Reviews

This MGM 'super-spectacle' is a cinemaattic pile of dung. The Italian-made sword-and-sandals 'epics' with Steve Reeves et al are superior in every way to this mawkish, teribly acted and directed, overlong slice of religiosity as only Louis B. Mayer could imagine (even as he was being removed from his MGM leadership). The three stars are only for the use of Technicolor, and, perhaps, for the dopy joy of Peter Ustrinov's performance as Nero, which 'almost' saves this nonsense from the trash dump completely. Robert Taylor could never act, and his attempts here are among his most embarrassing. Even the Rosza score is heavy-handed. LeRoy's direction is stilted. The script tries to allow for the religious goal but strike out with incredibly dialogue and illogical plot maneuvers (where does one get a million spectators in an arena after the whole city is destroyed?) Poor Deborah Kerr, Leo Genn,etc. Nothing they can do but, probably, hope that the long shoot would end in time for thiem to get better roles. A truly awful and hardly spectacular film.... Watch the chariot chases as among the many dreadful scenes.

Michelle Yeoh is a spectacular actress as seen in this film, knowing that nothing was done in one take, and her myriad of expressions and countless character shifts are truly unique. But this crazed film defies easy analysis. For a fantasy time-warp / character-switch-around, adventure-swirl, this one defies clarification. A 'fantasy', if this is one, must have a kernel of truth from which it moves, even 'Godzilla' or 'Back to the Future' or 'SpiderMan-No Way Home'...or...you-name-it. This one starts with taxes and failing business with a subplot idea of the daughter's live life. It ends with the daughter again...creating the question 'Why did we go through all of this in the first place?' Editing is mammoth with even rocks cascading down on the audience. It runs about eight (??) hours or seems to be even more!! You can try to play the game of 'What's it all about Alfie?' but I am one who just doesn't care. Just save Ms. Yeoh!

'Solace' crawls along with very little suspense, due to a dreamlike performance by Anthony Hopkins and a meandering plot. BUT....when Colin Farrell finally enters the plot. Late in the running time, the film takes on some vitality. Farrell's work is one of his strongest...and one that shows deep acting gifts...running an amazing gamut in its short span of time. He is worth seeing. The film, though, about how clairvoyance solves murders, should have been far more intriguing than it turns out to be. We are told, from the onset, that Hopkins character is greatly depressed and solitary. The reasons are shown, via a host of visual blips on the screen, but Hopkins never shows us how this changes took place...and how he reached his point of no return. The other cast members play one-dimensional characters as well as possible.

There are elements in this reworking of 'Lost Horizon' that are pleasant, but the overall result, though, is a mega-disappointment. In the original, plot irregularities faded, because the ultimate film was intriguing and with an aura of make-believe-turned-into-reality that was infectious. This remake lacks the unity of that original and the plot holes and lack of coherence appear full-scale. The music is actually quite infections and done with a panache, but the good songs wander off as the plot goes askew. Logic fails under the weight of the Ros Hunter touch. Too much is left adrift in plot mechanations. Yes, the cast does as well as possible, particularlyPeter Finch, Liv Ullman, John Gielgud, and Charles Boyer. Bobby Van's dance trickery is pleasant, but the larger choreographic numbers look as if they escaped from an old Maria Montez film. "Lost Horizon" had served as a Broadway musical called, simply,"Shangra-La". The score was not bad; the cast was good...but it, too, couldn't work off the printedpage or the Colman movie. But the Bacharach/David songs do deserve nice mention..

There's no need to dig deeply into the storyline of this film - it is familiar and unimportant. What is important is your ability to just check the logic at the door....and enjoy in the same manner as you might with anew film in the tradition of Indiana Jones/Pirates of the Caribbean style. It is, of course, a Tom Holland film; he is no less than terrific as the young man in a search for his brother ....not to mention a cache of riches. This kind of film is not really one in which Wahlberg looks most comfortable, but he carries his weight. Just forget your preconceived thoughts about this kind of film...Go with iit.... Have some good old fashioned fun. And it does end with an opening for a sequel if they so desire.

Sea of Love is a loser that scratches the very bottom of sex-related murder mysteries. It has one of Pacino's really bad performances...shocking to see him so over the top!!! The plot rambles with a cloudy ending that defies logic and remains unexplored...and, worse, with a fadeout that falls even flatter than the plot itself. BUT there is one truly magnificent acting moment that lasts only minutes in the earlier scenes. The wonderful Patricia Barry, as an aging woman in search of love, absolutely makes the whole cinema mess worthwhile. She sits briefly with Pacino, seeking a possible murder suspect. He says nice things to her, and she reacts. A lovely beyond-middle-age woman 'searching;, and then, he dumps her. It offers her a scene to be remembered...you see her disappointment, her loser-in-search. And, minutes later, the camera catches a fantastic moment when we see her watching Pacino, with still another woman. She has been destroyed...she has cried..she is a lost soul. A memorable, fantastic acting scene in an overbaked mystery that goes nowhere,

The great joy of watching, or reading, a mystery, thriller, or psychological what-not is what we believe the outcome will be...and what it actually is. We think of the 'clues' the incidents that should lead to the eventual conclusion, the confusions, the misconceptions... 'Hide and Seek' is exasperating. You can guess along with the muddling plot and actions. You try to go along with it...You try to find logical conclusions..... Not this time!!! The plot meanders all over the place, and it is not a spolier to say.....'What the hell is going on'? We are left with questions that only indicate that somewhere along the line, an hour of plotwas losston the editing room. Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? I defy you to answer the basics.

Both Hackman and Freeman are superlative actors, and both are in solid form in this whodunnit...with twists and turns that boggle your sense of logic. Nonetheless, seeing these two men and a fascinating story is enough to get you wrapped up in its whodun-what to whom. A good entry in the thriller genre....and a good one to talk about after you've seen it....and you will talk about it then.

Yes, Olivia Colman is a sterling actor, able to bring life and meaning to any number of films and video presentations. She remains superb in "The Lost Daughter", but that is all that I can say that is 'positive' about the yawnfest. It is an overlong, overly allegedly quixotic melodrama with its plot motivations obvious from act one, scene one. Going back-and-forth in time merely over-underscores the psychological state of Olivia's character. Cuts should have been made...the scenario movement makes the same points over and over...until you stifle a yawn. It's all too obvious and would hve been effective at half the length...if even then. There really isn't anything interesting about the Maggie Gylennhal's direction....the emotional changes are fine as long as the camera concentrates on Olivia's magical face.

Once this film started, I had to sit through it all in order to see how much worse the writing, direction, and screenplay could be. The today-yesterday-today-tomorrow-yesterday-today up and down of the script and the film leaves the viewer with a piece of unresolved junk. Holland seems a good, young actor...and some of the others appear to, perhaps, be good in another film. BUT this waste of film clouds over any sense of the basic who-what-when-where-and why. If there is a method to this madness, I would be willing to listen... but i suspect not even a second or third viewing can clarify the idiocy going on.

.

Few films have made me as angry as this terrible...what...? Thriller? No. Supernatural epic? No. Drama? No..and who cares? The film opens with a dramatic image or two, then switches timelines.... Fine...We want to see what that opening scene is all about. BUT, then, the film wanders all over the place, not knowing what its writers expect of their characters, the 'haunted house' setting, the back story, and o n and on. The ending is dreadful and answers nothing at all. You have wasted two hours. Norton is an actor I hope never to see again. The writing is so bad, I will make certain I avoid anything these writers work on in the future. A really awful mess of a movie.

There is much to be said regarding the intent of this movie. On script paper, it deals with the Levittown-ish thinking that pervades a great deal of our country. It wants to show us the hypocritical lifestyles in a dreadfully dull area, and the impact of the first black residents coming into this idealized residential area. But it also wants to show the rotten underbelly of this town, some of which includes a semi-steal of 'Double Indemnity' with the worst aspects of a 'B' movie. It moves as if Clooney likes everything at a snail's pace. Potentially important issues are handled with far more dullness than almost any important, but bad, film I have ever seen. Everything is directed badly, and the waste of Matt Damon..and the inexcusably bad work of Julianne Moore underscores its worthlessness at a time when a film like this could be a valuable tool by which we can look at the twists and turns of America, from the 1950's to today. We can see, if the script were better, how this town would be perfect for the advent of the vigilante mobs, in trucks, coming in from out-of-town to enact their own version of a purified white country. Damn!!! this film could have been important...but it is terrible.

The script is terrible....the actions of the characters totally ridiculous, although, it is true that some of the actions are based on a one-time reality...but never this foolishly presented. The acting, except for Haysbert, is sublimely stupid. Now, if it were made as a 'Saturday Night Live' lampoon of the Ross Hunter melos, it could pass as long as the actors allowed us to do a loud hoot now and then. Yes, the entire cinematography and look is exactly as Universal-International would have done it 'back then'...But the problem is that this is all done 'straight' as if it is meant to show the New England of that period. It can't work with all the twist of homophobia, racism, and the semi-wealthy mindset of the period. If it is a joke or an 'homage' to Hunter, it might work for five or ten minutes. Gads, all those shots of bucolic landscapes and leaves and flowers, complete with Moore's floating skirts. Couldn't stop watching it, simply because I couldn't believe all that dialogue being delivered moment after moment.

The opening half-hour of this film is a masterwork of anticipation and suspense. The opening scene is one of the best 'teases' one could expect, and the unraveling of some of the plot details and character development follows with no chance for you to even think of ''giving up'. It grabs you and holds you...the set is as much a part of the effectiveness as is the acting of one and all. But, sadly, towards the denoument or denouments, the film blows up in various directions, particularly in the Hemsworth-intrusion and the resultant damage to the film. BUT...and this is a big 'but'...Until that occurs, this film has the hallmark of suspense excellence as solidly done as any I have seen in a long time. The rating reflects the film until it crashes. Until that time, it verges on 'greatness' with the sneaky and smart touches on expects from a Hitchcockian student.

Anthony Mann had become one of the major directors of westerns and fast-paced cinema. But such a belief is questioned by this over-acted, over-produced, badly written film. It is said that Mann left the film and was replaced by Charles Walters, who, obviously, was not a man for this kind of film. Even the large-scale land-rush scene is pure 'piffle'. The script is a mish mash of every cliche in the book. I do see the somewhat vague parallel to Ferber's later 'Giant', but the film of that book was a masterwork; this one is the bottom of the ladder. Glenn Ford is caught with every cliche. Wonderful Maria Schell is all 'smiles' and semi-smiles and poor! Perhaps the worst acting, and worst writing, is saved for Anne Baxter, looking and acting as if she was still being DeMille-d in 'The 10 Commandments'. Plot holes are everywhere, and logic is nowhere is sight. The opening song, under the credits, paves the way for awfulness that follows it for its interminable length. It can't really be attributed to Mann. Only MacMahon has a good moment, and not even McCambridge, O'Connell,Keith, Tamblyn, etc. can offer assistance.

The AIDS epidemic, of course, put The Ritz into a no-play situation in that it gay characters intertwine in all sorts of partnerships...though never seen on screen. But all really know about life in the gay clubs as they existed prior to AIDS. Putting all of that aside, and looking at The Ritz as if in a time capsule, it is a riotous farce with stereotypical gays that are nonetheless wonderfully funny and somehow loving people. Rita Moreno, repeating her award-winning stage role, dominates the screen at every interval...and her 'performance' at the baths' pool is among the funniest scenes of the decade. Treat Williams is also paramount in the craziness wonder of the film. Yes, the story that holds the film together is nonsense, although played well enough by F. Murray Abraham, Kaye Ballard, et al. But the film, despite its strange place in history, makes you laugh...and laughter is a good thing. The people are not hurt and not put down. The 'bad guys' are absolutely ridiculous, and the gays are lovable. It may be a little socially unacceptable, but nonetheless still with us. Even Rosie Perez did a Broadway revival , to acclaim, even after the AIDS crisis was abating a little.

Fine photography and scenic wonders are all there in this film, but, oddly, it is a youthful Seann William Scott who steals this film from star Dwayne Johnson and everything else. The story, naturally, is silly...but it has humor and lots of action scenes. In fact, almost all of it is action, often with comedic touches that are played well by the two men. Johnson has charisma, but Scott is in his element, offering the kind of zany performance, and good looks, that should have propelled him to more important and jucier roles. Not a bad film to sit through on a rainy or snowy night. You won't be bored.

Lots of gunfire, lots of whirling car rides, lots of violence, lots of blood....and lots of FUN. One should shudder at the thought of all of the frequent bodies flying across the screen, but, here, it amounts to a roller coaster ride of vengeance and retribution. Keanu Reeves handles this kind of chore easily, although, one of these days, he should have the chance to show his skillful acting range (Damn, he has played Hamlet, other Shakespearean works, and sturdy drama and comedy(. Nonetheless, John Wick zooms along with the speed of bullets flooding the screen, and the direction and editing and cinematography are all of the highest order.

Ewan McGregor has one or two effective scenes in this film, but the film nevertheless is awful with Carrey giving perhaps his worst performance. The film doesn't know what it wants to be - even though it is allegedly based on a true story of a con man de luxe and his love affair. The opening scenes seem to indicate a move towards satire/farce and a typical Carrey characterization. But here he goes far far too far, and his acting stint is painful. The film then swerves back and forth from slapstick to melodrama and back to slapstick. It doesn't work at all. Both actors play gay characters - Carrey camps it all the way to high amperage while McGregor plays it simply and is able to get both laughs and sympathy. Was this film ever rally released??? If so, why??

FOR PETE'S SAKE should have been almost as good, goofy, and enjoyable as WHAT'S UP DOC?', but the rather unpleasant backstory eventually irritates despite the comedic potential. Barbra is as bright and spunky as she had been in 'DOC', but the uneven script places her in situations that, potentially hysterical, somehow leave a bad taste for several reasons - the methods by which innocent Barbra tries to get the money her hubby, Pete, needs for 'porkbellies'. The Brooklyn setting is real and fits the story well...but it is Michael Sarrazin that really carries the pleasant and charming center of the story. Far away from his strong and dynamic performance in THEY SHOOT HORSES..., he, here, is a delightful leading man with a fine sense of timing, expressive light comedic style (a/la Rod Taylor). He is entirely convincing. The surprising negative factors include the appearance of Molly Picon as a peculiar and supposedly charming madame-underworld character. The part should have been a superb moment for her, but her dialogue and actions become uncomfortable for this formidable star. Nonetheless. the Steisand-Sarrazin teaming looks and feels right...and the love scenes are satirically delicious.

Wow... What a nice surprise this film is. Watched it one evening and thought it was going to be just another minor league chiller. Instead, I found a thriller-chiller-mystery that is remarkably made on what may be a small budget... It doesn't look like a small budget, because everything is done with striking ability. One does know the genre at once, but one can enjoy the swirling 'who-what-where-how' for its entire length. The two actors show enormous potential and do absolutely super work. I want to see more of them...and more of the director of this indie. When you mix 'Outward Bound' with a contemporary appearance and then zap the audience with nicely executed twist, you have a fine piece of cinema. Congrats to all.

There are some films, with tiny budgets, that can pass for a light smile. This film leaves you gaping at the stupidity in everything concerned. The Oceangraphic School, at which this takes place, seems to have no building at all...and there are no signs of any human beings save for the actors. The dialogue is awful, and the beginning of the film indicates just how bad it will be. A actor, in a gill suit, is underwater...and preying on anything. Oh, what to do??!! Kent Taylor, the 'hero' of the piece never changes expression ('Just let me out of here'). Cathy Downs does try...but has nothing tangible to do. She is still attractive, but that beauty of 'My Darling Clementine' and 'The Dark Corner' is strained. Still, she is the only thing worth looking at in the film. No school, no students, no apparent staff, a lab from an Ed Wood movie. Sad sad sad film. The one alleged professor has created a new scientific study that has gotten out of hand. Uranium apparently is at the bottom of this stretch of see...and it multiplies leading to the creation of an actor dressed in a gill suit but still looking like an actor in a gill suit ( makes you admire The Creature from the Black Lagoon even more.) The gill man's first victim, to us, is a man whose row boat is overturned. The gill man gets him...and seems to fondle him as he kills him (watch the scene, if you dare!). No students on the beach...no one else...until a bleached blond (of .maybe, a spy ring) entices the professor's dart=carrying assistant to 'get the secret'. You don't need to know any more.

I really didn't have the highest of hopes when turning this film on while the rain poured outside. BUT I was more than pleasantly surprised by the ease with which the action-packed film zipped along. Yes, it is a story of a 'loner' in search of his place in the universe (he is an alien in the US), but that internal conflict carries the story aloft with good acting (not played for Flash Gordon camp). Timothy Olyphant is a scene steal-er and a fine actor...and the younger performers are quite relaxed as they confront sci-fi trickeries at every corner.A big smile occurred with the reappearance, at the end (not really a spoiler). Don't avoid this film...it will give you a couple of enjoyable hours...and, yes, i do kinda hope that the series continues...I still want to know about the BOX!!

I sit on the fence, a little, when naming my favorite musical of all time. 'West Side Story' really does stand alone, but it is not the usual Hollywood musical. For that, I am always torn between 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'Band Wagon'...Two giant testaments to what musicals could do when written with wit and charm, played exquisitely, sung and danced with originality, spunk,and whirlwind teamwork. Band Wagon is a monumental achievement by looking so relaxed and easy, and following a story line that spells of REALITY. Yes, a potential Broadway flop is like it is in the depiction of this pre-Broadway tryout Brilliant storytelling - a has been Hollywood star, a dancer trying a first time Broadway showcase, a supposed 'genius; of the theater world, etc. And the music - wow! - including the new 'That's Entertainment'!! 'Triplets' is a howl, and the Astaire-Charisse 'Dancing in the Dark' is flawless without being flamboyant. This one is a treasure trove of what was best in the Hollywood of yore. But still torn between this one and 'Singin' in the Rain', with a special spot eternally reserved for 'West Side Story'. Of course, now I think of adding 'An American in Paris' - it, too, is in the pantheon. And just below them is a half-forgotten masterpiece from Columbia -- The fantastic Betty Garrett, the lovely and lithe Janet Leigh, the superb Jack Lemmon...and the brilliant work of Bob Fosse and Tommy Rall - the dance in the alleyway behind the burlesque theater - the musical version of My Sister Eileen. The studio had wanted to film the same story as done on Broadway - Wonderful Town - but rights somehow got involved. But this film, with a new score, is lyrical and comedic dynamite!