Post by Vits on Apr 1, 2020 14:28:50 GMT
MY GIRL
5/10
MY GIRL didn't completely succeed as a deep coming-of-age story, due to the execution and timing of some of the life-changing events that little Vada Sultenfuss was going through. MY GIRL PART 2 succeeds for the most part as a light coming-of-age story, because the likeability of the characters (even the ones with minor roles) and the funny banters are enough to carry the story. During the first 20 minutes, the performances and the chemistry made me say "I'd totally watch a TV show that's just about the daily life of Vada, her dad and her stepmom." How disappointing that she travels to visit her uncle for the rest of the movie, because the best performances in both movies are Dan Aykroyd's and Jamie Lee Curtis'. Anna Chlumsky (whose performance is once again good but not great) doesn't have the same kind of chemistry with Austin O'Brien, Richard Masur and Christine Ebersole (whose performances are decent). You might think that the script is to blame instead--I mean, in lieu of the actors (since they don't play her parents), but I have my doubts since those 3 actors don't have that much chemistry with one another either. I've never liked the way Vada narrates. Her observations either don't have to do with the scene's events or with the scene's tone. At least I could try to forgive that in the 1st installment since she was a naive and curious kid. What's the excuse now that she's a teenager?
5/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
5/10
MY GIRL didn't completely succeed as a deep coming-of-age story, due to the execution and timing of some of the life-changing events that little Vada Sultenfuss was going through. MY GIRL PART 2 succeeds for the most part as a light coming-of-age story, because the likeability of the characters (even the ones with minor roles) and the funny banters are enough to carry the story. During the first 20 minutes, the performances and the chemistry made me say "I'd totally watch a TV show that's just about the daily life of Vada, her dad and her stepmom." How disappointing that she travels to visit her uncle for the rest of the movie, because the best performances in both movies are Dan Aykroyd's and Jamie Lee Curtis'. Anna Chlumsky (whose performance is once again good but not great) doesn't have the same kind of chemistry with Austin O'Brien, Richard Masur and Christine Ebersole (whose performances are decent). You might think that the script is to blame instead--I mean, in lieu of the actors (since they don't play her parents), but I have my doubts since those 3 actors don't have that much chemistry with one another either. I've never liked the way Vada narrates. Her observations either don't have to do with the scene's events or with the scene's tone. At least I could try to forgive that in the 1st installment since she was a naive and curious kid. What's the excuse now that she's a teenager?
5/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
