Cool News
A lady's look at Elizabeth Shue's MOLLY, and she didn't like what she saw
Here's a film I have heard nothing about, but I'm anxious for more women to chime in with test screening reviews, and other contributions to balance out the testosterone we guys fling all over these pages. Here's the first look at MOLLY... Take a gander at the Sweeper...
Harry, I'm going to take your approach to reviewing and tweek it a bit.
I'm not going to bore you with the tedium of my day. (Perhaps knowing
that my days lately are tedious is enough to guess at my state-of-mind.)
I will, however, give you my preconceptions before going in.
• First, I'm not a big Elisabeth Shue fan. Yes, I saw Leaving Las Vegas
and The Saint and many of her other films ....and I'm still not a big
Elisabeth Shue fan. I think she is highly over-rated. Of course, the
camera loves her face and that cute smile and that great hair, and she
has some jugs, but come on boys, can you look past her to see her bland
acting? Plus, when I see her give interviews, she's rather pompus. I
don't like it. There is quiet confidence, as seen in Jody Foster, Meryl
Streep, Kathy Bates. And then there is pompusness. The later is not
becoming.
•Second, when I was given the screening pass, part of the "recruiter's"
schitck included, "and I hear Elisabeth Shue is really phenomenal."
Barf. Don't tell me what to think before if you want to get an honest
opinion out of me later. It makes me think that the studios do these
screenings to affirm that they're good enough, smart enough, and
dawgonnit, people like their movies, instead of really looking for some
honest upper-middle class, educated feedback. But I digress.
•Third, here's the plot summary that was on the screening pass:
"'Molly' is a lighthearted, uplifting story about the bond that develops
between Molly (Elisabeth Shue), a mentally challenged woman, and her
brother Buck. After sharing many humorous and compassionate moments,
Buck approves a risky medical procedure that miraculously cures Molly
giving her extraordinary mental powers. Her rapid intellectual and
emotional growth provides many laughs while forcing Buck to let go and
complete his own life." I find this, again like the recruiter's
comments, to be "leading the witness" if you will. Lame.
•Fourth, doesn't the plot summary sound a bit like Phenomenon, with John
Travolta? Hey, maybe that is why the recruiter called Shue
"phenomenal." Maybe it was supposed to be a sort of subliminal message,
you know, like, "if you liked Phenomenon, you'll love Molly." I smell
people trying to enduce hype. Didn't they read the Newsweek article,
Harry? Don't they know that buzz is the preferable reaction? Oh that's
right, these exec types probably do a lot of talking and not a lot of
reading, even of the Newsweek variety. But again I digress.
•Fifth, not that I'm trying to toot my horn, but just so you know my
viewpoint, I am an actor, so I tend to tune into the acting and
directing of a piece first, audience manipulation second, and plot and
design(scenic, sound, lighting, et al) third. If I don't notice any of
these elements, I consider the film to be at masterpiece level because
it means that I was so wrapped up that I forgot to analyse. Also, I'm
formally educated, so sometimes my observations tend to be analytical
rather than visceral. Again, only including this so you know my POV,
not to brag.
• What I AM NOT: an angry lesbian; a disgruntled actor, angry because
Elisabeth is getting roles and I am not; a smoker; an emotional leaky
pipe; a rebounding girlfriend; a grrrl; a guy; a star-struck Harry
fanatic trying to get on his good side so that he'll take me with him to
the Prequel Screening at the Skywalker Ranch--an event that we all know
he'll be invited to; a role-playing gamer, or a Sci-Fi fan, or a D&D
person; I've never read the LOTR series, (although I must say that the
Peter Jackson involvement on this site has intrigued me); I don't get
into the X-Files or Star-Trek. Not that there is anything wrong with
these things, they just aren't me.
• What I AM: an average gal, living in South Orange County, CA; a 29,
Northern European-American, female; a summa cum Laude graduate for the
University of Minnesota (OK, I am bragging); a high school teacher of
English; ick, this is starting to sound like a personal ad. I simply
love film, as do most of you, and like to think that my review will come
from an informed opinion. Hope it helps you to make an informed
decision later on down the line.
Needless-to-say, I'm not expecting Citizen Kane. I highly doubt that
"Molly" is going to make the AFI's top 100. But I'm going anyway.
Wanna know why? Because I'm hoping that maybe I'll be surprised. You
never know. It's happened before. In fact, I think that the best movie
experiences are not those that live up to your expectations, (like I'm
certain Star Wars will do,) but those that surprise you. I'm hoping
that it will make me cry. I'm hoping that Elisabeth Shue will change my
mind about her abilities. I'm hoping that you all will find it to be
worth your $5-8 bucks when it comes to a theatre near you. I just doubt
it.
By the way, this background info has been laid down before the
screening. I wanted to give you my pure state-of-mind before facing the
recruiters again. I'll be back within a few hours to tell you how it
went.
MOLLY
Just as I thought. It's really not very good. Not horrible, but not
good. Now, as stated above, I don't mind being manipulated, especially
if it is deftly done. However, overt manipulation is offensive. It's
like walking into a store, trying on a pair of jeans, knowing that they
are a bit too tight and that after a piece of pie you might develop
camel toe. Then the clerk comes over and tells you that they look great
on you. You want to do two things: believe her, and spit in her face.
But both, you know, are wrong. Mostly, you want to run out of that
store and never return.
If you need a quick Hollywood sell on "Molly," you could describe it as
the plot of Awakenings meets a Dustin Hoffman in Rainman/Mickey Rooney
in Bill character mix--without DeNiro, Hoffman, or Rooney. Plus, the
plot summary handed out by the recuiter's DOES NOT describe the movie
that we saw. Molly, does not get extraordinary powers. She does not
get "powers" at all. She just becomes less retarded. And Buck is not
"forced to let go and complete his own life," and ending which could
have improved this movie. Instead he takes her on after she loses her
temporary intelligence.
In looking for the good, I'll offer this:
Thomas Jane, who plays Molly's love interest is subtly wonderful. At
the beginning, there is an uncredited Asian actress who is interesting,
but they get rid of her in the first ten minutes. When Elisabeth Shue
allows Molly to be free of inhibitions, she's alright, but otherwise her
"irregular retard" (the scientific name given to her condition by the
movie) takes on most of the broad movie stereotypes of "retards" that we
have seen for generations. The actors try to make the most of a
mediocre situation, but they are mediocre actors and apparently haven't
been given the push that was needed to make this more than it is.
I could go on and on but why bother.
It doesn't surprise me that they are going to release this in March when
all sorts of dud movies come out. I wanted to like this. I really did.
But, well.... What can I say.
Til next time The Sweeper
Any posting in TALK BACK labeled as Harry Knowles is not me. I will no longer be posting to Talk Back till the registration software is installed. So if you see someone acting like me, they are full of baloney. Have fun posting. Harry
-
+ Expand All
-
Good review,
Kinda interesting to describe yourself in detail. Like it though (review style.) In my tetosterone developed mind. I would love to see her go mano-a-mano against Hallenbeck.
-
I'm probably not going to see Molly, All theses "Flowers for Algernon movies remind me of high school english class. But this was a very entertaining review. I'm not a grrrl or a lesbian, but I can kiss ass well (I work for the govt), can Harry take me to the skywalker ranch?
-
Your review was great, reminded me of the time, during college, when I went to a screening of "Blue Steel" AARRGGHH! If it hadn't been a new experience it would have been a complete waste of time, but I did feel the same as you. Please Mr. or Ms. Recruiter, don't insult our intelligence!
Keep up the reviews! -
Now, this is what the reviews on ACIN should be. Telling us some things about the viewer, who they are and what they like and what the reviewer thinks of the movie
and the actors/actresses who star
in it. This review had more intelligence and wit than anything
Hallenbeck has done recently.
I used to like Hallenbeck but
he's so accustomed to using profanity thinking it's a great way to pan a movie, he's not really telling us why he doesn't like it but just how annoying
he's become from a great reviwer
to a bad one...and that's a shame
in his early days Hallenbeck and
now this reviewer are giving us
the real deal on the movies, not
the kind of artistic whining
film criticism we get from
Stanley Kaufman or Janet Maslin
but a real person's opinion
on the movie and no holds-barred
in what the person thinks of
the movie. When the reviewers on ACIN love a movie, they really love the movie and when they hate a movie, they really hate it.
Keep up the great work and
thanks Harry for allowing
people like the reviewer of Molly
and Moriarty and the others
on ACIN to tell us people
who really have a life (unlike the film critics) and really
must decide whether or not we want to shell out 12 dollars to
see a movie, what is really
worth seeing at the movies
and what is not.
-
OK, someone pretend you're William Safire and give me/us the scoop on this fascinating linguistic nugget.
"It's like walking into a store, trying on a pair of jeans,
knowing that they are a bit too tight and that after a piece of pie you might develop camel toe."
-
I don't know about "Molly", but the Sweeper sounds like my kind of woman.
-
Nice review, but shouldn't a summa cum laude graduate of University of Minnesota know how to spell "pompous"? Hope that doesn't sound too pompous.
-
I hope to hear more from the Sweeper in the future. Fine review, but she should just make a geocities website or something to forever immortalize her self-characterization.
Oh, and the movie sound like it screams "RENT ME FOR A BUCK!" Only good Elizabeth Shue performance I saw was in palmetto with Woddy harrelson because she got to vamp it up. -
Camel toe is what happens when a female's pants or shorts or whatever are too tight in the crotch. The rest is up to your imagination.
-
Sheesh. I don't know what to say about your thoughts for I have not seen the movie yet, but...Why don't say anything about Aaron Eckhart in that movie, eh? C'mon, us Neil labute fans want to know!
-
I read this review and your reviewer missed the point.
The plot as described is not a rip off of "Phenomenon" rather it is a blatant rip-off of the book "Flowers for Algernon" which became the movie "Charley" which starred....well never mind.
It's an older movie and book (gee in those grand old days before video) so I'm sure the reviewer isn't aware of it.
Yours,
Brian
-
I couldn't even finish reading this review. Can Sweeper really expect anyone (besides her summa cum laude self, of course) to take her seriously? The fact that she is a self-proclaimed, "formally educated," "upper-middle class," "summa cum laude" graduate of Minnesota, "HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHER," who can't spell "tweak" much less "pompous" inspired... Fits of giggles? Gasps of despair? Fear for our children's future? I simply can't choose just one reaction.
-
The review was a nice alternative to the...*ahem*, male perspective shown so often around here. Sexy as she may be, Shue is really not a very good actress, so it's not suprising the movie didn't soar. Personally, I laughed to the point of tears during the Saint when she gave her 'scientific' lecture on cold fusion wearing that kicky little schoolgirl outfit, complete with kneehigh socks. And there was noooo inuendo in her breathy attempt at describing the principles of cold fusion to the Oxford undergrads. Every female scientist I've known in academia (quite a few), act the exact same way when defending controversial theories in front of their peers. Anyway, the review was good, but why hasn't a high school english teacher read The Lord Of The Rings?
-
I'd love to stop by your classroom to pick up some candy. By the way, does that candy jar in any way resemble a camel's toe?
-
This review is dead-on, and besides, anyone with half a lobe knows that studios pull these illness/handicap challenge/infirmity movies out of their nether-orifices for one thing: OSCARS. How else are you going to get big acting sequences that will throttle the Academy's collective throat? Sink an unsinkable ship?! Yeah, I'd like to see THAT happen. You're alright, ma'am.
-
I actually had the...ahem..."privilege" of watching a great deal of the shooting of MOLLY, then known as RESCUE ME. It was a pathetic mess then, and I'm not surprised at all to learn it's a pathetic mess now. As an actor myself (and writer), I should also add that if you think Shue is bad, you should have seen the "alleged actors" (thank you, Joe Queenan) playing Romeo and Juliet. The worst thing about it was that Shue is an extremely pleasant individual in person, so mostly, I just felt sorry for her having to deliver those unspeakably awful lines of dialogue. Incidentally, Sweeper, I'm a thirtyish white/Hispanic male with an advanced degree, high school teaching experience, acting credentials, and a love of all things cinematic. I'm also blessed with actual job opportunities in the movie biz. SWM geek seeks SFW geekrix!
-
...for pointing out another "must miss" movie! I find it very interesting that the goobs in charge didn't seem to know the movie they were marketing. How did they come up with that write up? Had they not seen the movie? Did they base it off a script that was butchered by the director and editors? Are they so out of touch with reality that they really think they made the movie that was described to you? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion (no, I can't spell either, in spite of four years of a liberal arts education) that they are, in fact, so out of touch?
And I'm a bit surprised to see a reviewer like Sweeper here. No, it's not your sex, it's your lack of geek credentials. Not a Trek fan? Never played D&D? Never read LotR? Ye gods! What's next, movie reviews by golf pros? How ungeeky can you get? ;)
Thanks again, Sweeper, and kudos all around to the entire AICN crew.
- Brian -
"Plus, when I see her give interviews, she's rather pompus[sic]. I don't like it. There is quiet confidence, as seen in Jody[sic] Foster, Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates. And then there is pompusness[sic]. The later[sic] is not becoming. "
Hmm. I could say the same for "The Sweeper's" movie reviews.
I'm not a Elizabeth Shue fan either. In fact, I have trouble reconciling the fact that she continues to get roles.
Regardless, I found it humorous how the same actress-cum-reviewer who prates on about the arrogance of a certain actress can blow her own horn so irritatingly.
One wonders how she went summa cum laude without being able to spell. The standards at the University of Minnesota have obviously fallen a few notches.
-N
-
I am no fan of miss Shue's acting, but I can see where her appeal lies. I think it has to do with her face, and how fine her features are. She is beautiful, but she doesn't seem to be unreachably exotic the way a fashion model might be. As for the reviewer, it sounds as if she is either jealous, or intimidated.
She seemed to go out of her way to attack the character of a person she doesn't know, and belittle her from the safety of anonymous E-space. It is a peculiarly feminine competetive impulse to verbally trash a perceived rival or threat, and on the whole, it's perfectly understandable. Even so, Sweeper would probably feel guilty about saying such things if she had the occasion to meet Ms. Shue in person - Provided of course that she didn't turn out to be pompous after all. A single intervue is not the greatest way to gain insight into another person's character, and neither is a single posting on a web site. I hope that one's spelling is not an accurate measure of intelligence, because I had to refer to a dictionary about 15 times in writing this post, and still probably missed something. -
Actually, the plot behind "Molly" sound more like the story "Flowers for Algernon", later made into a movie called "Charly" starring Cliff Robertson in the mid-70's.
It was about a retarded man who was given some sort of treatment, then could outsmart a computer (well, considering the computers back then, that probably wasn't much of a feat). Inevitably, however, he falls back to earth, and is his old self again.
-
Everybody give her room! Welcome to the Sweeper, bringing in a fresh breeze to revive us jaded geeks! Great review style, DEFINITELY want to see you vs.Hall, also want to see you review a film you like with people you like in it. And guys out there, ease up on teachers, we can't be on the job 24 hours a day, whatever one's employers (here in the UK, in my case, it's the government) think you should. I teach History and English, and even one of our Deputy Heads who teaches English occasionally makes spelling errors. Anyway, typing isn't the same as writing on the board - I make far fewer errors on the board than I do here in TalkBack.
Sweeper, you sound like most of the English teachers we have in this school and some of the others I've been in. Geeks, it ain't so surprising that many English teachers haven't read any Tolkien - I may have been obsessesd with it in high school, but my fellow English colleagues often had to face The Hobbit at gunpoint from obsessed teachers, or, worse, totally disinterested and disdainful teachers. They have grown up with a lot of the tenn literature I, and other geeks I know, have skipped, and which are now, at least in this country, to be found in the English curriculum nationally. The wheel turns, ladies and gents; I worry that the next generation of English teachers will not have read all sorts of stuff (I've met English teachers who *whisper* hate SHAKESPEARE...here in the UK!!!) and what that could lead to ...
I digress. Suffice to say, a breath of fresh air, Sweeper, welcome; Hallenbeck, take up the gauntlet and entertain us all! -
And I'm not fond of "chick flicks". And this stars Elizabeth Who? Who the heck is Ms. (Mrs.?) Shue? Was she a star once? I'm sorry, I've never heard of her. Maybe it is because this is her 16th minute of fame...
I'll bet you anything that she will be, if not already, as forgotten as Sharon Stone and Alicia Silverstone. The only way they'll have a lead role in a major film if they sleep with all of the studio's suits... but their stars have faded so much even that may not be enough!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Antepenultimate THRONES!! Lane Pryce Returns To MAD MEN!! Roger Waters On 60 MINUTES!! Plus GIRLS, VEEP, SIMPSONS, BURGERS, KILLING, METALOCALYPSE, SHERLOCK!! THE LAST SUNDAY OF SWEEPS!! -- 102 total posts 95 posts
- Duncan Jones To Tell The Story Of Ian Fleming! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- SNL Says Goodbye To Kristen Wiig!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts
- Hercules Picks Next Season’s 10 Most Promising New Broadcast Series!! -- 131 total posts 43 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will traumatize you. -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 34 total posts 34 posts
- There Can Be Only One... Ryan Reynolds?! -- 404 total posts 30 posts
- Dan Harmon Done As COMMUNITY Showrunner!! -- 148 total posts 21 posts
- Quint thinks John Hillcoat's prohibition-era flick LAWLESS is violently awesome! Cannes 2012! -- 69 total posts 20 posts
- Adrian Hieatt Gives Us His Second Daily Report From KAPOW! Comic Convention in London! The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! TOTAL RECALL! DC NEW 52! DAVE GIBBONS! And More! -- 18 total posts 18 posts