Jeremy-124

The first time I saw this film was at an advance screening when I was a film student, and director Martin Ritt was there to speak and answer questions. I remember that he seemed like a very down-to-earth, nice guy. He patiently answered the students' questions and explained why the story attracted him. Maybe some of the affection I have for the film is because of that original positive experience, but I've probably seen it at least a dozen times and it hasn't worn thin.

Some people may find some of the characters and situations lacking in depth, but for me the movie is chiefly about Norma Rae's transformation as she becomes passionately devoted to unionizing the mill workers and, secondly, her interesting friendship with Reuben. It succeeds brilliantly on both counts, largely because of Sally Field's amazing performance. The scene where she stands on the table with the "union" sign is a classic, and it's Field's raw emotion that draws you in. Her fear and anger, and the power she feels when her coworkers show their support, are so apparent and so real that I'm always deeply moved.

I'm glad I took advantage of the opportunity to see this film on cable TV, but I wish I had seen it letterboxed. The cinematography was quite good and I'm sure it lost quite a bit in the pan-and-scan version.

This is a heartfelt film and a well-made one in many ways, but overall I found it rather tiring and melodramatic with some strong and memorable scenes here and there. Much has been said about the battle scenes being similar to the ones in "Saving Private Ryan." That in itself is OK, but -- although I'm not a huge fan of that film -- I thought SPR's battle scenes were more focused and involving. In this film, the mayhem just felt relentless and mind-numbing, which, I suppose, is what it can feel like when you're in a war. But for me it had a distancing effect after a while -- I simply got tired of the film. I also felt that the emotions were pitched too high and that the film could have benefited from more subtle writing and performances. For me, the most moving moments were the framing scenes at the beginning and end involving one of the characters as an old man. Those scenes had a quiet gravity that was missing elsewhere.

Besides the echoes of "Saving Private Ryan," I also felt the director was influenced by American war movies like "Platoon" and "The Deer Hunter." Again, all movies are influenced by earlier ones, but the fact that I was thinking about this while watching the film is an indication that I wasn't very involved in the plot or characters.

All in all, though, it was interesting to see a movie about a part of history that's mostly been ignored in films. And despite its shortcomings, the movie does at times capture the utter folly and sadness of war. I wish I could have liked it more overall, but maybe I'll give the letterboxed version another try someday.

I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, given the reviews it got. But how bad could a movie be with this cast? As it turns out, VERY bad. But I have to think that some plot and character development was lost on the cutting room floor.

The opening credit sequence is absolutely brilliant, with witty use of vintage '50s clips of housewives in their "miracle kitchens of the future" and that sort of thing. Deliberately choppy editing and occasionally speeded up action lend the sequence a mechanical feel on top of its satirical air. Too bad nothing else in the movie measures up to it.

I did think there were a couple of decent laughs, mainly when Glenn Close was on screen. Roger Bart, playing a gay stereotype we've seen too many times in recent movies, milks it for all its worth and earns some chuckles, too. But Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick often seem lost. Christopher Walken, Bette Midler and Jon Lovitz are all mostly boring here, hard as it is to believe.

I haven't seen the '70s version in ages, but I remember thinking it was OK but campier than it was meant to be. Upping the camp level was not a bad idea for the remake, but I don't know what happened with the screenplay. Paul Rudnick is no genius, but he's done far better.

I get the feeling that major scenes must have been cut out for some reason, as the plot development felt awkward especially in the early scenes. It might be worth renting the DVD for the deleted scenes.

Also, as others have stated, the movie is totally inconsistent on the point of whether the women are robots or have simply had their brains altered. It's as if they figured we wouldn't really be playing close attention, so what difference did it make?

My bottom line advice -- if you get a chance to see it without paying, watch the opening credits and then change the channel.