Reviews

Like many horror films, Poltergeist doesn't make a whole lot of sense and the plot is a little thin. What it does do well is entertain. The acting was decent. I thought the little girl did a fantastic job. The film was full of suspense. We find out that the house is haunted because the subdivision was built on top of an old grave site. One of the things I couldn't understand was what the para-psychologist (Dr. Lesh) was really doing with all her witchcraft and mind-reading. And the tree branches reaching out to grab the girl through the window was a little over the top.

The last ten minutes was done very well. Just when you thought it's over, comes the most dramatic parts of the film. The special effects are impressive and realistic looking. It wouldn't look out of place today. Some parts are out of place for a PG movie - such as the gross part of seeing faces peeling. But this was before the PG-13 ratings.

My score - 7.5 of 10

It's hard not to get teary eyed while watching The Elephant Man and I'm usually not the type to get emotional while watching movies. Although similar movies have been done before, the realism, acting, and subtleties were done fantastically in this film. Elephant Man was shot in contrasty black and white, which gives it a feel of the early times in which the movie takes place. Elephant Man is based upon the actually life of John Merrick (actually Joseph Merrick) - a man who had a frightening appearance but was actually an ordinary human being. Anthony Hopkins and John Hurt do an exceptional job at playing their characters.

There are some historical inaccuracies in this film. Such as the fact that Merrick was not abused while performing at the freak shows and that Merrick went out of his way to find a doctor and not the other way around. But other than that, a must see film and a film that is good for family viewing.

Horror is usually not my subject. But I enjoyed watching this particular film. The story takes place in Illinois, although it conspicuously looks like southern California. The acting was very decent and believable. It was very creepy. But best of all it manages to keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time. There is a lot of suspense.

On the downside, the plot is a bit thin. And I wished the protagonist, Laurie, was a little smarter, particularly towards the end. I know she wanted to protect the kids but fleeing directly to her house, when she could have just run somewhere else and have Michael follow her? Also once in the house, Laurie pokes him in the eye and then gets up to find the kids. Why not make sure he is dead first? And when she had the chance, she should have taken the knife away. But overall a decent film even with these issues.

7.5 of 10

Tenant shares similarities with other Polanski films such as Replusion and Rosemary's Baby. Polanski plays the role of man, who turns psychotic, while residing in an apartment unit whose previous tenant jumped out the window. The first two-thirds of the movie moves along slowly, but gets more interesting after that. Though he becomes paranoid and delusional, I can't really figure out what is the motivation behind his wanting to die. Especially freaky is that he makes a second attempt after the first one fails. I'm sure I would understand the movie a lot better if I watched it again though. Polanski does a great job with believable understated acting. However some of the extras and minor characters do a terrible job, particular the scene towards the end when the neighbors crowd around Trelkovsky after his first fall.

My rating: 6.5 of 10

Supposedly based on a true story. The producers certainly know how to make a relatively simple story interesting. It feels very believable with a great performance by Pacino. There is some touches of humor. One of my favorite part was when one of the bank clerk hostages pulled out a cigarette and Sal tells her to put it away because it's not healthy. Almost all the story takes place either inside a bank or on the street just outside. The premise is simple - Sonny and Sal attempt to rob a bank and are surrounded by the police. In order to get out of this, Sonny and Sal tries to cut a deal with the sheriffs by using the bank clerks as hostages. Seems like all is going well for Sonny and they actually make it all the way to the airport. The ending, by the way, was just a little too short and simplistic. I expected a little bit more considering how much time and suspense was built-up until that point. Everything else was great though.

At this time Hitchcock was aging and past his career prime. After a couple of bombs, he got back into his groove with this one. Hitchcock returned to his native London to shoot this one. He wanted the shot of the market street scene before it was gone. Hitchcock's first and only rated R movie. And he certainly takes advantage of the rating system with a controversial rape scene and some nudity. Frenzy is indeed very British with terms and slang that Americans don't hear on an everyday basis. The actors aren't Hitchcock recognizable, but they get the job done. I do wish that Rusk was developed a bit further. We really do not know his real relations to Blaney. The dialog was done well with touches of wit and British humor. I especially liked the dinner scenes. Frenzy does drag in many places. And unlike other Hitchcock films, the killer is known in this one, with the innocent in defense. For the longest time, you're skeptical on whether Hitchcock will pull this one off. But just when you thought you've seen another mediocre film, out comes an ending done brilliantly. Rusk finally got his due.

A strange movie and difficult one to appreciate. Although just 91 minutes in length, this movie just drags. The plot is similar to movies you've seen before. Good Will Hunting instantly comes to mind.

Ruth Gordon did a fine job with her sweet charming personality. Harold however seemed just one-dimensional. I felt neither character was developed fully. Why was poor Harold the way he is? The question is never asked or answered. And you really do not sympathize with his character. But I think the biggest problem with the movie was the difficulty into believing that Harold could change from a negative to a positive view of life merely by falling in love with an 80 year old women. (Actually Harold looks even younger than the 20 portrayed in the film) And why did she decide to just end it all? This movie left me scratching my head more than a few times.

Harold & Maude uses a lot of black comedy, but I found myself laughing just once or twice. Most of the humor really was out of place - Maude's stealing of cars, the excessive amount of fake suicide attempts, and (gasp) Harold & Maude in bed together. Another scene that I couldn't understand was Harold's interview with the military officer and then chasing Maude down the steps. Was that suppose to be a dream?

I did like the camera work and editing. In particular, the opening scene, which was suspenseful and very well done. They did a good job tricking the viewer into believing the suicide and the mother who came home and her non-reaction to it.

If you've seen one of Wishman's "movies", you've pretty much seen them all. Although I wasn't expecting much, Amazing Transplant has the same slow pacing, dull characters, monotone setting, sub-par directing, etc. that characterizes much of her films.

A man goes around entering homes of women, strips their clothes, rapes, and then kills them. It's the same thing over and over again. If the women were prettier and the soft-core scenes more arousing, I would forgive much of the shortcomings of the plot and acting. But this movie just drags. I do have to say the penis transplant towards the end was unintentionally hilarious.

The ending doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, almost nothing makes any sense. Don't waste your time watching this. There are better things to do with your life. Amazing Transplant certainly lives up to it's billing from Something Weird.

Except for a couple of artists, I wasn't much into the music at Woodstock. What defined the mecca were the attendees. Woodstock was one of the largest counter-cultural event in the midst of rapidly changing attitudes towards nudity, drugs, ethnic tolerance, etc. Full of fun-loving hippies and VWs, this was an unforgettable event for hundreds of thousands. About half of the film was dedicated to musical performances and to the interviews & scenes of the attendees.

Coincidently at least three of the musicians (Morrison , Hendrix, and Joplin) passed away the same year or the year after the documentary was produced.

I wasn't expecting much out of the film, but wanted to see the performance of Dunaway and Kirk Douglas. Douglas indeed gives a very good performance and Dunaway is still gorgeous looking. The cinematography and backdrops are beautiful as well. I can tell a lot of work was put in those areas. Unfortunately that's about where it ends.

Eddie Anderson (Douglas) suffers from a midlife crisis and takes on a mistress, Dunaway. There are quite a few problems with the film. The storytelling is convoluted and the method of telling it is very dry. The thing that bothers me the most are the jump cuts involving the mind of Eddie. You don't know whether he's is fantasizing about his relationship with Dunaway or whether it is merely a flashback. Other editing problems involve premature cutting of a scene. I do understand that the late sixties were very much an experimental age and a lot of today's advanced storytelling can be credited to films of that era. The Arrangement tries to comedic at times, but that doesn't work either. The acting is generally over the top, particularly that of Eddie's father who gives a horrid performance. In fact, few of the cast members really mesh. The dialog and delivery of lines is dated 50s cliché. It will put you to sleep. This bit of dialog at the end, with Faye and Eddie together, stuck out like a sore thumb: Faye's former lover burst in, shoots Eddie and says "I like you to". Kazan's career was coming to an end and this film showed it.

Bonnie and Clyde takes place in 30s depression stricken Texas and other central states. This film was among the first or perhaps the very first film to show real blood and realistic violence. Films like Bonnie and Clyde helped bring down the strict grip the censors placed on films. Bonnie and Clyde takes you through an adventure in violence and wrongdoing. And at the end they get what they deserve. Although the ending is nothing new, the brutality and grotesqueness of it was groundbreaking for its time.

I do wish more time was taken to develop the characters and their partnership. It seemed like the film just rushed in to the shooting and violence. I thought the two lead characters did a fine job. But I did not however, like the roles of Hackman and Parsons. Their overacting was a distraction. Particularly that of Parson, who's screaming and yelling is annoying. Also, the kid's role to me was a mystery. He was little more than a background distraction. Except for those things, the movie was good overall.

This really an art or abstract film and not one with a definite plot. I'm not a real fan of those types of movies. I did enjoy the break from dialog, as I have gotten tired of the "overtalkies" of much of the American movies at the time. The backdrops and decors were com temporary. The camera work and location shooting were ahead of it's time. It seemed like none of the scenes were shot in the studio. The car driving scenes were ahead of it's time, as it's probably one of the few films that did not appear to employ a green screen.

The movie does move very slow. But things get interesting during the second half - that is until the very end where it ends with a whimper. The lack of resolution into the discovery of the dead body was disappointing because so much of the story centered around it. I was waiting for some sort of who-done-it or an ironic twist that we never got. And as others have pointed out, a few of the scenes were questionable and did not seem to add to the story - the fan blade, the concert,the hippies, and the over-sized number 39. We don't know what the director was trying to imply. In fact, other than Thomas's confused lifestyle, we don't really know what the director was getting at. Hemming's sex scene with the two gorgeous ladies were delightful. That was my favorite part of the film.

Irma la Douce was likely a very touchy and controversial film at the time. A former police officer, Nester, gets tangled with a whore. He ends up being in love with her (Lemmon and MacLaine were also duos in "The Apartment"). There are some laughs here and there and the film has some very interesting twists and turns at the end. The sets, backdrops, color coordinations, and the look & feel of the film is first rate.

However, as others have mentioned, the relationship really lacks chemistry and there is a lack of development leading to the marriage. It just happens abruptly and without much merit. Irma reacting happily to Lord X's murder just didn't seem right.

Also the film just drags. A lot of scenes could have been edited out without hurting affecting the storyline. Irma la Douce doesn't really start to get going until the last 40 minutes. And there is also quite a bit of uneven and unnatural overacting which hurt the flow of the film. One question I have. If the film was supposed to take place in Paris, why does everyone sound so American?

I'm not the one for courtroom movies. I also do not watch Law & Order. But I wanted to see this movie for a couple of reasons: it's high rating and James Stewart.

The movie was moving along well enough until the ending, which I was like, "that's it?". After building the climax for two and half hours, I was expecting some dramatic twist. They keep you into this courtroom trial, though interesting, seemingly forever and then give you a little trite and predictable ending. Seems like such a waste. Also you don't really get to know Manion, the guy who's fate is being determined, so you don't care much for him. Character development has come a long way since this film. Also some of the crowd laughter was overdone and not necessary. However the centerpieces of the film is of course, Stewart and Scott, who gives strong performances.