Unsimple Twists Are Well-Explored In A Simple Twist Of Fate

The Good: Funny, Witty, Intelligent, Well-acted, Cinematography
The Bad: Utterly predictable plot
The Basics: Witty dialog, excellent actors actually acting and a very even pace overwrite the plot, which the intellectually aware viewer may easily predict within five minutes of the film's opening.


Steve Martin is one of "those comedians" who it's almost hard to take seriously. Or he used to be. More and more he's been displaying his other side, the one that is intelligent, dignified and, well, adult. A few years ago, while reading The New Yorker, I was quite delighted to realize that the Steve Martin whose article I was finding brilliantly ironic and sophisticatedly sardonic was THAT Steve Martin, the same one who amused me with less than intelligent humor in Three Amigos when I was too young to know better.

That said A Simple Twist Of Fate is a far better outing than I anticipated. Martin is wonderful as an adult being . . . an adult!

The plot is based upon George Eliot's novel Silas Marner which I've yet to read, so my film review is pretty pure. A miserly man, played by Martin, is robbed of a very valuable gold coin collection. (The robber, by the by, is played by none other than Stephen Baldwin, which is pretty nice). Dejected, he becomes a recluse and spends his days in isolation making furniture.

Following the robbery, a woman drives off into the snowy night. This is completely unrelated to the robbery, so don't think I've lost my finesse for these reviews! Rather abruptly, we're in a car with a rejected drug addict woman and her toddler daughter. She drives off in the cold night until her car runs out of gas. Then, she gets out and walks with her daughter out into the snow. Her daughter, being significantly smarter, walks away when her mom sets her down and she walks into Michael McCann's (Martin's miserly character) cabin. Michael finds her there, finds her mom dead in the snow and contacts the local constabulary, played by . . . Gabriel Byrne.

Okay, here's the big disclaimer about this film; No one, absolutely no one I know, expects the film to be as good as it is. And it's an excellent film.

Michael gets custody of the toddler, names her, of all things, Mathilda and what follows is the next ten years of their life together. Michael is largely successful as a parent, being involved and actually inspiring his daughter. It is in this period that the film defies our low expectations for it. Martin here acts, and he does it well, and the various aged girls playing Mathilda, they act. Martin seems to be paired up with the Dream Child Actresses as each one is a gem, distinctively creating Mathilda at her various ages.

All the while, seeds are planted with Gabriel Byrne's political character and the latter half of the film is spent as a legal debate over who ought to have custody of Mathilda.

The film is surprisingly engaging, surprisingly intelligent and well plotted, if a bit predictable. The characters are well fleshed out and the relationships that develop are quite extraordinary.

It seems like there ought to be more analysis than that, but the truth is, there doesn't. What the film is truly about is the nature of parenthood. In the first half of the film, we see that defined through the actions of Michael and Mathilda. In the second half of the movie, we see that challenged and going into the court case would ruin the end of the film for you.

The simple, yet thorough, analysis of the movie is that A Simple Twist Of Fate is a nice bit of filmmaking which takes the time to define parenting, then spends the remainder defending that view. How refreshing!

I, personally, am loathe to do ruin the end of a film; especially for a film that so pleasantly surprised me. Give it a chance; it will do the same for anyone who likes a good family story.

For other family-oriented films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Spitfire Grill
Babies
Baby Mama

8/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Pointless Journey As Bad As Its Title Suggests: Hideous Kinky

The Good: Soundtrack, Scenery
The Bad: Characters, Acting, Absence of plot, Direction, Script
The Basics: Outside a strong, interesting soundtrack and good scenery - when the camera actually stays on it long enough - Hideous Kinky is a slow-paced film that is dreadfully dull and goes nowhere.


Loud, Annoying, Confusing. Those three words almost perfectly describe the bulk of the film Hideous Kinky. It's hard to enjoy this film if you don't like kids, though it's not a kid's movie.

In the most comprehensive and comprehensible terms, Hideous Kinky is about Julia, an Englishwoman living in Morocco in 1972. She is accompanied most of her time by her daughters from an English poet, named Bea and Lucy. Also along for the first half is the Moroccan Bilal, who leaves the group after feeding the women bad sardines. Julia, if I gather correctly from the film, has become a Sufi. Part of this conversion is a journey of enlightenment in the search of another world without pain. For Julia's character, this means abandoning Bea, making a physical journey, and meeting an apparent leader of the Sufis.

Julia, not the religion, seems awfully irresponsible. Unfortunately, her zealous quest for Sufi-ism is so erratically told that it's unclear where her devotion ends and her personality begins. I reasoned it was a defect of her character and not a part of her religious journey that led her to irresponsibility. A perfect example of her uncaring selfishness occurs on her journey. While traveling, she meets another British person, who she picks up. When they hitch a ride with another guy, who falls asleep at the wheel, she takes Lucy and leaves, without uttering a single word to the guy she previously rescued. He watches her go with a look of such shock and bewilderment on his face. I felt similar.

The film is riddled with annoying character contradictions, mostly surrounding Julia. Julia has nightmares about losing her children in Morocco. So, it's rather improbable that she would abandon Bea with people she hardly knows. Moreover, it's not much of a surprise when she returns from her spiritual journey to find Bea missing from where she was supposed to be. Bummer that; I suppose she shouldn't have left her there, eh? Moreover, and perhaps it's my equal dislike of irresponsible parents and children at all that makes me say this, but wouldn't a parent with a mortal fear of losing one's child try to find out about the person she was leaving her daughter with? I mean, if I was converting to Sufi, I'd be pretty hesitant to leave my daughter with a Christian fundamentalist missionary. Of course, defenders of this film will say "She didn't know she was a Christian fundamentalist missionary!" I did; she was dressed differently from everyone else and spoke with condescendence, etc. So, anyone with a clue would figure out this person was different. Perhaps I'm sick of films about people who don't have a clue. Sigh.

The most character in the film comes from Bea, who is obsessed with the idea of going to school. She's the one abandoned by Julia and she is allowed to study at a Christian school.

Bilal returns mid-film, reasons unknown. He's gotten a job and it's convenient that he reappears and then Bea falls ill. It gives Julia a chance to run around screaming.

The film is so listless as to be pointless. There is no great journey of character, the best actors are the children who play Bea and Lucy and the pace is dreadfully slow. Unfortunately, the camera does not always mirror the pace. Whenever there is action, the camera does quick cuts that make things like Julia fighting a neighbor over a pair of stolen pants almost indecipherable.

As for the acting of Kate Winslet, it is about as competent as the script. I was amused by one of the other reviewer's observations that we get to see her breasts again. Yippee. It doesn't make up for her acting. She doesn't rise above what is written and adequately fits the character who is flighty and irresponsible.

Apparently, somewhere along the line, I missed where Julia actually achieves enlightenment. She whines to the Sufi about how she still loves her husband unseen, yet makes no immediate plans to return to England to him. In fact, given the opportunity, she defers the decision to her children. Never, in my view, a terribly bright option. There is a reason parents are parents and children are children.

This film tends to blur that by having such a selfish, irresponsible parent with children, while occasionally reckless, are precocious (I finally looked that word up; it didn't mean what I thought it meant. I always thought it was "spontaneous," but it's actually "matured before one's time." So a precocious child is actually a more mature child. Good to know.).

My favorite moment of the movie was when the closing credits began. At least, that made sense.

For other period dramas, please check out my reviews of:
Titanic
All The King's Men
The Men Who Stare At Goats

1.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |