Reviews

83 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Let it float by
12 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is l o n g, too long, and insulting. Robin Wright is wonderful; Kevin Costner is Kevin Costner; Paul Newman is to be complimented for evolving into a character actor.

Any resemblance to a worthwhile experience ends there. In its defense, this movie must have had to end the way it did; it's the adaptation of a book. Thank God it is not another, "The Scarlett Letter" adaptation that makes its own ending! The ending is laughable. I could not believe that the guy would not come wandering out of the waves. Plus...this flick had so many endings, it reminded me of Lord of the Rings, the Return of the King. It just kept going on and on with various endings. It was like a high Roman Catholic wedding mass to a Baptist; you think it's over, gather up your things, and it keeps going! The difference is that such a mass is beautiful; this movie is unbelievably boring.

MIAB is actually a character study; best suited to no more than one hour. I think it is just poorly written; there are too many loose ends. Plus, it is HOKEY beyond belief! Anyone, including myself, who would sit through this turkey deserves better! I believe the production company went over its deadline and someone pulled the plug.

Well, that's one more good thing...it could still be running.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why not go overland?
12 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Has there ever been a more elegant movie? The cinematography, music, set and fashion design, and most of all, the quality of acting, is unsurpassed. Albert Finney should have received the Academy Award for his performance.

The premise is tragic; not the stuff of classy movies. But, since the bad guy gets his, every thing turns out all right. Each actor simply "is" his or her part; but then, each was the best in his or her field at the time.

Tony Perkins was too typecast. He is excellent, but the role is distractingly familiar. It is a shame Perkins was forever cast into the "Psycho" stereotype.

Even so, the only casting I would rather see changed is Lauren Bacall; she does not have the underlying substance to fill out the character she plays; she has always been, in her roles and admittedly, in her private life (via her autobiography) exactly like the person she portrayed as "Harriet Hubbard". I would have rather seen a deeper and more substantive actress for the part; Ingrid Bergman would have brought much more depth, for instance. Bacall just didn't make a believable transition to, "The Greatest American Dramatic Actress of Her Day." She has always played somewhat of a shallow floozie, and the image fits her. I loved her clothes though.

This is indeed an escapist film. Sidney Lumet was a great director and several of these stars indicated they would not have made this film, were he not in that role. Indeed, Agatha Christie would not have allowed it to be made.

This is a wonderful visual and intellectual experience.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bodyguard (1992)
5/10
Flat Champagne
20 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with this film is the total lack of chemistry between the two lead characters; or rather, between the actors who play them. That attraction is supposed to fuel the movie and drive it forward, but it's water in the gas tank; this clunker only rolls a few feet.

Whitney Houston is so talented and beautiful, but exudes no sex appeal. In that respect she is like Julie Andrews of old; very talented, lovely, but, as one critic wrote of Andrews, "Has all the sex appeal of a very efficient dietitian." I would rather have seen, oh...Halle Berry or some actress with real dynamism (and dubbed voice) getting mixed up with Kevin Costner.

Kevin Costner is a fine actor who was absolutely doing his best Steve McQueen impression. Women love to see a powerful, internally sensual man succumb to a woman so sensual or otherwise desirable that the poor guy's helpless. Costner is a powerful actor and few female actresses have that presence...Angelina Joli? Costner even was too powerful for Susan Sarandan in Bull Durham.

I agree that, second to the flat interaction of the main characters, the story made little sense. If Frank Farmer had such a fragile ego that he could not come to terms with a tragic event he had nothing to do with, he would not have been selected by the Secret Service in the first place.

And what was the plan with taking the entourage to the lake? Were they going to live there indefinitely? Papa Walton, by the way, was miscast as Frank's father. He seemed to be ready to break into a smile at any moment; or perhaps the corners of his mouth got caught on his dentures.

The sister and son were very good. I liked the acting ability of both; Fletcher was very subtle and sensitive in a film that wasn't.

The Oscar scenes were funny. Anyone who saw Naked Gun 33 1/3 keeps expecting Mary Lou Retton to come flipping and bouncing down the aisle. Rachel's (joking) reason for risking her life in attending was ludicrous...you gotta cheer when Frank's stoic chastity appropriately caved; if she was a Darwin award candidate, her days were numbered anyway, so why not?

Actually, I thought Whitney Houston's acting was fine; she downplayed the role, seemed rather shy, and perhaps if there were more chemistry with the male lead, she would have received less criticism. I would like to have seen Diana Ross and Steve McQueen; they were equally matched dynamic folks.

Oh well, there are worse movies. Just because this one lacked chemistry, motivation, and sense, doesn't make it half as bad as the remake of Lost Horizon...my overall standard of rotten films.

And hey, I thought Frank's haircut was sexy.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny Farm (1988)
9/10
An Acher of Fun
20 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I like this movie a lot, and I do not like Chevy Chase, who cannot manage attempting to be "funny" in any of his movies without animal abuse. NOT FUNNY, Chevy! Madolyn Smith is wonderful. I agree with others that she is an underrated actress; she seems very natural and most likable.

The chemistry between the two main actors is great. You buy that Andy Farmer is a couple of bubbles off center and that Elizabeth is along for the ride; she loves him but keeps her head amid the chaos of crushed expectations.

One of my favorite parts is Elizabeth's predicament in having to read Andy's novel when she intended a different evening. Wives everywhere will identify with her hands-over-face tears when she is trapped between her support for her mate and the awfulness of his writing.

Andy Farmer is a big lumbering Labrador Retriever of a character. He is all bounds and tale wagging and happy panting; until he meets the town folk who don't see themselves as dog toys. The citizens of Redbud just live their lives, lives grown odd through generations of isolation, no doubt, and they see no reason to change just because a happy puppy romps among them.

I love the whole Christmas scenario...and the fact that smarter heads than Chase's opted to not let the ducks get shot out of the sky and drop at his feet. I'm sure that's what he would have suggested, like the cat in Christmas Vacation. George Roy Hill had much more depth than Chase and knew not to play this flick for sadistic cheap laughs; except, I just remembered, the scalded bird. Again, NOT FUNNY, Chevy!

This movie would have been good with anyone in Chase's role; Smith carries the movie and several good male actors come to mind who could have handled the part of Andy Farmer well...with no mistreatment of animals at all!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frasier: Look Before You Leap (1996)
Season 3, Episode 16
10/10
Among the Funniest!
18 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This hilarious episode spotlights each main character at his or her best. Nothing is so funny as tragedy in a fine comedian's hands, and this episode proves it.

Each event extends the theme personality of the character to the point of disaster; each terrible outcome is tailored to their specific hopes and dreams. Roz is humiliated in her eternal quest for love; Daphne for self improvement; Martin, for adventure outside his chair and remote control; Niles in his quest to rekindle Maris; and Frasier, in his always bumbling desire to be shown superior through his advice to loved ones.

The combined fury of the recipients of his conceit finally place Frasier on center stage in the spotlight's glare, dancing and mumbling ad libbing lyrics to "Buttons and Bows"; a perfect tune for live broadcast humiliation.

I think the outbursts of laughter from Daphne and Martin as they watch Frasier's fiasco must have been genuine; tears were running down my face as well. They were probably filmed actually seeing this performance for the first time.

This episode is a perfect jewel of writing, and acting.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Muppets Treasure Island (1996 Video Game)
10/10
Love brought us here
11 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I think that sums this wonderful movie best; the irony that is the Muppet's trademark; the inside jokes that only those over 21 get, ("If you had crabs on your bottom, you'd be grouchy too!"); the color, the just plain wit of the thing. This is a delightful film.

The Jewish cruise group is hilarious-the concept to start with, then their comments along the way, the "asides" on the main story..."These South Sea floor shows are great" (or something to that effect);"What's with the wine! You're washing the paint off the shuffleboard game!"

My favorite song is "I have cabin fever". It is hilarious.

Of course, Tim Curry is wonderful, as always. He has hewn for himself a unique place in movies; always odd, yet always likable and funny. He is really a fine actor; I would like to see him in a serious role some day.

My favorite scene is when poor Kermit and Ms. Piggy dangle over certain death on the rocks below singing, "Love Brought Us Here." Amen.

By far the best,of many good, Muppet movies. Thanks, all you Muppet guys!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Something to Celebrate!
11 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
What a refreshing movie! The contrast between the WASP lifestyle and the Greek was very well done. I agree that most of us WASPs lead boring lives; certainly compared to the cultures that celebrate togetherness. To the Greeks, apparently, cohesion is more important than conformity. It fascinated me that, although these Greek characters were so connected,they were so distinctively unique.

Ian was lost in this exuberance, but in love enough to be open to it; and to always fall for "Nico's" verbal jokes. Ian and Toula were different culturally, but their essence was the same; they were gentle people awash in worlds of too much isolation from feelings and too overwhelming in feelings. They both felt themselves odd balls in those worlds, and were magnetized to one another instantly.

Of course, the most hilarious scene was when Ian tried to flirt outside Toula's office window and got "an old lady ass kicking" for his trouble. That, being followed by the scene where, in her entrancement with her new found soul mate, Toula flattens herself backwards! Those touches in the film that remind us of our own silly experiences are what made this movie so great for me. I loved the warmth of a culture so very different from my own; the realistic opposition that the father shows; the astonishment, but acceptance, by the "toast" parents of the groom.

One of my favorite escape films.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Matilda (1996)
9/10
You go girl
29 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Mara Wilson is beyond superb. What a prefect performance! I will have to see the remake of "Miracle on 34th Street" if she is in it.

I watch this film frequently. Frankly, I identify with Matilda, as unfortunately many bright females no doubt do. When a child is put down for being bright or creative or talented by their own parents and siblings, the spirit and self image suffers.

But not Matilda's. She is able to see that she is, "somewhat different from her family," and thus has perspective about worth. Wouldn't that be nice? Here is a little girl who discovers adults can be just as "bad" as children, and hence, should pay the consequences. Here is a little girl who does not take the flaws of lousy parents onto her own shoulders, and instead whips out that ol' peroxide bottle.

I like that Danny Devito is also the narrator. It softens his on-screen character and enhances the movie.

The only criticism I have is that "Miss Honey" should occasionally speak above a whisper. After a while it gets irritating.

And definitely, the scene of "kicking the cat" should not have been made; there are other ways to convey someone's meanness without trivializing an act of cruelty; in pretense or not.

In conclusion: please, Mara, come back to film. You are wonderful.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So bad it's kinda fun
25 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I like ghost movies and such, and I do watch "Topper Returns" when I am in the mood. BUT it is getting more difficult, as the rampant racism is increasingly tough to stomach. "Rochester" was a pleasant memory from my youth; a valued cohort of Jack Benny. I didn't like to see him denigrated in this film. I tell myself that all of these fine actors did their best in denigrating roles, but Rochester more so than the others.

And Joan Blondell! How irritating can one person get? I know this was the age of the "give as good as she got" female, but she utters not one humorous thing and grates on one's nerves.

This movie is a waste of fine talent. It does, however, have redeeming virtues. The black and white photography is perfect for the effects it wishes to create. I think the scene of the "spirit" leaving the mansion to find Topper, is spectacular. The light and motion of the scene is better than I have ever seen in movies.

I couldn't get into the ghost's still having a "body" capable of climbing into bed with Topper, getting drunk, getting her toe stepped on, etc.

Carol Landis was beautiful and somehow managed to get through this turkey. Another waste of talent- and beauty.

If you haven't seen this flick, you must do so if only to experience the eye movements of the doctor- the Boris Karloff wannabe. It is a queasy-creating performance...eee gads.

But my dissatisfaction boils down to this: did the studio run out of money, or what? The end drops you off a cliff; so what was the whole scheme and how were the assorted nuts in the castle involved, and did Dennis O'Keef ever get his $26 dollars, and why in the heck do I care? Well, I don't, so I'm going to make some coffee.
3 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hawaii (1966)
4/10
Watch Mary Poppins Instead
16 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well, as far as the "unChristian" debate; it's pointless. History is history. Exploiting people and land is an activity of all religions (except the ones that emphasize spirit and not structure...like Buddism). So, Hawaii depicts the essence of what happened in Hawaii, like it or not.

My question is, why on earth did they cast Julie Andrews to play Jerusala? I know she was popular at the time, but was completely inappropriate for the part, beginning with the English accent. She is a lightweight actress, as sexually appealing as a "very efficient dietitian" (as one reviewer of another film described her). That whaler dude would hardly have pined across time and oceans to win her hand (or most certainly anything else).

I don't have much problem with Max; then again, I haven't seen him in anything else. He appeared to be a wooden actor performing as a wooden man. Unlike Jerusala, I didn't keep expecting him to grab an umbrella, break out in song and skip off a cliff. Believe me, I wish she had.

The Hawaiian cast was excellent. I can't help but feel their talents were wasted, as was the culture they represented in the new order brought by Whites. Those actors made the tale much more believable.

Of course the photography was incredible. Hawaii is incredible. The book was much better, as is always the case in movies, but in my opinion, far too long. Michner liked to hear himself write.

That's about it. This is good escapist stuff, but badly miscast. Alas, they should have learned from My Fair Lady and picked Audrey Hepburn. That would have also been miscasting, but she didn't have the off screen persona that Andrews reportedly has- the ability to cuss like one of those whalers.

And, I am sure the lovely Ms. Hepburn, being a truly fine actress, would have made us regret her character's passing. Instead, when that sad moment came (or, actually, didn't come- they skipped over that part, probably because it didn't fit either Julie's image or acting ability; they showed her looking kinda tired, then cut to her tombstone), anyway, when I caught on to that quick transition, I breathed my own simple little prayer; "Thank God."
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hello Again (1987)
1/10
Don't Bother
2 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Shelly Long is an excellent comedic actress who has excruciatingly terrible taste in choosing films. Watching her on Cheers is a joy. She has perfect comedy timing and is at her best as an intellectual in a company of clowns.

BUT she should NOT be cast as the clown! In her movie career she pulled a "Chevy Chase" and spiraled down from an attractive bright person to a buffoon. Hello Again is the nadir (I hope!).

Where do I start? The writer, Susan Issacs, must be somebody's niece. She is a rotten writer. Making Lucy's character a stumble bum is pointless. Why? Who would think the constant pratfalls are funny?? It is embarrassing to watch.

Judith Ivey should get the ham of the year award for drastic overacting. Gabriel Byrnes is wonderful. I had not seen him before, but seeing how he could even pretend to be in character in this turkey was impressive. And I liked Corbin B.

I watch this movie to cheer myself up. No matter how bad things are in my life, at least I didn't appear in this film.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best of the British Best
25 August 2009
DO NOT watch this film if you are drinking anything! Water, booze, whatever, will be sprayed all over who or whatever happens to be in front of you. Keep a friend: swallow first then open your eyes and watch this hilarious farce.

Only the British could make this movie. The juxtaposition of coke-expulsion hilarity and never-crack-a-smile line delivery is in the DNA of only the British. We Americans could never pull it off.

All the actors are beyond good; deadpan humor, you should pardon the expression. Discovering this film is like watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the first time...only better.

The premise of a serious, sober occasion, the funeral of a good but unexpectedly flawed man, is unusual to start with. This is a compassionate play dealing with outrageous events happening to vulnerable people. We identify with each one and at the same time secretly gloat that WE would never find ourselves in such a situation!

The outright fall down funniest member of the cast is an American, and I don't think the Brits could have pulled off HIS brand of humor. The characters all are flawed in some socially unacceptable way, but all, indeed, are good people so you care about what huge asses they make of themselves.

This is the funniest film I have ever seen. Hands down.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Swing and A Miss
30 June 2009
I do not recall the first Thomas Crown film. But this one is bad (although lovely in photography) because of miscast actors. Pierce Brosman and Rene Russo don't belong in this film. They are both fine actors but Brosman lacks the image of a selfish man, and Russo is not a slut actress. Both of their strengths are class and intelligence.

Now picture this flick with, oh, say, Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie. THAT would be fireworks. Here, it's just pathetic to see such fine human beings cast as "take what you can" types. It just don't work, folks.

I agree with others who point out the silliness of the plot. But it is hard for me to even consider the plot when I see Russo (or whoever) writhing all over a marble staircase. And what's with that obscene statue in the front hall of Crown's home? Please...is a guy into Monet also into in-your-face pornographic figures? Let's talk class here...at least that marble babe shouldn't be spread eagled in front of incoming guests.

And what's with the pouty-faced model cast as the daughter of somebody or other in prison? Her smoldering looks and slinking on and off camera are hilarious. Yeah, like she's able to recreate the soul of Monet; she can't even crack a smile. She looks like a blond Dementor.

Hey- I just had a thought: I continue to nominate another "sequal", "Lost Horizon" as the worst film ever made. BUT if the same crew who hatched that singing turkey really wanted to nail the title, why don't they put this "Thomas Crown Affair" to music! That would be the best thing since talkies.

Oh, yes, and I agree about the Pepsi One performance. I found it offensive even before that commenter pointed out the ad.

Not worth the popcorn, even if you're at home.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Opps
12 May 2009
I agree with another author who said that the one dimensional "support" characters...that is, everyone but Lohman...did not help this film. The original was indeed more of a cast movie, there were several good roles. I was embarrassed for Dennis Quaid. Talk about phoning in a performance! And there was no relationship evident- past or present, with Natasha Richardson's character. Neither had substance.

And the ridiculous "butler"- what's with that? Was he meant to be gay originally and then the writers changed their minds? The little dance with Annie was also embarrassing. It appears that no one gave any thought to character development at all. Why oh why did the parents get together in the first place, and ditto for the second time around.

The main interest here is comparing it to the much superior 1961 version.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Town (I) (2008)
2/10
Don't Let This One Haunt You!
27 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Who is this Ricky Whats-his-name? I guess he is KNOWN, but why, I don't get. Whoever this dude is, he is untalented. Being dull and non-verbal isn't humorous. Maybe if one has seen him in his "element," he is prop-able in any situation. To see him out of a previous context is to wonder, "Whaaa?"

But my main problem with this unraveled flick is the waste of Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni. They would be great in some movie together without the unnecessary static of a bad script headed by an idiot. Here, they are like yachts roped to a tug boat, heading out to empty sea. They are both capable of a range of emotions but are limited to Rick's Z to Z- acting range. (To Tea Leoni: please don't ever again take a role that requires you to talk about a mummy's "willy" in a funeral jar).

The central problem is that the script is Swiss cheese. Large holes are everywhere; leads lead nowhere. For instance, is the boyfriend a good guy or not? And how did the husband die? AND those stupid hospital scenes...they are only confusing. And what's with the tanned doctor person? And why, for heaven's sake, did the Tea Leoni character fall in love with the putz?

This mess was written by a college frosh Scriptwriting 101 group; each person took a segment and crammed the night before submitting it by watching old movies that did work. Note: they all flunked.

The very most aggravating thing about this flick is that it insults the viewer; like, we wouldn't notice transformations don't occur with poster quotes and that dentists don't go to dress events in their work whites! I could go on. Suffice it to say that I saw this "Golden Turkey" on AMTRAK out of Seattle bound for Portland the night after Christmas...and what are you going to do chugging along in the dark when you forgot your reading glasses? Answer, leap off the train when it slows for a curve; just don't watch "Ghost Town!"
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Dated, but light and funny
18 August 2007
This is an easy movie to watch. What stood out to me was the scene where Monty is sharing his million when first having gotten word of possibly receiving it. He informs the surrounded group how each will benefit, one will run a corporation, one have a fleet of taxis, another will never have to wash another dish, and Rochester, the black servant, will, "have a job for life!" Wow, thanks boss.

But I like the film. It is silly and harmless. It reminded me of William Vanderbilt, the son of Cornelius. He inherited umpteen millions and spent wildly in his lifetime, abetted by his shrew of a wife, yet when he died, he had almost exactly the amount he had inherited.

It should happen to us.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Mice Just Get Smarter
8 August 2007
A wonderful wonderful movie. Talk about comic timing! Matthau is perfect. Everybody's worst sleaze. Of course Jack Lemmon is great in this, their first pairing.

There are so many hilarious lines in the film, it's hard to find just a few. Among my favorite is (to paraphrase) Whiplash Willie's comment about buying on credit; "Take the government, do you think they pay for the billions of dollars of hardware they send up into space? It's on all on Diners' Club!" and his statement that insurance companies have so much money, "they've run out of storage space, they have to microfilm it!"

I could do with less smoking by Sandy, it got irritating after a while. But I loved Ron Rich as Boom Boom Jackson. What ever happened to him?

Well, a perfect movie for everyone. Thanks Billy Wilder, Jack and especially Whiplash Willie himself.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Little Women (1994)
3/10
Little Interest
12 June 2007
Well, I confess I did not read the book. And, as a person who retched at every one of Margaret O'Brian's performances, avoided that movie. Sooo, I watched the 1994 version basically ignorant of who and what should have been.

The colors and historic feel of the film are wonderful. I am still pondering, however, the fact that Amy had quite a growth spurt and the rest of the family stayed physically the same. Wynona Rider never changed physically or emotionally.

And let's be honest, Claire Daines stunk (stank?). She was a Concord Madonna if there ever was one, born to be martyred. Boring! What an insipid nonentity! And here's a question; why didn't the father TALK? He was just furniture who hung around. How that man could have produced children is a miracle.

Oh well, I've seen worse movies. This one reminds me of Coke that has been shaken in the can and lost its fizzle. Flat. Colorful, but flat.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
28 Days (2000)
1/10
This is Gracie Hart in rehab
5 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Well, where to start? The most outstanding thing about Sandra Bullock's performance is the utter stupidity of casting her in such a role, and, oh yes, her lips. Poofy to the max.

The truth about addiction is that situations don't have to be contrived to underscore the problem. However, this flick opens with the whole ridiculous sequence about the wedding. The bridesmaid shows up late and drunk, falls in the cake, then is allowed to make the toast, for heaven's sake, then does the car bit...my question is how dumb is the sister?

The clichés in the movie are awful. The people in the group at the rehab center are cartoons. Bullock is a plastic spoon actress when she tries to do drama, but when in a piece that aspires to inspire, she is just plain offensive.

Why can't we rate such bombs with a zero?
18 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Fascinating Film
7 May 2007
This is a great movie to watch. I love the music and the color. I read the book, and slow witted that I am, didn't understand much of it. How many details can a person produce? E gads! Tom Clancy is obviously brilliant, but the movie sufficed for this lay person.

I like Sean Connery, but grew weary of his lisp; maybe the sub echoed with it too much. Sam Neil is always good. Alec Baldwin was excellent, though his gorgeous looks were distracting. I liked the way in which the film slipped from Russian into English.

Of course it was submerged science fiction. The Dallas as a decoy? Please. But hey, who said it was accurate? Neither is time travel for Spielberg or light speed for Lucas. Give it a rest already.

It is a good story, as are most heroic sagas, if you don't examine them with a critical eye. Red October is an escape film. For some reason, it always lifts my mood.

Thanks to all concerned.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
An Overlong Violent Video Game
7 May 2007
This part three of the trilogy was boring. It was geared to overaged adolescents who love vicarious fights...with digital demons. Ho hum. "Enough! I wanted to shout," "We Get IT! They had to fight!! Get this blinkin' film over with! I surrender!!"

And just when you thought your bum would see the light of day again, wham, ANOTHER ending! My mother and father once (in pre Vatican III days) attended an Italian Catholic high mass wedding. Being Quakers to boot, they had no idea they should have ordered out for pizza and left a wake up call. Each time the congregation rose, they breathed their own silent "Thank God" and started to file out, but the guests then en masse kneeled, addressed a different station of the cross,and off things went for another hour.

"The Return of the King" echoed that oft told experience to me. And I wasn't even in a theater. I could have left at any time, but where to file out to at 1AM? It became an ordeal, my own quest to see the turkey through.

Now I ask you, Peter Jackson, WHY all the endings??

Another thing I noticed in the DVD versions of these three movies; the guy who played Aragon did not do commentary, and did not appear to be pleased with the whole deal to me. He and Liv Taylor had zero chemistry, and I got the sensation he was glad to be done with it. Did anyone else catch this?

If I had seen one more, just one more, animated monster, I would have...well, I can't think of anything worse than sitting through the whole darn movie, and I did that anyway, so I will end this diatribe on that note.
3 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dreadful
30 April 2007
This film encourages cruelty to animals. The cat and the blood and the theme of killing is revolting. This is not for children and the people who made it should be run out of town. At least the first movie was fun to watch.

The guy who plays Harry Potter is a bad actor. Wooden. The rest of the cast are stereotypes. The "potty" humor, throwing up, cruelty, are meant to do what? A boring, disturbing waste of time.

This film proves that animation is its own wicked wizard. It has the power to cast spells and hypnotize but too often conjures up trash. It sure did in this flick.
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Jimmy, how could you?
27 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I love old movies. I love Frank Capra. I love Jimmy Stewart. I do not love "You Can't Take It With You." Like other would-be-likers, I kept hanging in there, fighting sleep; waiting to laugh, to cry, to stay awake. I groaned and grabbed the remote when Gramps talked whatever his name was to join along and play the harmonica. Good God! And there was that twit dancing dancing dancing...and the wrestling Russian and the black couple dancin' and every other hokey junk Capra could throw in! I couldn't even hear Jean Arthur, she talked so low and ducked her face behind her hair so often I can only conclude she was hoping to avoid any association with this stinker.

To say this movie insults one's intelligence is a compliment. It attempts to tug at your heartstrings so much that it chokes you with them.

Do yourself a favor, replay "It's a Wonderful Life" instead.
21 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worth eyeballing
19 November 2006
Wow, a great film. It is one of a kind, so I can't compare it to anything else. Those of us from the 60s who knew the weirdos Spaulding consulted, especially enjoyed the film. His ability to enter the skin of so many characters instantly, while still looking at them from the outside, is a real gift. He is not sarcastic. He "likes to learn things" and hence in this film we find him raking leaves in a Hassidic synagogue, "eye"ing Japanese psychic surgery patients whisking around an operating table; gasping for air, his mouth pressed to the bottom of a sweat lodge tent; and in one particularly hilarious segment, submitting to treatment by a seriously nearsighted "nutritional optometrist." I loved this movie. It is a riveting example of storytelling, of the power of one human voice to mesmerize the rest of us.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Rose by any other name would still start with F
10 November 2006
Again, like "Midnight Run" this movie is dented with bad language. Yes, maybe people like these guys do use the F word every time they exhale, but then again, I think it's a stereotype. I mean, where's the lobby for foster-kids-on-their-own? I resent the stereotype that poor "Southie" kids are vile, that they can't speak without that word. It's far overdone.

I like the story. I do like the fun concept of an underdog gone good. I like someone who can out-brain the brains; but I agree that Matt Damon does not have the persona to pull it off. Ben Affleck would have been a better choice. I think Damon was chosen as the main star because he is less handsome and charismatic than Affleck. They wanted to get Damon in the door of public awareness first.

Oh well. It's a fun movie if you can tune out the words. Robin Williams has perfect timing in his interactions with Will. The baseball scene is wonderful.

All in all, a good film; too bad the language hurt it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed