Reviews

I am delighted to find this item on IMDb. I have searched for it many times in the past, as I remember it as well as you can remember anything you saw at the age of 6 or so, 55 years ago. It ran on BBC once a week from Christmas to Easter, in 15 minute segments, if I recall correctly, and presented a memorable and intriguing life of Christ that has stayed with me all my life. I saw it at least twice, in at least two years.

I can still remember scenes such as Jesus holding a rock in his hands, refusing the devil's temptation to turn it into bread, or the roof being torn away before the paralytic is lowered to Him, or the scenes before Pilate and on the cross. (You know how the story ends, right?)

This is one series from my childhood I wish I could see again, if only to see if it was as good as I remember. It certainly made a lasting impression on me.

I came across this title when I was following a few items on Alexis Bledel. It only runs 10 minutes so I looked for it on Youtube and found it a good way to waste 10 minutes on a snowy afternoon. The incompetence of the therapist is made funnier by the fact that anyone watching can see what Gene's problem is, and it's not his height. The therapist is nicely played by Seth MacFarlane, and both Alexis and Riki Lindholme bring just the right tone to their parts.

It's amazing what a decent director can do with 10 minutes of filming time. This is a good piece of work, even though it is only a little longer than an average commercial break. It seems longer than the ten minutes it runs for, and that's a good thing. Go watch it!

By all means, go and see this movie, once. It moved a little slowly, but compellingly to its conclusion. I saw some of the plot coming, but was completely blindsided by the ending. The acting is very good all round, and the sets and costumes have a feel of authenticity about them, as do the relationships between the aristocrats and the commoners who serve them. Paul Giammatti as the Chief Inspector is completely believable in his role, especially when he inwardly seethes at the restrictions placed on his investigations by the aristocracy. Norton is intense and passionate, a young man skilled beyond his years, working inexorably towards his goal.

I felt that, on the whole, this played more like a TV movie than a theatrical one. It doesn't need the big screen.

There! No spoilers. Don't read any reviews with spoilers until you've seen it. This is one time when knowing the twist at the end will spoil the fun.

I bought this movie for two reasons, first, I wanted to get something my wife and I could watch together and Wal-Mart was selling it for $5.50, and secondly, it was filmed partly in the city where I work, and I saw Stallone standing between two sound trucks, looking just like Sylvester Stallone as I was leaving my office one night. I had always thought I should have a look at the movie.

I expected a grim-mouthed actioner, but having seen some of Stallone's other work I should have known better. The movie is played with a lot of good humour, and fine interplay between Stallone and Stowe. There were a couple of places where I actually laughed out loud, and it's hard to make me laugh.

If you want a movie you can watch on a quiet night with your teen-aged kids and your wife, this'll do fine.

I saw this movie in it's theatrical release, and was very impressed with the way it maintained the level of real tension throughout. I wasn't inclined, as I was with most horror B flicks, to just blow off the attempts at making the audience shiver. This film was made with some intelligence and sensitivity to the characters and to making the audience care about them. It was on TV once in the 70s, that I know of, on CBC, where their reviewers gave it *** out of four.

I have searched for references to this movie, and it is very difficult to find. Maltin doesn't review it. I'd like to see it again. 7/10

It seems to me that Rouse could have made this film as an exercise in making a western, to show to a film class. It has all the elements, sewn together nicely, although the quality of the acting doesn't quite carry it off.

The film takes place in 1889, a time in which there were already automobiles in the streets of St. Louis. The wild west was rapidly disappearing, and America was leaving its national adolescence for settled middle class maturity. We have here a town in which the citizens are so square that all of them are in church on Sunday morning. There are no whores in the saloon, and the worst wicked woman in town is simply a malicious gossip. This move from restless youth to settled adulthood is reflected in George Temple, who is desperate to give up his gun and live the quiet life of a shopkeeper.

The town and the citizens of Cross Creek are just too clean to be real. There is never a speck of dirt on Glenn Ford's white shirt (OK, it's off-white in the colourized version; I saw the B&W version for the first time tonight - I first saw it in colour in a theatre in the early sixties.)

In contrast, Broderick Crawford (the old flatfoot from "Highway Patrol") with his cronies play a less likable Butch and Sundance - trying to keep the old west alive, seeking after a goal worthy of an adolescent - to be the fastest gun alive. He and his henchmen are gloriously dirty; they even drink whisky from the bottle. We know they must fail, as the blind man in the first scene tells Crawford that his is an impossible quest: "There's always someone faster."

The past continually returns to haunt George Temple. He must prove his worth in the outmoded method - by showing his skill with a gun. Having done this, his shame causes him to run from his past, but the past in the person of Vinny Harold (Crawford) reaches him before he can run. George defeats Vinny in a classic showdown (something that never, never happened in any town in the west,) allowing him to put away the adolescent past and settle into the Great American Dream even before it was called that. Roll the credits.

I started watching the movie a few minutes late tonight, and Russ Tamblyn's dance scene was underway already. This surprised me, as I had forgotten that this scene was in this movie and remembered it as being in "Shane," which shares some thematic elements with this movie. I figure the scene was put in as insurance, to draw some extra audience. I never saw the trailers for this film, but I should imagine the dance scene figured heavily in it, and Tamblyn was given star billing. This might have encouraged some people to think this wasn't just another oater.

In spite of its foibles, I love this film. It's not "The Ox-Bow Incident," or "Requiem for a Gunfighter," or even "Warlock," but I'll watch it any time it's on. I prefer the colourized version. 8/10

I watched this movie after picking it up on a sale table, and donated it to our Sunday School, as it is a pretty inoffensive movie. The miracle I am referring to in the summary is that anyone followed this guy at all. The Jesus of this movie is an unutterably uninteresting character, with no charisma at all. It is insulting to the audience for the producers to expect the story to carry itself just because of Who it portrays.

I was raised on the BBC Jesus of Nazareth from the 50's, now, sadly, completely forgotten, but it had a Jesus who could capture the heart of a 5-year-old and remain with him the rest of his life. The Jesus in this movie will be forgotten five minutes after it ends.

When I first saw this movie, I was not familiar with Brooke Adams, and assumed that she was Dianne Dupuy, playing herself. It was the only explanation I could think of for the abysmal quality of her acting. I have seen her since, and now realize that although she is marvelously good-looking, she simply cannot act, and that fact drags down a script that already doesn't have much going for it. The fact that it is a true story, (and set in Toronto, Ontario) can't save it.

The kids who are part of Dupuy's troupe seem to be having a great time, and the whole thing plays out at the level of an amateur school play.

I've seen this movie about 4 times, under various circumstances, including a night in the hospital when I couldn't sleep. I have always liked Marjo Gortner in his limited career, and this movie was a lot of fun. It reminds me of the old TV westerns like "Maverick" in its humour and characterizations. I can't believe it's not had 5 votes yet.

This film is about as bad as you can get. It shares many characteristics with porno films, in the score (one of the worst I've ever heard) and the dialogue and pacing. Many elements that are meant to be clever are simply ludicrous. It would be fair to say that De Niro is the only actor in this film, the rest being mannequins. Terrayne Crawford (Carol) produced the only other credible performance.

This is a sweet, charming movie that stands up well on its own. It is a good evening's entertainment. It seems to have had some problems with the fact that it is loosely based on John Irving's _A Prayer for Owen Meany_, which is too complex a novel to be compressed into a movie.

I liked the movie on its own merits although I think it's worth about 7/10, no higher. I really think the character of Simon could have been developed over a longer period, and the movie given a more dramatic ending, given the excellent material it started from.

A good movie to watch when you're stuck at home in a blizzard, there's nothing else on TV, and you've seen everything else in your collection. The dialogue is bad, the plot unbelievable, and the ending beyond comprehension, but other than that, it's not bad.

When I watched this film, with my children who were small, then, and enchanted by it, I compared it to Wizard of OZ. It has all the elements of a great children's fantasy. It has charm, wit, and good special effects.

I could never understand why it seemed to disappear into obscurity after its release.