New In Town (Widescreen Edition)
New In Town (Widescreen Edition)
Award-winning actress Renée Zellweger stars as Lucy Hill, a high-powered executive in love with her upscale Miami lifestyle. Seeking to snag a big promotion, Lucy agrees to move to a remote Minnesota town to oversee the restructuring of a blue-collar manufacturing plant. After enduring icy roads, freezing weather and a chilly reception from the locals, she soon warms up to the small town and its people – especially the town’s handsome union representative (Harry Connick, Jr.). What begins as a job assignment becomes the best thing ever to happen to her, in this heartwarming comedy that proves that the warmest people are often in the coldest places.What defines success? For Miami executive Lucy Hill (Renee Zellweger), it’s climbing the
List Price: $ 14.98
Price: $ 4.00
Miss Potter
- (Drama) The story of Beatrix Potter, the author of the beloved and best-selling children’s book, “The Tale of Peter Rabbit”, and her struggle for love, happiness and success. Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: DRAMA Rating: PG Age: 796019801744 UPC: 796019801744 Manufacturer No: 80174
(Drama) The story of Beatrix Potter, the author of the beloved and best-selling children’s book, “The Tale of Peter Rabbit”, and her struggle for love, happiness and success.Miss Potter walks that fine line between charming and cloying with pleasing sure-footedness. Apple-cheeked Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones’ Diary) once again slips into a British accent to play writer/illustrator Beatrix Potter, the creator of Peter Rabbit. Potter, born into wealth, fought the disapproval of her high society mother to do something as crass as publish a book…and to fall in love with her publisher, Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor, previously teamed with Zellweger in Down With Love). Unfortunately, their love runs into something worse than upper-class stuf
List Price: $ 9.95
Price: $ 5.08
Find More Renee Zellweger Products
Predictable romance, but hysterical,
When I saw a trailer for this film, I saw it compared with “Fargo,” the Coen brothers classic. My spouse and I were both in need of a laugh so we went to see it.
I must agree with at least one other review that it’s an absurdly predictable story. Boy meets girl, they despise each other, yet fall in love and they all live happily ever after. That element of the story was a letdown. But there were enough laughs to redeem the story.
I’ll paraphrase, and perhaps add a little to another review: Rene plays Lucy Hill, a rising Yuppie corporate exec based in Miami. The company decides to send someone to Minnesota to close one of their plants. None of the guys will do it so Lucy volunteers. She, in true, corporate tradition, has her eye on corporate VP, something she’s going to get when she faithfully fulfills the company’s goals, right?
Well, when she gets to MN, she has so little perception of the conditions–cold, slippery–that she is, alas, a fish out of water. She meets her assistant, masterfully performed by Siobhan Fallon, who is an exaggeration of Frances McDormand’s role in “Fargo.” Her one-liners had both my spouse and I “ROFL”ing. I do have a comment though on Fallon’s (Blanche Gunderson’s) monolog: She asked Lucy if she’s found Jesus, and that became the cause for a burst of laughter from both Lucy and presumably the audience. I thought that question to be slightly incongruous; it’s something one would have more likely experienced in, say, Mississippi or Georgia than in New Ulm, MN.
Well, then, Lucy, while secretly trying to close the plant, meets fireman Ted Mitchell (Harry Connick) when she flew off the icy road. They eventually fall in love… Well, the synopsis has already been written here so I won’t repeat it.
In the process, not only is love fallen into, but Lucy decides that, shucks, these are nice people. (The story reminded me of Michael J. Fox’s “Doc Hollywood” and countless other scripts.) She decides to keep the place open, and they come up with a new product, blah, blah, blah.
From an honest perspective, while I was laughing at the script, I found that portion of the story to be a complete fantasy. Most of us know how corporations work these days. First, the product they came up with (no, I won’t give it away here and spoil the story) wouldn’t compete with the corporate, pre-packaged and advertised product. Second, no, the corporation’s not going to say, “Aw, shucks, let’s be nice to these folks whom Lucy told us are are so quaint.”
Then, without giving any more away, Lucy and Ted fall in love, and they all lived happily ever after.
Hmmm. I’m quite critical of the story. So why do I give it four stars? Because of the laughs.
Again, I think the idea of the accent was a product of McDormand’s academy award winning role in “Fargo.” In this film, they may have made a little more of a caricature out of it. One of the Minnesotan characters, by the way, was played by one of my heroines, Frances Conroy (I’m a big “Six Feet Under” fan). But it was so well done, it had me laughing thoughout.
Then there’s the scene when Ted and Lucy try to disguise their indiscretion so that Ted’s daughter didn’t know what happened, another side-buster. But the choreography necessary of Lucy while Ted and Lucy were hunting and nature called was worth the price of the ticket.
No, I won’t give away any more than that, but it was hysterical.
Again, as others have already said and more will surely say, if you’re after a soul-enhancing, humanitarian, or realistic story, this one might not be for you. That ain’t the way life works except maybe in the movies. but if you’d like some hearty laughs–maybe a little to deliver you from what’s going on in today’s economy, this is a side breaker.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Pleasing, entertaining film,
Although marketed as a comedy, this has little in common with the DRECK that Hollywood has been churning out under the “comedy” label (e.g. Bride Wars) because the point of this film is to progress to more sophisticated characterization and understanding as its main character finds herself in a “fish out of water” setting, transplanted from Miami to a small city in Minnesota.
This film contains aspects of mild drama that enhance its credibility and respectability greatly. Characters become fully humanized as the film progresses, even if they at first seem like caricatures or stereotypes. That’s a main theme of the film – that people mis-judge each other all the time in ways that turn out to be unfair.
This is a good-hearted, well-played film that, although not really new in theme or plot, carries a message that is well worth repeating, and does it very well through good performances and an enjoyable script. Critics really do not serve the public well when they presume that something that’s been “done before” is therefore inferior as a result, for films within the same subgenre are never truly identical, and it all boils down to the problem that “critics” are reviewing EVERYTHING, regardless of their own prior interest in the film, and “critics” often lack any clear training or expertise to inform their opinions, and “critics” are often left simply reacting to each other in weird contests about who can find the film that is the most “original” – which usually ends up meaning the most aberrant and demeaning and cynical.
By contrast, “New in Town” delivers an “old-fashioned” message that truly deserves to be a Hollywood tradition… a nicely American message of overcoming the various sociocultural divides that exist in our country, of cutting through the many stereotypes that downplay and dismiss other people (and categories and groups), and instead coming to appreciate the good aspects of different lifestyles and preferences that exist throughout the country.
In this film, some of the social divisions that are addressed and dealt with include the urban/rural (or “small town”) split, a blue-collar/white collar split, a college educated versus trades/crafts skill-based social class division, monetary wealth vs. budgeted fulfillments, religious/secular divides, and conflicting aspects of provincial/cosmopolitan perspectives. This is all enough to compose a very laudable, effective, engaging, entertaining, and yes, even thought-provoking film! Of the kind that can actually have people reflecting on and working on improving their own shortcomings and building bridges to get along with others or at least able to see their points-of-view.
Very well done!!!!
Was this review helpful to you?
|Movies like they made when they made movies.,
First let me say that I am surprised that this got such a bad review here. I went to see this movie with my mom. I didn’t know how it would be when the first past came on. But I was very happy to have seen it when it had ended. I think this movie is really funny if your not thinking that it’s going to make you laugh the entire way through. It gave me the feeling that I got when I was a kid watching movies that were for my age. Does that make sense? I think what I’m saying is that it worked perfectly.
Renee Zellweger is great. She is so beautiful and acts so well. She can make you laugh without making look as though she tries and she really makes you feel what her character is feeling. I’m not sure of the last movie I saw her in. But after seeing this, I look forward to her next film. Harry Connick Jr. is another actor who is great. He does such a great job of being the guy is is supposed to be in this film. He never gives you the feeling of seeing someone over act. He plays his part calm and cool. For a guy who is such a good singer and actor, we sure don’t see much of him. All the actors in this movie act very well. You get the feeling that you know them, and you can understand what they’re going through. It kind of reminded me of Fargo at first. I hated that movie. But I loved this one.
The movies is about Lucy Hill (Renée Zellweger), who is picked to go and restructure a factory that is out of state. When she gets there she starts out with some trouble. Some things happen and she sees this guy Ted Mitchell (Harry Connick, Jr.) She Insults him and thinks he is a slob. Come to find out he is the union rep for the company she has been sent to restructure. She is a women who does not want any ones help. She is from the city and that is the way she is used to living. Come to find out her boss wants her to cut the workers by 50%! She has no problem with this for a while. But how will she feel as she comes to meet the people of the town? As she lives there with them and sees there way of life, will she decide that she wants to help them? Or will she stay the city girl, high class business women that she is, and cut their company to get higher in her own?
This movie did make me laugh. But more importantly it really drew me in. It had my attention fully and totally. There are few movies that make me forget that I’m in a theater. Few that make me forget about everything else but it. This movie was one of those few. I will buy it when it comes to DVD. I look very forward to watching it again. I hope there are others whom like this much as I. Remember, even if people give something a bad or good review, it’s up to you to decide if you like it. So give it a chance.
Was this review helpful to you?
|“Because you are fond of fairy tales . . . “,
“Because you are fond of fairy tales,” Beatrix Potter wrote to one of her favorite children in 1901, “I have made you a story all for yourself, a new one that nobody has read before.”
Now, a century later, “Miss Potter” (directed by Chris Noonan, starring Rene Zellweger) has a new story to tell, and quite a fairy tale it is, too, with all the delightful magic of one of Beatrix Potter’s own stories: winsome characters, luscious settings, strong period details. I was charmed by this film (viewed on DVD, with all the extras), and spent an enchanted evening watching it. As a movie, it is fine family entertainment–something that’s hard to come by, these days.
But the film has been widely billed as a biopic, and if you were looking for a story that’s true to Beatrix’s life, this one might mislead you. Richard Maltby (who wrote the script and spent some 10 years trying to get it produced) and Chris Noonan have teamed up to give us a lovely fairy tale, but one that is based on some fairly fundamental misrepresentations of Beatrix’s real life.
Take that elaborate Christmas party, for instance, in a festooned Potter mansion. This dramatically pivotal event could never have happened, for Rupert and Helen Potter were Dissenters who did not celebrate Christmas–much to Beatrix’s disappointment, as a child longing for a tree and the trimmings. (In life, both the Potters seem to have been much more dour people than their on-screen representations.)
Or take those childhood visits to the Lake Districts, which never happened either. The Potters holidayed in Scotland until Beatrix was 16. Which means that she could not have met Willie Heelis, who was nearly five years younger than Beatrix, anyway (not older, as the film portrays him). Oh, and Willie was the son of a rector and the Heelis family belonged to quite a different social class from the one in which Willie is placed in the film. More misrepresentation (although the on-screen Willie is a real charmer.)
But the most unfortunate distortion of all is the decision to collapse the eight years it took for Beatrix to become independent enough to leave her parents. The film portrayed Norman’s death as the lever that pried her from the Potters’ grasp. Not so. Beatrix bought Hill Top a few months after Norman died in 1905, but did not leave her parents until 1913, when she married Willie. For eight long, difficult years, Beatrix commuted from her parents’ home or holiday residence to Sawrey. During that time, she could get away only five or six times a year, sometimes for a few days, sometimes for as much as a fortnight. Norman’s death was indeed the prod she needed to make a change, but it wasn’t until Willie offered her another choice that she was finally able to free herself. Compressing this long-running family conflict into a matter of months and hinging the whole thing on Norman’s death distorts Beatrix’s character and makes her seem more decisively “modern” than she was in real life.
As a novelist engaged in creating historical fictions (some of them featuring Beatrix Potter), I am always aware of the challenges of representing real people in fictional contexts, and worry when real lives are seriously distorted to make a story more entertaining. I enjoyed this film as a film, and give it five stars for its entertainment value. As a biopic, I’d give it a two, three to be generous. Putting the two together, a four-minus.
Oh, and for the real story of Beatrix’s life, you’ll want to read Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature by Linda Lear.
Susan Wittig Albert is the author of The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter: The Tale of Hill Top Farm (The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter), The Tale of Holly How, The Tale of Cuckoo Brow Wood (Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter Mysteries), The Tale of Hawthorn House: The Cottage Tales of Beatrix Potter, and four other forthcoming novels in the series.
Was this review helpful to you?
|A marvelous period film in the best Weinstein tradition,
I saw this lovely film this past week in Chicago at a preview showing and was simply delighted by it. Only five years ago this would have been a Miramax film, but following the messy departure of the Weinsteins from Miramax to form their own production company, they are distributing this joint production. Set in the early decades of the twentieth century, in a sort of extended Edwardian age, the film possesses a wonderful period feel and look. Like the best of the Miramax films, it feels like a time capsule more than a contemporary production.
With only some shame I have to admit to knowing very little about Beatrix Potter. To inject some autobiography, I was not read Potter as a child and though after my divorce I raised my daughter, reading to her constantly, there was an agreement that on her periodic visits to her mother she would be allowed to read her Beatrix Potter (because of a Potter obsession by her own godmother) and Laura Ingalls Wilder. I read my daughter every other children’s’ writer, but was forbidden to dip into either of those. So I saw this biopic knowing next to nothing about her. The film seemed to me to give a good impression of who she was. She emerges in the film as a sort of timid feminist, not a activist, but quietly insisting on taking her own path. Though there are flashbacks to her childhood and the final quarter of the film focuses on her moving to the Lake District, most of the film deals with the period of partnership and eventually romance between her and her publisher, Norman Warne. One suspects that of necessity a great deal is left out, but as it exists it is compelling. I did a bit of checking on the Internet and discovered that she was not 32 in 1903, so the film obviously fudges some numbers, but as presented the film still provided a delightful portrait.
Renée Zellweger is wonderful in the title role. I have seen photographs of Beatrix Potter and there does not seem to be much of a resemblance between the two. To the film’s credit, they do a great deal to de-emphasize Zellweger’s loveliness. She isn’t exactly plain, but she isn’t as beautiful as usual. But she brings a delightful simplicity to her role. Ewan McGregor is fine in his role, but unlike their unfortunate film DOWN WITH LOVE, his role is not equal to hers in this one. He manages to be everything he needs to be. Emily Watson plays his sister. There are movie stars and there are actresses, and she is an actress. I have always been amazed at much her various roles can differ from one another. A lot of actresses, unfortunately, as they near the age of forty, have probably reached close to the end of their career. Watson is so splendid, however, and those huge eyes so expressive, that you sense that she probably hasn’t reached half of her eventual film resume. I’m certain we’ll be seeing her in roles thirty-five years from now. It was good to see Bill Paterson as Beatrix’s father. He has always been one of my favorite supporting actors and for my money we have always seen far too little of him. Veteran British actress Barbara Flynn is excellent as well as Beatrix’s mother.
Chris Noonan directed the film. The last time we encountered him as a director was in one of the most delightful films of the nineties, BABE. I have absolutely no idea what he has been up to the past decade, but this film has some of the same lush look that BABE did. Interestingly, animals feature prominently in both films.
The last part of the film, that centers on the beginning of the final chapter of Potter’s life as a farmer in the Lake District, features some of the most stunning landscapes you can ever hope to see in a movie. The end of the film indicates that Miss Potter left 4,000 acres of Lake District property to the National Trust. I hope that some of those scenes were filmed on some of that property.
Finally, I want to add that while I’ve never been one to be on the lookout for “family” (which to me usually are synonymous with “boring” or “bland”), this film, which could easily receive a “G” rating, is a film that any parent could feel comfortable showing any child. Younger children might find it a bit slow, but any fan of Beatrix Potter, whether young or old, will surely enjoy this film. Indeed, as someone who cannot count himself among her fans (entirely through a complete lack of acquaintance), I can attest that those unfamiliar with her work will love the film as well.
Was this review helpful to you?
|Wonderful feel good tale of children’s author, Beatrix Potter,
This wonderful movie is based on the life of Beatrix Potter, children’s author and artist of “The Tale of Peter Rabbit” amongst others. Spectacular acting and feel good story make for a highly recommendable cinematic experience. A must see!
Was this review helpful to you?
|