Reviews

A loose boxer bio that's OK, but eventually becomes redundant.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: I'm not a huge fan of bio-based film, and this represents why (perhaps).

The story appears cobbled together and doesn't introduce or resolve things as it should have.

It has some endearing qualities, but that may just be the period and geography portrayed here.

Not a bad film, just dry when it's trying hard not to be.

ACTING: The acting here is fine, but the more of Flynn I watch, the more I lean toward him being a tool and icon for others. In other words, while Flynn was a solid actor, his roles invariably seem to fade into one persona, e.g. Cary Grant was an American equivalent (sans the athletic skill).

I strongly prefer actors capable of stretching outside, and even breaking out of a role.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate value

TEMPO: OK, but it bounces around a lot

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK, but the sets looked cheap

MUSIC / SOUND: Fine

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Walsh was a machine with 140 films directed. Phew! As is often the case in life, quality and volume don't wed well. His work is professional, just rather mechanical.

Writers: Lawrence and McCoy were quite prolific writers, but I recognize only a little of their work, and none I'd recommend.

Is it a good film? It's OK, but just that

Should you watch this once? If you like old school and boxing

Rating: 6.0.

I watched this largely because I'm a huge Huston fan (father and son), but this doesn't do Walter justice.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This is a propaganda film, and it shows.

Nazi Germany occupies Holland in an area of resistance.

And the usual drama ensues.

That's all folks.

ACTING: I was very disappointed how Huston was folded into this film. Flynn and Sheridan are fine actors, but neither are / were at Huston's level. It's not him playing "2nd fiddle" or such, no, it was the handling of his skill in context.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value (unless you love propaganda)

TEMPO: Pace was actually OK

CINEMATOGRAPHY: The sets were so cheap it was awful

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: I've seen a few of Milestone's films and the only one I'd recommend is "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), but that was also supported by Carol Reed (outstanding director).

Writers: Rossen wrote 28 screenplays to film and I've seen a few, most recently before this: "The Sea Wolf" (1941) and "Billy Budd" (1962). None of these films are especially good IMO, but certainly watchable.

Is it a good film? Maybe

Should you watch this once? Don't bother, they're are much better

Rating: 5.0 (for the acting)

I watched this because British acting is innately superb, and Alastair Sim is an actor I enjoy watching.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: The story is interesting and somewhat creative, and includes many of the salacious ingredients for a murder mystery.

The trouble with the story, as with most British stories, is the lumbering pace and the emphasis on long winded dialogue.

It still has some nice twists, but the time and script to get to those is long and tedious.

My only story misfire was the manner and timing of the inspector's arrival. Maybe you won't mind.

ACTING: Historically, British acting trounces all others, and the whole cast here demonstrates why I stand on that statement. They were believable, professional, and they ensured viewer immersion even when directing or story failed to rise to the acting talent.

While there are excellent performances, it's Sim that drew me to the film and he didn't disappoint. Sim tended to play out the same persona repeatedly, but his range capacity was wide and quick when required (even mid-story). Yes, it's likely that casting directors probably sought him out for roles that fit his persona (what in America we call "acting"). But if you follow his films you can see his ability to swing his character wherever required, e.g. "A Christmas Carol" (1951).

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value if you have the patience

TEMPO: Slow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Not great, and the "outdoor" sets are glaring obvious ... this is one of the film's weakest traits

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Gilliat was a writer first (78) and a director second (14), and he co-wrote this screenplay. Of his combined works, this was just OK. It's better than his "Jamaica Inn" (1939) but doesn't hold a candle to "The Lady Vanishes" (1938), both directed by Hitchcock.

Writers: Gurney, the co-writer, only wrote two screenplays. This was his 2nd and the year he died, so it's very hard to assess from only two films.

Is it a good film? Yes, but slow

Should you watch this once? Yes

Rating: 7.3.

I watched this because I'm a huge fan of the Huston family of father (Walter) and son (John).

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Not the best story out of Huston, but maybe that's partly due to the collaboration with Burnett (can't say yet).

For those of you happy with the rigid roles and scripts of the era then this will probably suit just fine.

But I watch Huston's work because he tends to color outside the lines, but with balance and professionalism.

This story is one cliche joined to another, and so on, until I just got tired. Cliches are gross generalizations and become boxes that clip creativity, not support it. I'm OK with some, but this is like a cliche marathon.

ACTING: No one takes home any kudos here, but I was deeply offended by the brazen (yes, brazen) racism here. Yeesh!

I will note that Lupino's skills were way beyond this role, and that's evident by her lengthy directing portfolio, e.g. "On Dangerous Ground" (1951). Sadly, she switched to TV-only in '56, and you (may) know how I feel about TV.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value for most

TEMPO: Fine

CINEMATOGRAPHY: For its time, this was excellent with even the "outdoor sets" looking believable

MUSIC / SOUND: Typical, but well-tempered

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Walsh had a crazy 148 films directed. Wow. I've seen enough of his films to say that he was consistent and professional, but volume did not produce creative outcomes (IMO).

Writers: Out of 69 screenplays to film, Burnett only wrote one (1) film I could recommend: "The Asphalt Jungle" (1950).

Is it a good film? Yes, but average for its era

Should you watch this once? Yes, if you got a thing for "Bogey"

Rating: 7.1.

I've tried watching a number of Sturges films, but am always left bored.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: The story is quite flat: rich male is sought after by women for his money. Sounds pretty dull.

Woman catches the rich guy's eye and romance ensues ... still, this isn't interesting.

A few more conversations, some scene changes, and it's ... just as dull.

This story reminds me of the old "Juke" / music boxes in an old diner. You put a nickel (that's a coin) in, pick a song, and it plays. Same machine, same coin, and you'll hear the same songs over and over.

This offers a little bit of spice, but for the most part it's just conversation, talking ... taking ...

ACTING: Fine, but placing the burden on Stanwyck to add life to an otherwise lifeless tale was unfair. Without her this film wouldn't get past 5 minutes. Shame.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: Pace is OK, but the endless talking ...

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Very closed sets that creates the wrong feel here (yes, even in '41 they could have done better)

MUSIC / SOUND: In sync with the talking, and in typical signal for a dull story -> continuous dripping of background music

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: I'm not a fan of Sturges as a director or writer.

Writers: Perhaps because they were "really old school," but neither Hoffe or Sturges' writing has interested me.

By contrast, I'm a huge Frank Capra fan.

Is it a good film? No, but it could have been

Should you watch this once? No

Rating: 5.0 (for Stanwyck)

Not an especially interesting story or great directing, but ... some superb acting, and it's not Errol Flynn.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: The story is quite dry and lacks much imagination, but there's just enough creativity to keep the story breathing.

If you want Flynn and pirates then watch "Captain Blood" (1935) as it's a far, far better story (and film).

ACTING: The acting here is acceptable, but one actor rises way above everyone else, and that's Flora Robson who plays the queen of England. Her character immersion, along with authentic strength and charm set her far apart such that she was her own story. I wish more actors would demonstrate that level of commitment and skill.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: OK ... but often very dull and predictable

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Poor sets which ruins much of the film

MUSIC / SOUND: Boring

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Curtiz had a serious portfolio with 178 films. Wow. Nonetheless, I thought the sets here were horrible and the flow clunky. Blame the writers?

Writers: Between Koch and Miller's lengthy resumes I only find a few films that I'd recommend, e.g.

"Here Comes Mr. Jordan" (1941). Otherwise I thought the writing here was mediocre.

Is it a good film? No

Should you watch this once? No

Rating: 5.0 (all for her majesty)

This is a well-directed and acted film, though it can be a bit dry and disheartening.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Like some of you old enough, I remember Watergate and I think this is a fine depiction of that mess.

The story flows with enough tension to keep a viewer involved, but provided an occasional respite to lighten things up (a bit). All of the myriad of names, et al make it difficult to follow at times, but that's just it, isn't it? You can't control people without keeping them off balance.

There is no character development of any pivotal character, including the leads. I would normally criticize that omission, but here those details would be unnecessary if not plain fluff. The focus is on uncovering the crimes, not the investigative reporters.

It's quite clear that this film became a repository for other film-makers and writers, e.g. The show "X Files" and the "Deep Throat" character.

ACTING: Solid acting all around, but I wouldn't call any stand outs

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate

TEMPO: Good, and forward moving for the most part

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Quite good and sets the right amount of "cloak and dagger" mood

MUSIC / SOUND: N/A

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Pakula was a capable director and this underscores that fact.

Writers: Goldman has written for some excellent films, and here I think writing his maturity is evident.

Is it a good film? Yes

Should you watch this once? Yes

Rating: 7.8.

A slow moving, but "quality" murder mystery that manages some sub-plots.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: "Money makes the world go round ..." and here it affords an investigation, a missing person hunt.

Aside from the obvious plot of solving the mystery of a missing person, we have sub-plots that open up along the way. Some of these don't really offer much, others are just trendy (for the time), and others help balance an otherwise creepy but tepid story.

The story is unusual, but that quality fades as we're left waiting until the very end ... slowly ...

ACTING: Superb acting by Fonda and Sutherland, both being consummate artists. My only complaints are two: >> Fonda so often got pegged as the seductress when her skills were so much greater, often exceeding peers >> Some of the acting feels TV-ish, so I won't be surprised if the production crew include TV-moles

Frankly, this film's worth is (mostly) a result of the actors pulling the slow-moving and burdensome story around.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value

TEMPO: Slow, very slow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Decent, but shot very tight in close quarters which adds to the "TV feel"

MUSIC / SOUND: The creepy background music is effective initially, but eventually becomes redundant (mix it up)

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: I think Pakula was a capable director, and of the films I've viewed, these are how I'd stack them: >> "Klute" (1971) - Good >> "The Parallax View" (1974) - Lousy (the case with most Warren Beatty films) >> "All the President's Men" (1976) - Good >> "Sophie's Choice" (1982) - Excellent (Meryl Streep :)

Notice a pattern?

Writers: The Lewis brothers were about 99% TV writers ... surprise!

Is it a good film? Yes

Should you watch this once? Yes

Rating: 7.5.

I saw this shortly after it came out, and thought it was quite gruesome then. It still is, but as for film-making, it's just OK.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: "When white-water rafting goes bad ..." and in this case, really bad.

I thought the writers tried / attempted to spawn sub-plots that would hold together, and sometimes they did, sort of. But more often, this was a painfully long string of cliches, and never resolved any meaningful sub or main plot.

This seemed a very poor attempt at a central theme of cultural and environmental change. It ends up largely as a platform giving Reynolds his alpha-male role. And as I've said before, stories that pivot around a "prima donna" always end up anorexic from expending its energy on one person, and the whole is sorely compromised.

ACTING: The acting here is OK, but barely. The acting and script were so predictable and rife with cliche ... it becomes very tiresome.

Reynolds, like so many other actors, get put on a pedestal and then we make film that pivots around them. (I could make a long list.) This is so bad in that vein that you could call this the "Burt Reynolds Show."

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value for most, I suspect

TEMPO: Very slow mostly, which is sometimes an asset, but more often it just weighs down the flow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Beautiful for the most part, and is sadly, the best part of the film

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Boorman directed and co-wrote this, which as you may know, is a very bad call 99% of the time IMO.

This, along with his TV pedigree, made for what I thought was a mediocre story and a poor script.

Writers: This was Dickey's first (of 2) screenplay. It shows.

Is it a good film? Yes, and no.

Should you watch this once? Yes. Maybe.

Rating: 7.0.

What begin as a potentially funny and odd film just devolves into child abuse. Film or not, that's where I draw the line.

(PS - This has the stink of TV and poor writing all over it.)

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This made me so angry that it may cloud my judgment here ...

A kids' baseball story ... what could be more wholesome and American? Right?

I don't care how grumpy Matthau can be, or any other actors, the amount of verbal and physical abuse, the constant substance abuse by adults and children ... what ??? What is wrong with adults???!!!

It could have been a nice story, even a bit spicy, but it just plummets deeper into depravity - for a kid's story.

ACTING: Acting was OK, but there were no stand outs.

How about a film with only kid actors?

ENTERTAINMENT: Low - moderate, depending on your temperament

TEMPO: Fine

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK, but practically every scene is at the baseball field - really? (Ahh ... that TV smell ...)

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Ritchie's other directing work doesn't interest me or they're of low quality.

This is OK directing work, but just that. TV influence perhaps?

Writers: Lancaster only wrote "Bears" stories and "The Thing" (1982) which I thought was a poor flick.

Not sure why this guy (or anyone else) thought this story was / is acceptable for kids in anyway or form.

Bad judgment. Very bad.

Is it a good film? The quality is not bad, but the content ruined it for me

Should you watch this once? If you care about kids then no, watch something else

Rating: 4.0 (for the decent film-making quality)

Eastwood attempts to resurrect his mythical gunslinger persona ... no thanks.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Considering the title, the story has little to do with it, since the title suggests something meaningful.

But there is nothing meaningful at any point though the duration of this story, and that sounds harsh.

No. It's too carefully put together in pretty little pieces that ring "veneer," while it relies heavily on cliches.

This story is about as empty as stories get.

ACTING: For the big names here I was / am absolutely unimpressed. Frankly, this is just silhouettes in motion.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: OK, but mostly it's unnecessarily slow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Cheap, tight

MUSIC / SOUND: NA

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Eastwood has been trying to keep his "tough guy" persona alive since he was branded by the "Hollowood" gods, but someone should tell him it died. And he stars in this? That's a classic narcissistic move.

Nonetheless, Eastwood is / was a capable director.

Writers: Aside from "Blade Runner" (1982), Peoples hasn't written anything that I'd recommend out of 16 films.

Is it a good film? No, it's tripe

Should you watch this once? No

Rating: 5.0 (for effort)

Another prison escape film ... it's OK, but it's very depressing and has little depth

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Normally, I don't watch films where the story includes the institutional brutality of others (yes, that's a wide net).

For this reason alone, this story is difficult to watch, but that's not the only reason. The story provides no context for its characters, e.g. Who are they, why are they there, history, etc.

This omission (yes, it's a usually failure) makes for feeling disinterested in the characters, and eventually in the story. The story is protracted (stretched out) by delivering the same situations repeatedly, which only made me feel frustrated with the writing.

For these reasons, I must assume the writers were either immature or lacked the foresight and value of character depth.

ACTING: Solid acting, but McQueen and Hoffman both play to their own personas, which didn't impress me.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value

TEMPO: Mix of violence and conversation means it tends to hobble, but stays on the same course throughout

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Nice

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Most of Schaffner's work is TV, and you should know I have a very low opinion of TV-people. But he did direct: "Planet of the Apes" (1968) and "Patton" (1970), which are both good films. Otherwise, I thought the directing here was well-done.

Writers: Trumbo has quite a resume, and includes a number a fine films, e.g. "Roman Holiday " (1953), but team writer Semple might not have been equipped considering most of his work was for TV. This story isn't bad writing, per se, but there's TV-influence here that likely deflated the story for me.

Is it a good film? It's OK

Should you watch this once? Maybe, but I would not recommend or seek this out again.

Rating: 7.3.

Contemporary film generally sucks because it's near pure fluff. This is a prime example of that "Hollow" feeling.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Narrated stories are often poorly told stories, and I suspect because the writer is "writing in" his / her own self trying to guide us through. It rarely works, and most often is more distracting than assisting, and it often smacks of a story that simply lacks quality. Clearly, that is the case here.

These characters are so clean, tidy, and cliched to the nth degree ... it's just a hollow, empty story.

ACTING: I would have preferred no-name actors to this star-studded cavalcade of high-paid cliches.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: Fine

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK, but it's so clean that it feels fake

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: (Here I go repeating myself again ... ) Directing is a skill, but writing is a separate skill. Doing both in a film requires exceptional skills, and those qualities are rare. Hanson does not possess both.

Out of Hanson's 20 films (directing) I see nothing that could be recommended. This exemplifies why.

Writers: On the other hand, Helgeland wrote "Man on Fire" (2004) which I thought was a reasonably good story.

He also wrote some other work that was OK, just not that great.

Is it a good film? No, it's empty

Should you watch this once? No

Rating: 3.0.

As a film, it's well-done, but as a story ... it's very odd, hard to call it.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: If the story was another "Bonnie and Clyde" then I'd say this falls short, but it's not about robbing banks.

If the story was another "Romeo and Juliet" then I'd say these characters are cut off from real emotion.

This is an almost perverted story that provides (essentially) no motive for the carnage. It's not about about money or anything really; it's just a strange string of self-created events that have little to no meaning.

ACTING: Excellent acting by Sheen and Spacek, but not much more to add since the characters have such unusually narrow dimension and offer so few qualities.

Frankly, the acting is the only thing holding this film together, and the film is already sitting on edge.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value

TEMPO: Slow ... very, very slow at times

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Nice, but very simple, almost primitive

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Malick wrote and directed this ... and this is why I repeatedly rant that those who do usually fail.

Writers have editors for a reason - criticism to ensure that the story doesn't just exist in someone's head.

This was like a self-absorbed film.

I've tried watching one of his other 18 films - "The Thin Red Line" (1998), but thought it was quite poor.

Writers: See above comments

Is it a good film? This is well-shot and well-managed, but as a viewer I'm on the fence about this being "good"

Should you watch this once? Maybe

Rating: 7.0.

Looks like TV. Sounds like TV. Smells like TV.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: For this one I'm going to be harsh.

This story is 100% hype, or as it's said in the world of performance cars: "All show and no go." From having such vague characters and situations to terribly contrived scenes, this is poor storytelling.

There are so many, many conspiracy / deep reporting stories ... and this does not belong with them.

This story acts like it should go somewhere, but it never does. Yes, you get an occasional "Ah ha!" but then you realize it's an aberration in the film as it goes back to idling.

There are so many other / better films in a similar style, but here are just a few: > "Three Days of the Condor" (1975), > "All the President's Men" (1976), > "Zodiac" (2007).

This Para-laxtive story is awful because it's confused and empty.

ACTING: I've never seen Betty in any role that was distinct from all his roles. He's not a bad actor, but like so many "pretty boys" he's good looking but not a good actor (yes, even Robert Redford was almost as superficial).

Otherwise, this is stacked with TV actors. Hm, I wonder why ...

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: Scattered, frayed

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK

MUSIC / SOUND: Cheesy

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Pakula's relatively short portfolio contains two films I've enjoyed: "Klute" (1971) and "All the President's Men" (1976). Otherwise, I've not seen or liked his other works.

Writers: The two screenplay writers delivered two stories into film that are excellent: "Aliens" (1986) and "Three Days of the Condor" (1975), but otherwise ... it's TV TIME !

Is it a good film? No, it's a TV dinner (many of you probably never ate a "real" TV dinner when they were in aluminum)

Should you watch this once? No, don't

Rating: 4.0.

A very odd bank robbery film, but it has enough quirkiness to make it watchable.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Robbing banks is a very common theme or event in American film, but this is quite different.

Since this is based on history, there's only so much creative license a writer can exercise.

It has some twists and turns, but so many are left unfinished that the story feels very frayed.

It would have been better to embellish sub-plots than to leave so many dangling events.

The story, in itself, is not that satisfying. Some of the content could have be cleaned up for a higher quality flow, but that's life. Aside from it being a sort of "coming out" excuse, the story just arrives, stirs things up, and then ... ???

ACTING: Pacino does a fine job here, but many actors would have been a fine fit. Frankly, there were a number of unknown actors here that should have moved on to more complex roles. But actors like Pacino consume all the attention, and gifted actors get lost, e.g. Penelope Allen who plays the head teller.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low to moderate values

TEMPO: Lots of tension, but it continuously goes into idle, then back

CINEMATOGRAPHY: OK

MUSIC / SOUND: None, which was fine

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Lumet was a prolific director, but I'm not a fan of his work. It's possible that since much of his work was in TV, that style spills into feature work. While this film was OK, I would not seek out this director's work.

Writers: The writers had largely written for TV, that likely affects / infects work like this.

Is it a good film? Yes, but in a muted way

Should you watch this once? Maybe, but compared to a film like "Inside Man" (2006), you could do better

Rating: 7.5.

A classic, or perhaps THE classic, story of being beaten down again and again, only to rise above.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Like many, I watched this when it came out, and it was sensational for most that watched this relatable story.

Few (contemporary) stories capture, really capture, what it's like to be told "You're a bum" over and over, all while the person keep his / her head above the cruelties of men.

Or as Rocky quietly says to his girlfriend "Adrian!" - "I just want to go the distance." That's it people ... go the distance, and keep you nose clean.

What a beautiful and classic metaphor for getting though life, often with others by our side.

ACTING: Normally, I am not a Stallone fan, but he, Shire, Meredith, and many others all did a fantastic job.

There was an immersion by Stallone that I much appreciate, not that the character is far from his own persona, but excellent character immersion.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate to high

TEMPO: Excellent pace throughout, nicely managed

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Love the 70's

MUSIC / SOUND: Sound was fine, and so was the theme song

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Aside from this film, Avildsen directed only one other film I'd recommend (lightly) "The Karate Kid" (1984).

Writers: I don't normally think of Stallone as a writer, but wow, nice work.

Is it a good film? Yes!

Should you watch this once? Yes, at least

Rating: 8.5.

As an historical film about our nation's civil war, it's fine. As a form of entertainment it's fine.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: To enjoy this, I think you really need to enjoy history. The characters "resurrected" here played pivotal roles in the war, but their individual lives are not developed at all or sparingly.

This would be my chief complaint - for an historical film, it should have included more about the historical figures.

Sadly, the writers and / or director spent far, far too much time on explosions. That was unfortunate, and takes away from the story's quality.

ACTING: As you'd expect from this crew, the acting was solid, though the script tended to be too rigid and somewhat cliched.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate value

TEMPO: OK, but can be slow and the film's 4-hour runtime doesn't help

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Fine, but so much focus on explosions took away from the historic value of the film

MUSIC / SOUND: Incessant, which is not only annoying but a classic sign of poor to mediocre writing / directing

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Maxwell directed and co-wrote this - another classic and bad sign. His portfolio is small and limited, and this film reflects that lack of depth and breadth.

Writers: Sharra was a TV-writer, and this was his first contribution to feature film. Not bad, but not great.

Is it a good film? Yes, overall

Should you watch this once? Yes.

Rating: 7.5.

I dislike most musicals, but am a huge Streisand fan, and this film highlights her wide spectrum of gifts.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: A very unique story during an interesting era in human history, and is unlike most (if not all) musicals.

What's especially telling is how the sub-plots are all managed so well, and that's what sets this story apart: as a romance it rides the edge between perfection and perversion, as a musical it demonstrates the power that music has on experience, and as a story about God's view of man and woman ... both are given minds to think, debate, and question "Why?" ... for the scriptures are open to all.

So if you're socially conservative (like me), then you might have some qualms about this. But fear not, it all works out, even if in an awkward (if not mysterious) sort of way.

ACTING: Two of my favorite actors: Streisand and Patinkin (see him in "The Princess bride" 1987) deliver top performances.

All other cast also performed without a hitch.

ENTERTAINMENT: Moderate - high, depending on your likes

TEMPO: Overall an excellent pace, but does lull occasionally

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Very nice, especially the period authenticity

MUSIC / SOUND: Wow ... can that woman sing ... it becomes like beautiful speech

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: As if acting, singing, comedy weren't enough ... Streisand proves that she can direct too, and well.

Writers: The combined works of the writing team smacks loudly of TV-film, which normally translates poorly to quality feature film-making. Here, someone gave this story great legs, and my guess it was Streisand. Dunno.

Is it a good film? Yes, and then some

Should you watch this once? Yes, at least once (I've seen this at least 5 times, and it still makes me cry)

Rating: 8.9 (superb, but not perfect)

I've tried watching this twice over the years. It's been the same each time: dull and cliched.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Some stories are poor, and some are great, and most are about average. This is just flat and obscure.

Is this a romance? Maybe. Is it a comedy? Well, it's not funny. Is it a statement on rigid dating customs? Dunno.

This story either tries to do too much, and fails at most of it, or it's not sure what it is and becomes obscure.

ACTING: Acting is OK, but not great, though the actors may have been hampered by a muddled story.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low - moderate depending on your tastes

TEMPO: OK

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Fine

MUSIC / SOUND: OK

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Roach did the Austin Powers films, some of which are quite entertaining, but that's largely Mike Myers.

Here I though his TV-penchant came through and made the film feel too confined, like TV film does.

Writers: The bulk of the small portfolios of the 3 writers are these "Focker" stories or TV work. See a pattern here?

Is it a good film? OK, maybe, but not "good"

Should you watch this once? Find something that's an actual romantic comedy, e.g. "Say Anything" (1989)

Rating: 6.0.

This is more like a biography / documentary than a feature-length film, for entertainment purposes.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: No doubt this follows a period in the comic's life, but it's not well crafted or designed at all.

Yes, I get that the life of a traveling comic is bound to be chaotic, but the storytelling shouldn't carry the same discord.

This feels lazy, like the writers just scraped together some history and that suffices for good film. No.

ACTING: Of course the acting is good, but a poor use of the acting resources. Besides, Perrine was probably far more capable than just being a pole dancer.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value

TEMPO: Odd

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Scattered, dark, almost unwatchable

MUSIC / SOUND: N/A

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Fosse was a very niche director with only 8 films to his credit. This is not a good example of directing.

Writers: Barry also only had 8 stories put on film, none of which I recognize. Fosse and Barry seem like two peas in a pod.

Is it a good film? No

Should you watch this once? No

Rating: 6.0 (acting)

Pacino, Plummer, and Crowe ... even great actors cannot counter a poor story. It simply does not work.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: Many whistle-blower stories have been told and made into feature film e.g. "All the Presidents Men" (1976), but you need meat in the story and not just great acting. The latter film is superb, but not because Hoffman and Redford were gifted actors, no, but because they also had an excellent story to work from.

Note: I'll say a bit more in Director and Writer comments, but Michael Mann is not a good storyteller, and this has his "mark" of story-suffocation all over it.

ACTING: As written above, the acting is fine.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low - moderate depending on standards

TEMPO: Slow

CINEMATOGRAPHY: This is Mann's strength, he does excellent camera work

MUSIC / SOUND: As I've said in other reviews, incessant music to create non-existent drama dilutes a story's tension, and is invariably a signal that the story is lacking.

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Mann is a very capable director, but here again he takes on writing and producing roles ... rarely does this work. When it does work consistently it's because the director is also a gifted writer, e.g. Steven Spielberg, and a small cadre of others. Mann has directed and written successfully before, "Heat" (1995), but that was an anomaly. Too much of his TV pedigree comes through, and TV-style-writing kills good story.

Writers: This was Roth's first story for film, and if she was the primary writer, then that may explain the poor quality of the story. But my bet is that Mann exercised too much control, and quashed her work. Dunno.

Is it a good film? Borderline, but I would not call it "good"

Should you watch this once? No, too many similar films that are far better

Rating: 6.0 (good camera work)

This is not a feature-length film as most are familiar. It's more like a film made by college students.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This is a rather unique story, especially as it's entirely about young pre and adolescent boys.

The fact that they are so young, though forced to act as adults, is what makes this so unique.

A telling story about human nature and environmental influence on what we become.

ACTING: As with British film, the acting was superb even in the young.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low - moderate value as this was obviously made on a shoe-string budget

TEMPO: OK, but slow by most standards

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Actually quite good as it's filmed on some beautiful, tropical beaches

MUSIC / SOUND: Quirky

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Brook co-wrote, directed and edited this ... normally I'd say "control-freak" but it's more likely he had no money.

You see a lot of TV work in his bio and it shows here.

Writers: See above

Is it a good film? More of a psycho-social docudrama, so not really

Should you watch this once? Not for entertainment, only as a study

Rating: 4.0.

I did not like this. Decent directing, but hollow story.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: From depression-era to modern-day gangster stories ... they always abound, e.g. "The Untouchables" (1987), "The Godfather" (1972), et al. Because people like to live vicariously as either gangster, cop, or both.

This story is barely passable, and it's far too predictable and cliched, end-to-end. Sometimes, but not often, characters don't always have to be fleshed out. Here, the story is about the characters: history, idiosyncrasies, and what makes them tick. In other words, encourage the viewer (reader) to become connected and invested in the qualities of the good and bad guys.

Unfortunately, there is zero character development here - just plop! This just doesn't work. It's empty. Hollow.

ACTING: Of course the acting is solid across the board ... since actor after actor here could have played lead roles!

(The number of excellent actors on this picture surprised me throughout - must have spent a fortune.)

Sadly, for all of anyone's skill, there are no stand outs. Frankly, I would have preferred if Depp and Bale weren't here because it's a waste of their talents. This is another example of great acting being impotent to overcome poor storytelling (writing).

ENTERTAINMENT: Low - moderate value

TEMPO: OK

CINEMATOGRAPHY: This is the film's outstanding trait - era authenticity - nice work

MUSIC / SOUND: When dramatic music runs incessant throughout a film it's a bad sign, and signals poverty someone else, e.g. Poor story.

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Mann has done some very nice work, but directing and writing the same film is a risky move, and here shows why.

Don't.

Writers: Now that I've read their bios, I see the cause of poor story. The writers' were / are TV-people, and that's a euphemism for hollow.

Is it a good film? Yes, and no

Should you watch this once? There are so many other better films in the same category ... pick something else

Rating: 6.0.

Apparently this film stirs a wide variety of emotions: from great to sucks. I'm on the lower end.

I've tried watching this three (3) times the past years, but the experience is always more anguish than anything else.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: If you like "feel-good fantasy" then by all means, watch this. If you like iconic actors like Robin Williams and Matt Damon, then watch this. If you love make-believe for adults in the modern age ... watch this. Otherwise ...

This rings hollow, as in "Hollowood." And there are my standard and new reasons why: 1. It's so improbable, if not impossible, for this to occur. It's so far out in "I am high as a kite ..." land 2. The dialogue and relationships are so cliche I might just puke (but am eating lunch) 3. The plots and characters are predictable long before anything happens

They could have done something out of the ordinary that did NOT include the characters stroking each other (figuratively).

But sadly, contemporary writers are (largely) without genuine creativity, or just really f*ng twisted. So the choices these days are tripe or twisted. I'll take neither.

ACTING: Fine. Boring. Fine. Cliche. Fine. Predictable. Fine. Say something new. Fine.

It's the same faces, same clothes, slightly different script, same places ... just different movies.

They are all fine actors, but that's all they are: fine actors like in the 1930's where everyone did the same thing , most of , the time. Social engineering through film.

ENTERTAINMENT: For the average middle class, white, American this will likely resonate well / high. I'd rather floss.

TEMPO: Fine but predictable

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Fine but predictable

MUSIC / SOUND: Fine but predictable

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Most of what Van Sant has done are music videos .... What??? And this is a credential for sound film direction?!

It wasn't a poorly directed film , but I seriously question who was at the wheel here: the director or the actors / writers.

Writers: For Damon and Affleck (and his brother) to both star in and write this ... throws bad signals all over???

This is why I loathed this before I knew who wrote it. As I've said ad nausea, Hollowood loves to promote and praise itself, and this is a great example.

Is it a good film? No, it's drivel. Just drooling with drivel.

Should you watch this once? Yes, and see how far you get (it's a test)

Rating: 4.0 (because it's not horrible, just drivel, and even drivel gets some points)