Introduction

  

Click this link to read:

Sarah and David: The Sequel

placeholder

Ferrari (2023) [R] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net on Dec. 23, 2023.

With Ferrari, Michael Mann falls afoul of one of the pitfalls of the bio-pic: by focusing too tightly on one brief period in the main character’s life, he creates an is that all there is? feeling. Although the real Enzo Ferrari was a larger-than-life individual, the movie, which focuses on events from 1957, provides only the briefest of glimpses into the life of one the 20^th century’s icons, relying on dialogue to fill in some of the blanks. Although this approach is arguably preferable to an alternative – attempting to cram 50+ years into two hours – it results in viewers never really understanding Ferrari as a man. Despite a riveting portrayal by Adam Driver, he remains an inscrutable figure even after spending 130 minutes with him.

Ferrari drops us into Enzo’s life in early 1957, follows him through several months until just after the final Mille Miglia race (May 11-12), then exits with many plot threads left unresolved. It is therefore more of a snapshot than a full-fledged biography. The movie explores the business difficulties experienced by Ferrari (the company), which is drowning in red ink. Enzo, still emotionally rent by the death of his son, Dino (who died in June 1956), is involved in an increasingly difficult marriage with his wife of 34 years, Laura (Penelope Cruz), and is facing demands from his long-time mistress, Lina Lardi (Shailene Woodley), regarding his illegitimate son, Piero. While attempting to balance family issues, Enzo hires a new, hot shot driver, Alfonso De Portago (Gabriel Leone), and enters five cars into the 1000-mile cross-Italy Mille Miglia where a win would increase the company’s prestige sufficiently to allow Enzo to enter into a favorable partnership with a larger car manufacturer, such as Fiat or Ford.

Mann’s typical high-energy approach imbues Ferrari with intensity. The racing sequences generate tension and excitement (especially the Mille Miglia). The film is less certain when focused on more intimate interactions, such as Enzo’s dialogues with his wife and mistress. Mann’s zenith as a filmmaker was in the 1990s (when he made, in succession, The Last of the Mohicans, Heat, and The Insider). Since then, his films have been largely hit-and-miss affairs and he hasn’t made anything for eight years (2015’s Blackhat). Ferrari seems an odd choice for his return to the spotlight but, despite occasional moments of cinematic flair, one would never associate this with the man who spearheaded Miami Vice.

Ferrari is anchored by the strength of Driver’s performance. Partially obscured underneath effective aging makeup, he could easily be mistaken for Michael Imperioli. Driver’s portrayal presents Ferrari as a tragic figure trapped between a loveless marriage with a mentally unstable wife and an affair with the woman and child he wishes he could acknowledge. He is hyper-focused on business but not so consumed that he ignores the gravesite of his recently-deceased adult son, Dino. To the extent that we come to understand Ferrari, it’s more due to Driver’s performance than anything in the screenplay. He is ably supported by a vibrant Penelope Cruz, who enlivens the production whenever she’s on screen. The scene in which her character confronts Enzo with the truth behind her betrayal is riveting.

Ferrari may prove a difficult sale for distributors NEON and STX Entertainment. Despite Mann’s involvement, it doesn’t have the cache to be a prestige film and movies of this nature are typically finding greater interest on streaming sites than in theaters. Although Driver’s performance may earn some deserved Oscar buzz, that likely won’t be enough to push the needle and there probably aren’t enough sports car enthusiasts to juice the box office. As a well-acted standard-order bio-pic, Ferrari delivers but as something more, it falls short. (Berardinelli's rating: 3 stars out of 4)

Labels: action, auto-racing, biography, drama, Ferrari, history, romance, sport, tragedy
IMDb 64/100
MetaCritic (critics=73, viewers=65)
RottenTomatoes (critics=73, viewers=73)
Blu-ray
Netflix
Berardinelli's original review (3 out of 4 stars) 

Blogger's comment: While I appreciate Berardinelli's perspective, I believe this period in time was a defining moment in Ferrari's life and I appreciate the historical accuracy. The 1957 Mille Miglia was marred by the tragic death of Ferrari driver Alfonso de Portago, his navigator and nine roadside spectators, including five children, in the village of Guidizzolo when his car hit an object on the road, blew a tire, spun out and became airborne. As a result, the Italian government forever banned all racing on public roads, permanently ending the thousand mile road race.

If you are a fan of auto-racing, and you appreciate films like Grand Prix (1966), RUSH (2013), Ford v Ferrari (2019) and F1: The Movie (2025), I predict you will enjoy Ferrari.

Barefoot in the Park (1967) [G] ****

 An uncredited review published in Time magazine, June 9, 1967

Barefoot in the Park is one of the few plays to be reincarnated on-screen while playing on the Broadway stage. Happily, it loses little in transition.

Essentially, author Neil Simon has taken a plot as bland as a potato, sliced it into thin bits—and made it as hard to resist as potato chips. Two spoiled young honeymooners (Robert Redford and Jane Fonda) settle into a six-flight walk-up apartment in Greenwich Village. In Ogden Nash's phrase, a little incompatibility is the spice of life, particularly if he has income and she is pattable. And so it proves in Barefoot. The puny pad she has chosen has no heat, no bathtub, and a hole in the skylight.

When Redford remonstrates, Fonda starts sniping - only to agree to a cease-fire when her middle-class mother (Mildred Natwick) arrives. Before long, they are joined by a randy reprobate of a neighbor (Charles Boyer) known as the Bluebeard of Tenth Street. Bluebeard leads the way to an Albanian hash house that serves such delicacies as black salad and ouzo. The foursome eventually wend their way home, whereupon Fonda and Redford drunkenly declare all-out war.

She is a nut, he declares, whose idea of fun is walking barefoot in the park in 17-degree weather. Your laundry arrived, she simpers. They stuffed your shirts beautifully. But if the couple's happiness seems as short as their tempers, their misery is just as temporary. By the final reel they are neck and neck in a race for the bed, and even Natwick and Boyer have found something in common - stomach trouble.

The film is not an original-cast production. Sly substitutions have been made, notably Fonda for Broadway's Elizabeth Ashley. Jane's performance is the best of her career: a clever caricature of a sex kitten who can purr or scratch with equal intensity. Among the tastiest leftovers from the stage are Redford as the harassed husband and Mildred Natwick, skittering on the edge of hysteria as she articulates the film's philosophy to her daughter: Make him feel important. If you do that, you'll have a happy and wonderful marriage, like two out of every ten couples.

Labels: comedy, Robert Redford, romance
IMDb 70/100
MetaCritic (critics=55, viewers=68)
RottenTomatoes (critics=81, viewers=79)
Blu-ray

Blogger's comments: Barefoot in the Park is notable for another reason. When Redford asks something like: We're going to be doing this for the next fifty years? and Fonda replies: We're only going to be married for fifty years? it reminded me that exactly half a century later they would star together in Our Souls at Night (2017) and she would say in an interview that she had fallen in love with him so deeply that she would look into his eyes and forget her lines. And I can see that passion in the intensity of her performance. 

And there's something else that most viewers will not see. The opening scene of the film is at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, where they get out of their horse-drawn carriage and enter the hotel to begin their week-long honeymoon. The same Plaza Hotel setting is used six years later in the final scene of the Redford - Streisand film The Way We Were (1973).

Arriving at the Plaza Hotel, Barefoot in the Park

Final Scene from The Way We Were

Remarkably Bright Creatures (2026) [PG-13] ****

A film review by Kate Erbland for IndieWire on May 7, 2026.

There is much to admire about Olivia Newman’s Where the Crawdads Sing follow-up Remarkably Bright Creatures, another film adaptation of a beloved (and bestselling) novel. There’s Sally Field, in a role that has already earned her awards accolades, and a massive octopus voiced by Alfred Molina. There’s a crowd of chatty best pals that include Joan Chen, Kathy Baker, and Beth Grant. There are actual locations (a sea that is a sea! what an idea!). There’s Lewis Pullman, continuing to work his own dad’s (Bill Pullman's) charming everyman appeal.

And there’s something increasingly rare (yes, even more rare than Alfred Molina voicing a huge sea creature): a book-to-film adaptation that actually adapts the material, and does not just crib blindly from the original. Fans of Van Pelt’s novel might balk at what Newman and co-writer John Whittington have snipped from her story (huge apologies to Pullman’s character’s early backstory and his beloved aunt, similar regrets to Field’s character’s brother), but the trims that run throughout the film are smart and useful. They serve the story, yes, but also its new shape as a film.

And, as a film, this tear-jerking story about giant sea creatures, broken people, and huge secrets works well enough. Much like Van Pelt’s novel, it’s a cozy little drama with twists and turns that feel both inevitable and delightful. It’s all bolstered by Field and Pullman’s performances, which crackle with chemistry and good choices, nothing big or showy here. If you’re looking for a pick for the entire family, this is a solid one, and that’s no small feat in the crammed streaming world, where it can too often feel as if there’s plenty of content but nothing that feels actually made for people.

Or octopuses! At the center of the story is Molina’s tentacled avatar, Marcellus, a giant Pacific octopus who has lived most of his life at the cozy and clean Sowell Bay Aquarium, located near Puget Sound. Many of the details of Marcellus’ life — like how he came to be rescued — will be revealed later, but his primary characteristic is on full display from the start. Marcellus is really, really smart, which Molina imparts via a wry and world-weary voice-over. In Van Pelt’s book, Marcellus gets his own chapters to share his story and observations, and transferring these bits into a consistent voice-over narration is yet another example of this smart scripting.

Marcellus is, in fact, smart enough that he’s figured out how to get out of his tank, explore (read: eat some of his fellow aquarium residents), and get back in without anyone noticing. But Marcellus is growing older, so his assignations are getting slower, and the consequences of his ramblings are getting worse. Thankfully, he has at least one other creature he can trust: Field’s Tova, the aquarium’s dedicated overnight cleaner, who shares a dream of the sea that even Marcellus can deduce.

Or, as he tell us: they both dream of the bottom of the sea and what we lost there. For Marcellus, it was his freedom. For Tova, it was her beloved only son, Erik.

That Marcellus knows that, that Tova has told him about it, is the crux of the story. If you can not only buy that, but delight in it, Remarkably Bright Creatures is very much for you. (It was very much for me.)

Tova’s existence is about to be upended by the arrival of another flighty young man. Cameron Cassmore (Pullman) lands in Sowell Bay, convinced his unknown father not only lives there, but is wildly rich and perhaps interested in meeting the kid he never knew he had. Finding him, however, is proving tricky, and the perpetually down-on-his-luck Cameron sure needs a job in the interim. Thank God that most people in Sowell Bay, like local grocery story owner Ethan (Colm Meaney) are so happy to welcome outsiders. Thank God also that Tova just sustained a minor injury (she slipped while helping Marcellus, but no one can know that) and her gig at the aquarium needs a temp fill-in. Thank God he’s about to meet Marcellus.

Oh, and he’s still about to meet Tova.

Despite this rambling semi-introduction, Newman’s film makes quick work of all of this, recognizing that getting to the Tova-and-Cameron show (with, of course, many guest appearances by Marcellus) is the entire point of the picture. As Cameron adjusts to life in Sowell Bay (more bonding with Ethan, who is a little hung up on Tova, plus his own potential romance with Avery, played by a peppy Sofia Black-D’Elia), Tova starts to inch her way out of it.

The pains and pleasures of family life are top of mind for her. Widowed, heartbroken, and left rattling around the house her own father built (the film has a real sense of place, both out in the town and inside the aquarium and Tova’s home), Tova is preparing to decamp for a retirement home across the bay. Everyone — including smitten Ethan and her rowdy pack of pals — think this is a bad idea. What, however, will become most important is what Cameron thinks, and what part he comes to play in Tova’s life.

The film does occasionally lean on flashbacks of Tova and her long-gone son Erik to fill in some blanks — and lay out some real winking table-setting — but Remarkably Bright Creatures fares better when Tova or Cameron are telling their woes to Marcellus or even each other. Zippy, smart editing moves us through the story, drawing connections where necessary, bolstered by that old octopus voice-over, and gently guiding us to some major plot points.

Never fear, book lovers, the film sticks firmly to its late act upheavals and revelations, and even manages to make them feel richer and more earned here. Maybe it’s something about seeing Sally Field bond with an octopus, or watching a true inter-generational friendship blossom on screen, or maybe it’s just something more obvious: taking the best parts of a sweet story, and paring it down to its best bits. Or, well, best arms? Tentacles? Whatever can reach out and touch you, just as this film will. (Erbland's rating: B)

Labels: drama
IMDb 79/100 
MetaCritic (critics=56, viewers=45)
RottenTomatoes (critics=79, viewers=91)
Netflix

The Quiet American (2002) [R] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net in 2003.

No movie exists in a vacuum, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the case of Phillip Noyce's version of The Quiet American. Filmed prior to September 11, 2001, and scheduled to open weeks after that pivotal date, the movie ended up sitting on a shelf for more than a year because its U.S. Distributor, Miramax, worried that the story line might seem anti-American. In fact, the so-called controversy surrounding The Quiet American seems blown out of proportion. The movie is critical of U.S. foreign policy regarding Vietnam in the 1950s, but, considering how things turned out, can one argue that the criticism is unjustified? Americans are not demonized, and the allegorical aspects of the story are no more damning than the ones found in the text. Ironically, considering recent (2003) current events – including the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the buildup towards war with Iraq – one could argue that The Quiet American has far more relevance now than Noyce could have envisioned when he was constructing it.

It's 1952 Saigon, and British journalist Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine) is about to find his comfortable life upset by the arrival of a fresh-faced, self-effacing American medical aid worker. Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser) at first seems to be nothing more than an idealistic young doctor, but his activities cause Thomas to wonder whether he has an alternate agenda. Meanwhile, Alden falls for Thomas' beautiful young Vietnamese mistress, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen). Because Alden is unattached, while Thomas is married to a woman in London who will not give him a divorce, Alden can offer Phuong one thing that Thomas cannot: a wedding ring.

At the time when the movie takes place, Vietnam is being torn being torn apart by the rival Communists and French, who still considered Indo-China to be their colony. Into this mix comes a third faction – that of General Thé (Quang Hai), a egotistical megalomaniac who is revered by a segment of the population and backed by an invisible financial institution with deep pockets. Thé organizes terrorist actions against Vietnamese citizen, then blames the Communists in order to curry international sympathy for his side. As the story unfolds, Thomas recognizes that Alden has unexpected influence where Thé is concerned.

The screenplay, by Christopher Hampton and Robert Schenkkan, downplays the heavy allegorical aspects of Graham Greene's source novel in favor of the romantic triangle. The Quiet American is primarily a tragic love story set against the backdrop of the beginnings of the turbulent conflict that would devastate much of the small Asian country. We see the roots of the Vietnam War, and have no trouble understanding that the United States' rabid win-at-all-costs struggle against the Devil of Communism led to bad alliances and shortsighted determinations.

The acting, especially by the male leads, is superlative. Michael Caine, who is being mentioned as a possible Oscar nominee, brings a sad, world-weariness to his portrayal of Thomas. The aging newspaper writer wants nothing more than to spend the rest of his days going through the comfortable routine of his daily life spent in the company of the one woman he truly loves. If I lost her, he comments, it would be the beginning of death. Meanwhile, Fraser trades in on his reputation for playing affable, somewhat innocent characters, to trick us into thinking that Alden is more straightforward than he actually is.

From a dramatic standpoint, I have a quibble with The Quiet American's structure. The movie begins at the end, telling most of the story in flashback. Unfortunately, this means that we know from the start how the love triangle is going to be resolved, and which character will die. While this approach heightens the movie's allegorical elements, it diminishes the dramatic and romantic tension. Director Phillip Noyce obviously felt comfortable about the trade-off, but I'm not sure it works in the film's favor. However, all things considered, Noyce has wrought an often-compelling tale of life, love, and jealousy played out under the gathering storm clouds of war. (Berardinelli's rating: 3 stars out of 4)

Labels: drama, period, romance, thriller, tragedy, war
IMDb 70/100
MetaCritic (critics=84, viewers=70)
RottenTomatoes (critics=87, viewers=72)
Blu-ray
Berardinelli's original review

F1: The Movie (2025) [PG-13] ****/*****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net, June 26, 2025.

When it comes to the nuts and bolts of car racing movies, there’s a tendency to follow the trends and tropes of the wider sports film genre in which they form a sub-category. The difference is that when Robert Redford steps to the plate or Sylvester Stallone delivers a punch, the stakes tend to be more personal than permanent. Golfers, basketball players, and sluggers generally don’t have to worry about being carted away in a body-bag; the specter of the Grim Reaper is one thing that differentiates F1:The Movie and all its car-racing contemporaries from most sports films. Sometimes in car racing, it’s not so much about crossing the finish line first but living to race another day.

There’s a lot of dramatic potential inherent in this kind of movie but F1 is less interested in developing new tracks than in doing the best it can with existing ones. Ehren Kruger’s by-the-numbers screenplay could have been churned out using AI – the film’s human element aspects are perfunctory and familiar and the narrative rarely veers from the expected trajectory. Those who see F1 shouldn’t expect any surprises or twists and the collaborative involvement of the FIA (the sports’ governing body) takes a lot of possibilities off the table. All that being said, director Joseph Kosinski delivers an experience on par with his earlier mega-hit, Top Gun: Maverick, without the benefit of nostalgia or Tom Cruise. The Grim Reaper’s hovering presence helps with the tension but F1 mostly delivers because of the easygoing charm of Brad Pitt, the energetic camerawork of Claudio Miranda, and the loud, intense score by Hans Zimmer. The movie often pushes the viewer to the point of sensory overload, and that’s where its strength lies. Good luck replicating that at home.



To the extent there’s a non-technical anchor grounding the story, it’s the antagonistic relationship between the two drivers who represent the ne’er-do-well Apex Grand Prix team (APXGP): over-the-hill veteran Sonny Hayes (Pitt) and up-and-coming Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris). Both could use Sinatra’s rendition of My Way as their theme song. Hayes is recruited by his old buddy, Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem), the current owner of APXGP, to come out of retirement and give Formula 1 racing one more chance. After initially demurring, Sonny has a change of heart and shows up with his megawatt smile, self-deprecating attitude, and cocky sense of self-assurance – all things that irritate Pearce, the team’s #1 driver. A rivalry develops, fueled by Sonny’s initial track failures. As board member Peter Banning (the always-oily Tobias Menzies) hovers like a vulture, Ruben begins doubting the sanity of his Hail Mary. Sonny might have been a potential star before a near-fatal accident, but that was 30 years ago. Meanwhile, as Sonny tries to build a rapport with the pit crew and other behind-the-scenes members of the team, his flirtations with the chief engineer, Kate McKenna (Kerry Condon), heat up.

It’s a credit to both Pitt and Damson Idris that the fractious relationship between Sonny and Joshua has the force and immediacy it does given the hackneyed nature of the material. Their chemistry transcends the thinness of what’s on the written page. Likewise, there’s an easygoing camaraderie between Sonny and Ruben and genuine sparks between the will-they-or-won’t-they pair of Sonny and Kate. I appreciated that the movie keeps the romantic elements mostly in the background. It adds a dash of flavor without interfering.




Unsurprisingly, F1 shines during the action sequences. As is often the case with racing movies, the events themselves aren’t cinematic (given the length associated with races) but the crashes are. Kosinski’s approach is to home in on big moments, using a variety of camera angles and expert editing techniques to keep the viewer engaged. He also leans heavily on Zimmer’s score, which is suitably overblown for the material, helping to top off the film’s adrenaline-and-testosterone cocktail.

In terms of recent racing movies, I’d put this one a slight notch below James Mangold’s 2019 Ford v. Ferrari, but at least on par with some of the other high-profile efforts like Ron Howard’s 2013 Rush. The effectiveness of the film’s overall aesthetic cannot be understated: what F1 lacks in narrative development it more than compensates for with its thrill-ride aspects. Watching the film, you may not believe you’re in a racing car but you will feel like you’re doing more than passively sitting in a theater seat. [Berardinelli's rating: 3 stars out of 4]

Labels: action, auto-racing, Brad Pitt, drama, sport
IMDb 76/100
MetaCritic (critics=68, viewers=75)
RottenTomatoes (critics=82, viewers=97)

Blu-ray
James Berardinelli's original review

Comment by FB Friend Miki Tokola:

While I agree it was an entertaining movie with lots of dramatic F1 racing, it was not an accurate depiction of current-day F1 racing. The production prioritized hero moments over the strict regulatory environment of the FIA, F1’s ruling body. Three examples are: diving into the inside of a corner from a significant distance back, weaving under braking, and off-track overtaking. All of these are violations of the rules and would result in penalties or disqualification. Another unrealistic element was showing the cars dancing around each other rather than staying on the ideal racing line around the apex of the corner.

I also enjoyed the movie and appreciated the efforts the production team went to include real racing drivers and locations into the movie. It’s important to remember it’s dramatic, exciting fiction and not representative of the driving one would see if you watched a real F1 race.