Reviews

I was very surprised to see that so many reviews/comments were raving about this movie. Unfortunately I am not of the same opinion. Yes, Michael Caine is worth watching. But even a man of his considerable talents can do only so much with a lousy part. If you want to see Caine play a villain, see 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' or 'Get Carter'. Better films, better parts. Back to 'Blood and Wine'. (I don't quite understand where that title comes from.) There's a definite lack of credibility in the script. It never gets clear why they're gonna rob precisely that house, and why they steal precisely that necklace. By the way, the robbery seems never to be discovered... People get badly hurt, seemingly unrecoverably, but five minutes later they're up and running again. I truly believe Jennifer Lopez can act, but her part in the story is vaguest of all. Everybody she betrays immediately trusts her again and still loves her. Yeah, right, just like in real life. No, sorry. Not for me. Violence without (proper) reason, does not appeal to me. At the utmost, 4 out 10.

An other user comment stated that Jennifer Love Hewitt was not the right choice to play the part of the late great Audrey Hepburn. That may be so, but then again, who is? I can't think of a modern day actress that would be right. Isn't that exactly the reason this film was made in the first place, to celebrate the fact that Audrey Hepburn was unique?

I think what was said about Love Hewitt, is also true, and much more painfully, of all the others in the cast, portraying celebrities. Neither Peck, nor Bogart, nor Holden, nor Ferrer (the least bad) was done any justice by the actors portraying them. Most of them haven't even one tenth of the special charisma that made these man great movie stars.

This above all prevents this otherwise entertaining movie from becoming a dignified ode to not only a wonderful actress, but truly a remarkable and lovely person.

This is an excellent movie. The makers have put a lot of time in research, gathering short fragments of a number of black and white so-called films noir, and adapting the main story so it fits perfectly with all these shots. Thus you see bit parts by famous actors of the past, like Humphrey Bogart, Burt Lancaster and Alan Ladd and by actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, Veronica Lake and Ava Gardner.

The reason why I think this movie, although still very good, is not quite as brilliant as it might have been, is that Steve Martin is terribly overacting. He is playing a tough guy private detective, in the Mickey Spillane tradition. And some comic things he does (like with the cigarette) really only enhance his performance, but there are other moments, like with the 'cleaning woman', that are totally ridiculous.

Rachel Ward plays his paying client, and does this excellently. Apart from being an extremely beautiful woman and a very capable drama actress, she proves to be a fine comedienne as well, at least a fine straight (wo-)man.

For film freaks this movie is a feast of recognition.

This may not be the most Capra-esque Capra movie, but it may well be the funniest.

A man, who is planning to get married (Cary Grant), discovers that his lovely old aunts are nothing else but serial killers. While he is wondering what to do, his brother turns up, who also has a dead body to dispose of.

It is hard to decide which part is the funniest: Jack Carson as a neighbourhood cop who aspires to be a playwrite, Edward Everett Horton as the head of a mental institution, Peter Lorre as the timid accomplice of murderer Raymond Massey, John Alexander as relative who thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt, James Gleason as a cynical police lieutenant or Grant himself.

This film is excellent all the way, the cast, the scenery, the plot, everything. Four hours of first class story-telling. Just one thing: I really can't see how a class act like Rhett 'Clark Gable' Buttler could ever take any interest at all in a hysterical, witless basket case like Scarlett 'Vivien Leigh' O' Hara.

In my opinion this is an excellent remake of the classic story. Kirk Douglas in the role of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, is as good as Fredric March was in the 1931 film, and better than Spencer Tracy in the 1941 version.

And Susan George is better for the part of two bit hooker than both Miriam Hopkins (1931) and Ingrid Bergman (1941).

Only blemish is the singing, which does not contribute to the atmosphere but almost destroys the tension and excitement.

Overall though a very good enjoyable film.