Therese (2005)

Cast: Lindsay Younce (Therese Martin), Leonardo DeFilippis (Louis Martin), Jen Nikolaisen (Celine Martin)

Director: Leonardo DeFilippis

Genre: Biography/ Drama/ Religious



Just because a movie about a saint should be made with respect and accuracy, doesn’t mean it has to be sappy. Movies about saints have been done before (i.e. Joan of Arc, Becket, A Man for All Seasons) and they were anything but sappy. Even The Ten Commandments wasn’t flaky! It was a little over dramatic, but what 60’s Bible flick wasn’t a little over dramatic. Why do a lot of Catholics think they need to make saint stories, or any kind of religious story, mushy with sentimental nonsense. Just because the life story of St. Therese of Lisieux is full of emotional events, doesn’t mean that DeFilippis needed to over exaggerate them to the point of writing such simple dialogue and irritating corniness. Based on the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux, The Story of a Soul, this movie accurately depicts the life of Therese Martin, from the death of her mother through her life in a Carmelite convent. Young Therese Martin struggled through her childhood to become a “little flower in the garden of God”. She realized that this would involve detachment from herself and more of a concern for others. Once she realized this calling, she wanted to follow her sisters by entering Carmel and living completely for Our Lord. Being 15 years old, she needed the Bishop’s permission to enter. Not satisfied with the Bishop’s refusal, her desire was strong enough that it led her to Rome where she was privileged to have an audience with Pope Leo XIII. Despite proper protocol, she asked the Pope for the permission her bishop failed to give. She learned truly valuable lessons in accomplishing God’s holy will and practicing true charity. The film, just like the Saint’s life and her writings, centers on her true love for God. It depicts well her efforts toward complete selflessness in order to belong entirely to Our Lord. A movie like this is a breath of fresh air in such a supposedly “reasonable” society. Particularly, it’s refreshing to see a film that portrays women (or a woman) in a true, feminine manner- acting the way God has made and intended for women to act. In other words, it totally contradicts the accursed ideas of modern feminism- a concept that destroys women and their femininity. Yet the film was way too sappy and overly emotional. This film seemed to depict St. Therese’s love for God in a more unrealistic, sentimental way rather than in the more straight forward way. At times it seemed that it needed was Bing Crosby singing some dopey song. The casting was all right. The acting was lousy. There was too much over emphasis on specific emotions. The dialogue was really simple and unbelievable. It made the film more of a children’s movie than a biographical depiction. Leonardo DeFilippis, the director, was the worst in his role as Louis Martin, Therese’s father. Ridiculous isn’t a good enough word to describe his acting. He may have had good intentions in making this movie and God bless him for it, but there was plenty of room for improvement. This movie had potential but it’s too-idealistic nature got in the way. Sure, it showed how Therese Martin had to deal with crosses in her life, but that didn’t make up for the fluff. Readers can certainly identify themselves with St. Therese after reading her book. Unless someone in the audience is so sentimental, that they forgot what the ground feels like under their feet, it’s hard relate to the Saint in this movie. All in all, the story line was well done, as was the accuracy in depicting St. Therese’s life. The acting, the dialogue, and the quality of the portrayals were in severe need of adjustments. It makes a good family movie and is obviously suitable for everyone.

An American Haunting (2005)

Cast: Donald Sutherland (John Bell), Sissy Spacek (Lucy Bell), James D'Arcy (Richard Powell), Rachel Hurd- Wood (Betsy Bell)

Director: Courtney Solomon

Genre: Thriller/ Mystery

I don’t know whether taking a perfectly well written ghost story and then completely ruining it can be called entertainment. I was drawn in right away with this ghost story- supposedly a true story- until they made it into “nothing that science can’t explain” propaganda. How American! The atheists in Hollywood weren’t fooling anyone here. First, they tell the audience that the events in the movie were based true occurrences. Ok! That’s kinda cool! But then, in a stupid effort at a twist of plot, they leave the audience with a lame explanation on how a spirit can kill a person despite such phenomenon as disembodied voices, a young girl levitating in mid air and getting viciously beat up by an invisible force in front of witnesses. Their lame explanation wasn’t worth the $7.50 I paid to see this massacre of a ghost story. The story is taken from a death account in 1818 that’s supposedly the only known case where a spirit was responsible for a death. A family member of the Bell family living in modern times discovers a manuscript by a teacher who had recorded strange events surrounding the Bell’s during the 1800’s. This takes us into the actual story. The Bell family of Tennessee find themselves suddenly tormented by a poltergeist immediately after Mr. Bell (Donald Sutherland) is taken to court on usury charges. The evil spirit seems to focus on the family’s youngest daughter, Betsy (Rachel Hurd- Wood). It manifests itself through strange voices, severe beatings, and other basic typical poltergeist activity. The family tries to search for logical explanations for this phenomenon but to no avail. It eventually turns out that the source of this haunting is from the person they least expect (how typical). The acting of both Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek (Lucy Bell) do not make up for the downhill plummet of this movie. If the writers wanted to keep a good thing going, they should have written a much more appropriate ending that was not mere propaganda. It could have been a good old- fashioned American ghost story. Instead, it turned out to be a good old- fashioned inadvertent bow to science story.
The special effects were good and the story grabbed your attention right away but that’s all that I can say about it. It also had more jump scenes than you could shake a stick at, if that’s your idea of a good time. I thought the acting went pretty well, especially on the part of Sutherland and Spacek. Was it scary? Well, it was in the long run despite the ending. All in all, it was just another attempt for the idiots in Hollywood to explain something they know nothing about.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)

Cast: Clint Eastwood (Blondie), Eli Wallach (Tuco), Lee Van Cleef (Angel Eyes- Sentenza)

Director: Sergio Leone

Genre: Western



This is another of my favorite Clint Eastwood flicks. A well-made and classic spaghetti western! It is the third of the series known as “The man with no name series” which includes A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. This film fits into the large vault of classic Hollywood. Like its two preceding movies, the film surrounds the same characters during the Civil war. Blondie (Eastwood) is a bounty hunter who looks out for himself. He’s the character whose persona alone convinces the audience he is not to be messed with. In the TGtB&Tu, Eastwood is partnered with Tuco (Eli Wallach). Tuco is a bandito who only cares for one important person in his life- himself. Tuco, wanted by the law, collects the bounty on himself by having Blondie turn him in to the law only to help him escape. Blondie finally has enough of Tuco and decides to ditch his loud mouth partner. Tuco swears to himself he will get his revenge on Blondie; he does. Tuco forces Blondie through a hot desert without food, water, or shelter. As they venture forth, they come across a runaway wagon full of dead Confederate troops. Tuco thinking all the soldiers are dead, pockets through their belongings and finds one soldier, Bill Carson, still alive. Carson reveals the whereabouts of some hidden treasure buried in a cemetery. As Tuco rushes to fetch him some water, Blondie makes his way to the wagon. By the time Tuco returns, Carson is dead and Blondie was the last to speak to him. Tuco knows the name of the cemetery while Blondie knows the name on the tombstone. Neither man trusts the other. Little do they know that a third person, Angel Eyes has been searching for Bill Carson as well. He knows there is treasure to be discovered, but that’s all he knows. Angel Eyes finds out that both men know this valuable information and sets out to hunt them down. With each man knowing only an important detail regarding the treasure, it’s up to the sharpest and quickest bandito to get to it first. The only problem is each man needs another to find it. It is a very creative plot indeed and is well played out. Normally, I find most westerns to be stale, repetitive, and downright lame. This is anything but all that. It makes a good weekend movie to watch for pure adventure. Clint Eastwood is the awesome, real “tough guy.” He doesn’t need to blab on and on like John Wayne to convince audiences how bad he is. He just needs a camera on him and nothing more. Eli Wallach plays the part perfectly. The two make the perfect duo as they’re so opposite from each other. I haven’t grown bored with it yet. Its famous soundtrack is a serious bonus. The music adds to the nostalgia. This third one doesn’t seem to need the first two for it to make sense and be enjoyable.

The Sting (1972)

Cast: Paul Newman (Henry Gondorff), Robert Redford (Johnny Hooker), Charles Durning (Lt. Wm. Snyder)

Director: George Roy Hill

Genre: Drama/ Crime/ Comedy


There’s no way I could possibly improve upon The Sting. I don’t intend to try. My critiques, whether good or bad, are like tin to a king. It took a while for me to figure out what was going on but once the film really got under way, I picked up on the plot immediately. So, what is “the sting?” Well, the “sting” is the con! The big con!! This is a crime film with a small hint of comedy. This film is creativity at its best. It's so creative that it won 7 Oscars, 9 other movie awards and 6 nominations. Robert Redford, ever fitting his role like the pro he is, plays a young con-artist Johnny Hooker. Hooker pulls a swindle with his partner Luther (Robert Earl Jones), which they both assume is no different than the other con jobs they’ve done. Little do they know that the victim of their con is a courier for a numbers runner under the payroll of Doyle Lonigan (Robert Shaw)- a big shot Irish mobster. Soon after, Luther is found murdered in the alley behind his apartment. When Hooker hears the news of his partner’s death, he is determined to get revenge on Lonigan. He partners with Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) to pull the biggest of all cons. It will take a lot of steam, effort, deception, and serious acting to keep the gig rolling. All that’s important is not to give themselves away. The only thing that could possibly blow their cover is police Lt. Snyder (Charles Durning). Snyder will stop at nothing to get his hands on Hooker and bring him to justice. Perhaps it’s the greatest sting in crime history. The story moves along smoothly and still pulls you in. It’s difficult to make out which situations are part of the job and which aren’t. It’s surprising to find out who’s working for who, and if something goes wrong… was it supposed to? Incredible film! Certainly worth a watch- so long as you keep in mind who the bad guys really are. It’s fairly family oriented save for some violence and a dance hall scene at the start of the film!