Matt Mulhern stars as an out of work sit-com actor visiting his empty childhood home on the Jersey shore while struggling to make sense of the loss of his father, his past, and, for one funny and heartbreaking week, himself.
Drama about a young Dane (Allan Olsen) who has traveled to America to find the father he can hardly remember. In New Mexico he gets to know the daughter of a political-religious fanatic who... See full summary »
Jon Bang Carlsen
Nina van Pallandt
It's 1918, the height of United States involvement in World War I - Liberty Bonds are sold, German immigrants are suspected as traitors or saboteurs, young men everywhere succumb to the ... See full summary »
On Valentine's Day is the central film in Horton Foote's semi-autobiographical trilogy that also includes Courtship and 1918. It is a nearly verbatim retelling of his stage play and the sets and costumes.
Brian, painter Ellen and chef Sam timeshare an apartment on different days. A shift on Mon/Wednesdays causes mistaken identity as Ellen and Sam have never met but leave notes, food etc. behind for each other.
As a young boy, Richard was fascinated with science and objects in motion. This wonderment was reinforced through the efforts of his father. The only thing that mattered as much as science, and his family, was Arline, whom he met when they were both in school. But fate can often be cruel and Arline is found to be stricken by Tuberculosis. Undaunted, Richard studies the disease as he studies science in hopes of curing her. When her disease is in remission, they marry and he proceeds on to college where his studies and the war lead him to Los Alamos to work on the Manhattan Project. While Richard is intrigued with the solution to the project, he is also concerned with the outcome and saddened with the failing health of Arline.Written by
Tony Fontana <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In the scene where Richard is pulling the wagon with his dad, according to "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman", he not only asks about the movement of the ball but also asks about why things fall. Less the gravity discussion this scene is actually what happened. See more »
Mathematics is a language. It's very difficult. It's subtle. You couldn't say those things any other way - and I can talk to dead people with it. I talk to Copernicus every day.
See more »
The film has a 1997 copyright date in the credits, despite being released in 1996. See more »
Where's the Richard P. Feynman we all knew and loved?
This was a very worthy project of the Brodericks, mother and son, and one which I would have liked to have tackled myself, having read and greatly enjoyed both "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?". To concentrate on the deep love story between Feynman and his first wife Arline, which coincided with his work on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, was, I feel, a good filmic move in order to give the story an anchor (not to mention the fact that it truly is one of the most romantic real love stories I've ever heard of). Every movie adaptation has to make sacrifices, and this one obviously had to sacrifice all the other interesting stuff that happened to Feynman in the years after the war. So I don't have a problem with the quality of the script, and they also had a big enough budget to get the period feel.
However, this film falls down in a major way on the characterisation of its lead character. Surprisingly, for Broderick is not a bad actor, he just comes across as being Broderick - a good looking young man who can look lovingly at Patricia Arquette and add a bit of passion to his voice when explaining complicated physics. But we've all seen the real Feynman on television and in film - he was LARGER than life! He was intensely charismatic, a brilliant expositor of scientific ideas and a great teacher.
It seems to me that instead of succumbing to the temptation of directing, that Broderick should really have got someone else direct, so that he could concentrate on really getting inside the head of Feynman and reproducing on screen some of that charisma - something I'm quite sure Broderick is capable of doing.
So ultimately this is a missed opportunity. You learn some of the facts about what happened, but you don't really meet the real Richard P. Feynman.
38 of 42 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this