The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (40)
| Top Critics (14)
| Fresh (10)
| Rotten (30)
| DVD (2)
The characters and themes are redolent of earlier and better Williams works, and the story unexpectedly putters out at the end-but seeing it now, you can't help but treasure the simple, lyrical dialogue and sure-handed narrative thrust
If you are not already familiar with Williams's best plays and film adaptations, this musty magnolia of a movie won't encourage you to seek them out.
Even though Howard never quite gets it, never quite releases into the role and never quite convinces, she never makes a mistake, either.
It's minor Williams turned minor cinema, but there are nonetheless moments that resonate.
The script is half-a-fortune at best, and visually the picture is staid. But you stick with it, because it's Williams and because certainly no one since Williams has written this sort of embroidered dialogue.
It has been filmed in a respectful manner that evokes a touring production of an only moderately successful Broadway play. Understand that, accept it, and the film has its rewards and one performance of great passion.
The words drip with affectation (as do the actors) and Jodie Mankell's direction is dipped in southern gothic honey and glazed over with period sprinkles.
Not even a super-powered Shop-Vac could clean this screenplay of its cobwebs. It's is dated and further flawed by plain old poor filmmaking.
A deservedly overlooked Tennessee Williams script set in the 1920s South, its plot makes little sense for contemporary audiences.
This is not the galvanizing, deep fried melodrama of Tennessee Williams at his height but rather, the low fat version.
As beautifully played by Howard, Fisher Willow appropriately resembles a china doll, with a pale face highlighted by bright red lips -- she is hard yet fragile, projecting something of an artificial quality that hides her pain.
While it captures the Southern Gothic atmosphere, it's sketchy and studied, best geared to Tennessee Williams aficionados.
Good movie but a little boring for my taste. Great acting from Bryce and Chris. If there is a problem with the movie, it needs a little more time to invest in characters outside of Fisher. As a romance, the movie is questionable, not so much because of cheap film making, but because of a deliberate decision to keep things a bit distant. In fact, The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond when all is said and done, is more of a drama than a romance. This movie is not for everyone so I recommend you really watch it if your a Tennessee Williams novel enthusiast or a fan of Bryce or Chris.
Tells the story of Fisher Willow, the disliked 1920s Memphis débutante daughter of a plantation owner with a distaste for narrow-minded people and a penchant for shocking and insulting those around her. After returning from studies overseas, Fisher falls in love with Jimmy, the down-and-out son of an alcoholic father and an insane mother who works at a store on her family's plantation. She tries to pass him off as an upper-class suitor to appease the spinster aunt who controls her family's fortune, but when she loses a diamond, it places their tenuous relationship in further jeopardy.
An heiress accuses a farmhand, whom she has employed to be her escort, of stealing a diamond earring.
This film feels like Tennessee Williams's work from beginning to end, and one can almost draw one-to-one parallels from The Loss of the Teardrop Diamond to Cat on the Hot Tin Roof; both films are about maintaining integrity in a dishonest and disappointing world, but Teardrop is far less subtle, almost banging you on the head with speeches about how one's word is all that one can truly control. These are resonant themes in Williams's work, and the "style." by which I mean the long monologues filled with sharp images and the characters' slow drawl, is also typical Williams. But I can understand why this screenplay was never produced during his lifetime. There are elements that just don't fit, most obviously the Ellen Burstyn character, and when Fisher does what she does with the second medicine bottle, I wondered when she would experience something more than making the scenery look darker.
I didn't recognize Bryce Dallas Howard, who gives a fine performance, but Chris Evans is what Chris Evans would be if he routinely talked in a Southern accent.
Overall, this is a poor effort, but die-hard fans of Williams will find something to like.
This Tennesse Williams period story is strangely delightful and focuses on life in the south in the late 1920s. This is a change of pace and refreshing as a breath of cool evening river wind.
The movie is not so much driven by plot as much as it is by a movie stealing, fiery performance from Bryce Dallas Howard. She does a sensational job of acting with her face, which brings me to another effective quality of the movie. It is beautiful, rich and luscious, with every shot dressed up nicely. I see she gained her weight for her character in this film before she already lost her weight for her next supporting role in Twilight: Eclipse.
To be extreamely blunt, this play was never produced and this film has bombed because, quite frankly, it feels very amateurish. It is not masterful or polished. What makes the material great is that you can feel the pulse of genius behind it. The potential just hasn't been reached. Idk if this was written at the beginning or end of Williams' career, but it feels like it must have been an early work. It's funny, most of the complaints about the film seem to stem from the fact that it is based on a play. However, at least personally, the things that are characteristic of a play are the very things that make the film stand out at all. The dialog in plays is always unique; everything always seems so exact and significant. You never really see the type of casual conversation that dominates regular films. Plus, most things are communicated through the dialog, there's only so much that can be done onstage. The film is like a play in that sense as well; everything takes place in a very limited space. Oftentimes it wouldn't have made much difference had the film actually been filmed onstage. Yes, it is forgettable, but I enjoyed it all the same, nor is it particularly good or well-done, but there is something special about these diamonds all the same.
View All Quotes