I think, no, I HOPE that the film succeeds in bringing more attention to it.

More people need to see this film!!!!!!

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.

"The Blob" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Bolha" ("The Blob")