Calendar Girls - This Is What Disappointment Looks Like On A Saturday Afternoon...
Written: Jan 04 '04
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Starts out decently....
Cons: But limps the rest of the way through...
The Bottom Line: This was not the movie that I was expecting....
|
|
|
| kristinafh's Full Review: Calendar Girls |
sigh
I'm just about ready to give up on movies. Seems like the last group I've seen have been disappointing. File this under, the trailer looked good, the movie didn't follow through. My commentary will appear to give away everything however, I can assure you that it doesn't.
Just in case you haven't seen the trailers, Calendar Girls is loosely based upon the true story of a group of women who decide to raise money for charity by posing semi-nude on a calendar.
An interesting premise, perhaps. But lets backup. These aren't ordinary women. These Yorkshire residents are middle-aged members of the "Women's Institute" and have lots of parts that have become one with gravity. What motivates them to follow through on the idea is their good friend Annie (Julie Walters).
Annie loses her husband John (John Alderton) to leukemia. Her oldest and dearest friend, Chris (Helen Mirren), comes up with the idea of a calendar as a way to raise money to purchase a leather sofa for the relatives waiting room in the hospital. After spending several hours on the existing furniture, Chris and Annie agree that this is a way to give a bit of comfort to the relatives of patients who spend a great deal of time in the hospital.
After much push back from the local WI chapter and the fear of posing nude in front of a male, the 11 women of Yorkshire finally produce a calendar. It brings them lots of attention. Almost too much. Chris and Annie's relationship becomes strained because of their individual motivations behind the calendar.
So, do they kiss and make-up?
Sure they do. They're women. They're best friends.
Dying to know where it all went wrong? I guess in the trailer, I thought that this movie was headed down the comedy path. While there were definite moments that I laughed, there were more times that I didn't. And not because it was a dramatic scene. It was because the various situations that should have been hilarious, were set up SO textbook style (step 1, do this; step 2 do that), that it really spoiled the punch line for me. Sorry to be so vague. I don't want to give away the entire movie for those of you who are actually going to see it.
But let's suppose for a minute that I could get over the predictable, comedic scenes. Surely I could look at the other parts of the movie to carry that positive feeling through? Um, no. Like I mentioned in my pros, the beginning of the movie starts out decently. The characters seem to get established (which I appreciated), the story line involving the dying husband gets started, and the idea of the calendar is formulated.
What happens after that is embarrassing. Just embarrassing. I'm not sure who to blame - writers Tim Firth and Juliette Towhidi or director Nigel Cole.
What's embarrassing is that the story turns into the cliché from hell. People experience stardom and turn into assholes. Yawn. This was part of the creativity inserted into the movie to make it more interesting because I guess, the real life happenings weren't juicy enough.
Logically, I guess the writers get the first thump on the head. I don't know whose idea it was to take this down the Dynasty path (Dynasty when it wasn't good, people), put since the writers agreed to it and created this work, they need their backsides kicked.
When you've got a script that goes south like this, the least you can do as a director, is find ways to make the movie salvageable. A thump on the backside to Nigel Cole for giving up so easily and for NOT doing anything for 2/3's of the movie but executing a horrible script.
What I haven't mentioned so far are two aspects of the film that I thought would save it. First, is the acting. Second, is the cinematography.
As far as acting....My love for Helen Mirren goes all the way back to her fantastic performance as Morgana in Excalibur. She inspired *me* to play that part in our high school version and boy, did I enjoy being a vamp :). As an actress, I think she has great range and I was rather disappointed that she wasn't utilized to 1/10 of her talent. The kicker to all of this is that she was just nominated for a Golden Globe (Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy). I won't be upset now when another actress walks away with it.
The same goes for her co-star, Julie Walters. If she looks familiar to you that's because she plays Molly Weasley in the Harry Potter movies. I liked her character in this movie. I liked the vulnerability, the strength, and most importantly, the chemistry she had with Helen. If everyone would have just moved out of the way and let these two women write/direct/act in their own movie, the final product would be heads and shoulders above what we get here.
One thing the film did well is show off the beauty that can be found in the country side of England. The greens, the tans, the vast hills (can't call them mountains...), the architecture - it was all there and gorgeous. Too bad though that cinematography can't save an entire movie. Imagine that.
Calendar Girls is rated PG-13 for nudity, some language and drug-related material. If you absolutely must see it, do a matinee or wait for it on video.
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
kristinafh
|
 - Top 50 |
|
Member: Kristina Frazier-Henry
Location: Indiana
Reviews written: 1344
Trusted by: 1169 members
About Me:
Cannot breathe. Missing Barbara.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.