拙妻不可欺 (1989)

Reading the comments for this film, two aspects appear as the concentration to the films perceived flaws. The one is a lack of sympathy for Roseannes character, Ruth. The other is a lack of appreciation for Meryl Streeps performance. Having watched this film many times since its release, I think I can safely dispute this argument.This film certainly I feel has all the markings of a cult favorite. Its dark humor, over charged performances as well as the overall look and feel wedges it someplace between "Heathers" and "Ruthless People". More on the nuances that I feel set this film apart from others later, but lets first deal with the Roseann/Streep problem.Quite frankly, I see no problem. Meryl Streeps Mary Fisher is one of the screens funniest inventions. It seems quite clear to me that she enjoyed playing this role because there is no other way such a wonderful performance could have been created. On a number of occasions, there are lengthy shots with no change of camera where she drives through a range of hilarious emotions. How she handles a scene involving a dog licking her feet while she awakes is tremendous. I feel it is one of her strongest performances; she never turns it off, and always delivers it in the correct dosage.The issue with Roseannes character, Ruth, is she is seen as manipulative, uncaring, a monster hell bent on revenge. Ruth, like everything else in this picture is a caricature. This is very much the sort of role we would expect from Roseanne, the domestic goddess taking it all a step further. True, she does wallow in a mean spirited negativity, but it results in a positive outcome for nearly all involved. She takes control of her life and liberates Linda Hunts Nurse Hopper as well as countless women through her Vespa Rose Employment Agency. She returns life to the geriatrics in her care at a nursing home. As a result of Ruths revenge, Mary Fisher at last becomes recognized as the serious writer she wished to from the start. We even know that