FILM REVIEW: Secretary

[diebitter]

This is on the surface, a strange sadomasochistic drama that is a voyeuristic look into the lives of people that dig that sort of thing.

But it's better than that! Here a stange, out-of-touch girl played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, becomes secretary to a strange, reserved lawyer (James Spader).

He's both strange and demanding, and their relationship rapidly goes from professional (well it actually barely starts as that), to an intimate one based on domination and submission. He spanks her, he has her crawl on all fours, and despite all this, they grow more and more attached.

An interesting aspect of this is we see our lead actress slowly transform from a timid, self-harming girl into a confident and strangely lovely woman. She gains power in her submission, getting what she wants, ultimately, by showing how far she will go for love and her dominating partner. That makes it sound sinister, but it is actually quite feelgood, believe it or not.

Deep down, this is a romance, and a very affecting and unusual one, so don't watch it cos you think it's kinky, watch it cos it's different.

It's well acted by the main leads (some of the secondary characters are mediocre at best), but the dialogue is good, and the direction reasonable. I'd say this is for those who are willing to watch with a mature person's outlook.

Overall: 2.5/5
Rewatchability: Bears rewatching every now and then, but you have to be in the mood for something a little out of the ordinary.


RATINGS (out of 5):
0 - This is a complete waste of time, and you will regret wasting it
1 - don't bother unless no other options at all
2 - okay for a single watch, if you've got time
3 - Definite watch if you get a chance
4 - See it very soon, at least once before you die
5 - See it immediately, no excuses


Opinions/comments/arguments please, especially if you think I missed anything worth of discussion/expansion, or violently agree or disagree.

PM me any films you'd like reviewed


Recent Reviews: The Frighteners (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=3780211&Fo rum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Ma in=3779516&Search=true&where=&Name=31573&daterange =&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypr ev=#Post3780211), Groundhog Day (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=3769096&Fo rum=,,,All_Forums,,,&Words=&Searchpage=2&Limit=25& Main=3769096&Search=true&where=&Name=31573&dateran ge=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&body prev=#Post3769096)

[4_2_it]

What is the film rated? It also might be a good idea to mention if it safe to let your kids watch.

I have not seen this one. It is safe to watch with my straight-laced conservative wife or will she be horrified? As a frame of reference she thought There's Something About Mary was "pornographic." Sounds like an interesting flick that I need to watch when the wife and kiddies visit the monster-in-law.

Thanks for the reviews.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the film rated? It also might be a good idea to mention if it safe to let your kids watch.

I have not seen this one. It is safe to watch with my straight-laced conservative wife or will she be horrified? As a frame of reference she thought There's Something About Mary was "pornographic." Sounds like an interesting flick that I need to watch when the wife and kiddies visit the monster-in-law.

Thanks for the reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let the kids watch? "He spanks her, he has her crawl on all fours," and that is actually some of the tamer stuff.

As for your wife, this is a really good movie, I saw it at the theater with two women (my girlfriend, and a friend) and they both loved it, but they're not exactly "straightlaced." They didn't think "Something About Mary" was pornographic, but they did think it sucked. My guess is, a straightlaced woman who thinks raunchy comedies are "pornographic" wouldn't like the movie much, but who knows? It is a really good movie.

[phil_ivey_fan]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the film rated? It also might be a good idea to mention if it safe to let your kids watch.

I have not seen this one. It is safe to watch with my straight-laced conservative wife or will she be horrified? As a frame of reference she thought There's Something About Mary was "pornographic." Sounds like an interesting flick that I need to watch when the wife and kiddies visit the monster-in-law.

Thanks for the reviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

not safe for kids... the domination/submission is a pretty complex idea and I would never want to try and explain it to an early teenage kid.

as for your wife (sounds pretty boring), I'd "make" her watch it. maybe she won't be so uptight and that will greatly improve your sex life and by the transitive property of life, improve your marriage.

[diebitter]

No - not for kids. Thanks for raising this - I'll integrate that aspect into future reviews.

I think most women will like this film a lot, actually. One of its primary storylines is how the girls grows into a woman, and becomes happy.

Superficially, I think your wife will not like this from what you say, but it's really hard to tell. I suspect if a female friend recommended it, she'd come to it in a different frame of mind than if you did. You're the best judge, though.

Alternatively show her this review and let her decide /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
It is safe to watch with my straight-laced conservative wife or will she be horrified? As a frame of reference she thought There's Something About Mary was "pornographic." Sounds like an interesting flick that I need to watch when I divorce my uptight wife and send her packing with the kids

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[cwsiggy]

I like Mr. Cranky's review. Great website BTW.



Secretary

Mr. Cranky's rating:
2 bombs


Steven Shainberg must think the inequitable plight of women in the workplace is pretty funny. The poster for this film is basically just the ass of a bent-over secretary. The tagline is "Assume the position." Maybe Shainberg's secretaries have been old hags and he's feeling neglected, so he's putting out the call for masochistic secretaries.

There's no way that a film titled "Secretary" about a dysfunctional female masochist who falls in love with her sadistic boss isn't a metaphor for the plight of women in the workplace. The fact that these two dysfunctional characters find each other and discover fulfilling love is irrelevant. The message is clear: Women just need to learn to like abuse. Bosses are abusers. Women are abusees. Learn to love it and you'll be much happier.

You see, Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal) gets out of psychiatric care and decides to get a job as a secretary. Never mind that she's still cutting herself. Then again, her mother is the ever-cheery Leslie Ann Warren. Who wouldn't cut themselves? What she finds at her first job is a boss, Mr. Grey (James Spader), who's abusive in a way that borders on criminal. However he's just weird enough to make you suspect that his abuse is sexually charged and he's not particularly proud of it. Luckily for him, Lee gets turned on by the pain. What follows is the most twisted mix of business and sex since Jack Welch bent the editor of the Harvard Business Review over his G.E. trophy case and showed her what an "in depth" interview was all about. What sort of male wet dream is this film? Am I actually supposed to be happy for these two people? And are we supposed to feel sympathy for Mr. Grey because he's not that comfortable with his behavior? How exactly has this guy avoided a sexual discrimination lawsuit anyway? Basically, what men like Shainberg need is for somebody to bend them over a desk. After a few rounds on the receiving end of the Jack Welch interview process, I'll bet he'd find the whole phenomenon a lot less hilarious.

[JackWilson]

I think you let this movie escape a bit lightly with 2.5/5.

[jakethebake]

A decent movie with terrible casting. This had serious potential and they blew it.

[diebitter]

Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
A decent movie with terrible casting. This had serious potential and they blew it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a story about true love, just in a f'd up way. I liked this move very much.

Casting was awesome btw.

[diebitter]

Rweally about Maggie. Yeah she is funny looking, but didn't you feel she got more attractive as her confidence/womanliness grew? (we are talking relative attractive here).

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Rweally about Maggie. Yeah she is funny looking, but didn't you feel she got more attractive as her confidence/womanliness grew? (we are talking relative attractive here).

[/ QUOTE ]

More like less unattractive.

[CD56]

IIRC it was based on a short story, and after I watched it i felt like they had stretched 40 minutes worth of material into 1.5 hours

[Swax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL why? I think the only reason that the role worked at all was because the girl was supposed to look sort of plain-jane/frumpy in it. If the female lead would have been "gorgeous" or whatever it would have rendered the entire movie totally unbelievable. Granted, I agree with you guys that the flick wasn't all that great, but I don't think that the casting was the reason - I think the casting was pretty much spot on. I think you're SUPPOSED to detest Spader, and he is definitely very loathable.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? I thought the two leads were excellent casting, but would agree all the other characters (except her mother) were not too good castings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just really dislike James Spader, and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL why? I think the only reason that the role worked at all was because the girl was supposed to look sort of plain-jane/frumpy in it. If the female lead would have been "gorgeous" or whatever it would have rendered the entire movie totally unbelievable. Granted, I agree with you guys that the flick wasn't all that great, but I don't think that the casting was the reason - I think the casting was pretty much spot on. I think you're SUPPOSED to detest Spader, and he is definitely very loathable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean I detest his characters. I just don't enjoy his acting. I think they could've easily found someone hot that could play down to the role early in the movie instead of finding someone ugly to try and make sexy at the end. Watching some hot get spanked would've made the movie infinitely better.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
and would have preferred someone who's actually attractive instead of Gyllenhal.

[/ QUOTE ]
40 Days and 40 Nights is as good as Gyllenhaal will ever look.
http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2002_40_Days_and_40_Nights/002FOR_Shannyn_Sossamon_030.jpg

[Blarg]

That was a hilarious review. The worshipful horseshit around Jack Welch has been piled so high it's great to finally see someone kicking over the enormous pile.

[Blarg]

The guy's ability to get away with this so easily in a work setting, not to mention his willingness to attempt it, instantly dropped this movie onto the level of an absurd fantasy in my mind. Often lodging there raises a movie, not drops it, if you can have fun with the imagination of it. For me, the idea he could get away with this in the workplace was so jarringly unreal I couldn't accept the entire idea of the movie, so I didn't go. I think these relationships can be complex, and you don't really see them on the screen, but I got the impression you wouldn't see one on the screen here, either. Anyway, it looked more like a dumb masturbatory fantasy than a movie to me, so I skipped it. Reading more about it hasn't managed to convince me I'm wrong. And the male lead seems so washed out and dull to me, too. All in all, I don't feel any urgency to see this. I might buy it if it was going for 50 cents in the bargain bin, then put it on a shelf and forget about it for a dozen years.

[RunDownHouse]

Its been on Oxygen off and on the past few months. Obviously not the same as watching the DVD, but that should give you the general idea of whether you'd hate watching it start to finish.