Plenty (1985)

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

An unexpected masterpiece

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Spoiled right from the start, from scene one but when our heroine decides to have a histrionic fit while hiding from a German patrol, I quickly lost interest.This inattention to detail in the interest of character development, is just poor direction. So she was frightened, would we not all be? But would one give oneself away by having a sudden fit of histrionics, speaking loudly, speaking at all in a high pitched voice while hiding in a ditch from the enemy? I think not. If that is what she was like, she was clearly in the wrong occupation and should never have reached within a hundred miles of occupied France. It killed the movie for me.The heroines of the resistance probably emerged from their extremely dangerous occupation bearing lasting scars, but while there they were valiant, sensible to the risks, fearful. They did not howl in fear while German's were in earshot.A good deal of the dialogue is stilted, unreal. The addition of Sting, a great mistake. It needed an actor not a rock star. All in all the next worst Meryl Streep film to Mama Mia.

What must have seemed like a complex characterization is simply confusing in this Meryl Streep movie about an overly neurotic woman whose direction as a human being has no focus. She is Susan Traherne, who goes from Ally messenger in World War II to diplomat's wife in post-war England, all the while alienating practically everybody around her with the most bizarre behavior that seems to have no justification. Snippets of this woman's life are missing to properly flow from situation to situation, making the whole story a rather blurry mess. As Streep had risen to become the top dramatic actress in Hollywood, she was (and still is) mesmerizing. But it seems more like an acting exercises than an actual role to play, so it is no wonder that this film has seemed to have slipped into obscurity over her more known 80's films ("Sophie's Choice" and the same year's Best Picture, "Out of Africa").Only two of the supporting players (Tracy Ullman as an eccentric writer and Sir John Gielgud as Sir Leonard Darwin) really stand out, giving truly strong performances. Charles Dance, Sam Neill and Sting are the men in Streep's life, but they are easily swallowed up, both by the actresses' performance and the character's hunger to emotionally chew up and spit out each of her lovers. The film covers a lot of mid 20th Century history, from World War II to Queen Elizabeth's coronation (used as a backdrop for a sexual scene between a fully clothed Streep and Sting) and later the Suez Canal conflict. This is the type of film that might have better worked as a BBC or PBS mini-series to fully tie together the entire story to make Streep's character more understandable and sympathetic.

The kid was at a sleepover. Ahhh....for once we could watch a grownup movie. What about that Meryl Streep film I picked up the other day, the one with the glowing accolades on the cover: "one of the greatest performances of her career"... "brilliant"..."fiercely intelligent"... sounds like another "Sophie's Choice"..... but no. It turned out to be a waste of a good evening. After reading many 10-star reviews of this film, I can't help wondering why my husband and I got absolutely nothing out of watching it. It did not engage us in the least. The movie is obviously adapted from a stage play, as the scenes are static and episodic. The transition from one scene to the next is often unclear, as the story jumps ahead in time and moves all over the map. One minute Susan is sharing a cramped flat with her girlfriend; the next minute she is in a comfortable apartment. Now she is dating diplomat Charles Dance. Now she is trying to make a baby with a man she despises - but who bears a marked resemblance to her long-lost airman. But wait - now she is married to Charles Dance. When and why did this happen? (this is not explained until much later in the film).The dinner party scene is awkward and Susan's outbursts (and language) seem out of character. While John Gielgud's performance is delightful (and he has some of the best lines), his relationship with Susan is never really developed - so why is she so upset when he dies? We are great fans of Meryl Streep, but we were puzzled and disappointed by her performance in this film. It was difficult to understand what she was trying to do with her character. Madwoman? Selfish bitch? Disillusioned idealist? Her extreme swings of mood - from passivity to scenery-chewing - were not believable (I do not buy the "bipolar" theory for a minute); nor was her friendship with Tracy Ullman (whose role vacillated between free spirit and wise woman).I found myself longing for "Postcards from the Edge" or "Sophie's Choice" or "Death Becomes Her" or even (God help me) the mess she made of Miranda in "The Devil Wears Prada". At least with these roles you knew where she was going.It has been suggested by several reviewers that the key to liking this film is repeated viewings. Frankly, I am not willing to sacrifice another evening for the experiment.

The problem with PLENTY is that the first half is too slow andspends too much time setting up the second half. The long scenein the British Embassy, the "riotous" living with the loose setin Pimlico - these scenes drag on and add little to our understandingof Susan, or, at the very least, are told as though they weremerely necessary and not intrinsically interesting. However, onceshe really starts going off the deep end, about the time she hooksup with Sting, it catches fire, and burns brighter and brighter.The quality of the second half is so strong that it easily nullifiesthe ill-effects of the first half.