Reviews

I can hardly express my disappointment in this film. A premise with lots of potential was utterly wasted by a plot line that was both underdeveloped and meandering, soapy dialog and acting that was....just awful.

Worse yet, though, was the inescapable feeling that the director was trying to grind an ax. I won't go into details because I don't wish to enter spoiler territory, but it was pretty obvious that this film was less about a story than it was an agenda. The cheap, unbalanced potshots at all-too-easy targets were tiresome and trite over a decade ago; in a contemporary film, they were just plain sad. In the end, I felt angry, but not at the film's intended targets.

This film would have been a waste of money had I not seen it on Netflix, but it was still a waste of time. Nothing much to recommend it.

...if this thing got four stars. I was really looking forward to this film, but it let me down in nearly every way imaginable. The plot line is improbable (no one could be as dumb as the protagonist seems) and jerky/rambling (no vignette really develops before we're on to another misadventure by our hero). The acting runs from forgettable (the best performances were probably by a couple of fellow inmates) to simply awful, as Muni simply gnaws on the scenery from time to time, especially in the final pathetic scene. Some details, like camera-work and costuming are nice, but not nearly enough to rescue this from the stink-heap.

I think what really irked me was this film's supposed commentary on America's penal system, when really it seemed like a snarky attack on the Deep South. If Hollywood wishes to perpetuate regional stereotypes, they really should produce a better film in which to do so.

4/10...watchable but certainly not memorable.

OK...let me see if I've got this right. Four stars from AMPA, a solid cast, an intriguing plot line and performances that multiple cast members called their best ever. Sounds like a barn-burner, right?

Well...no. This movie wasn't terrible, but neither was it the blockbuster I'd built myself up for, especially after TMC's Robert Osborne spoke so glowingly of it. The acting was indeed very good, as was the screenplay, the dialog and the costuming. Where this really fell down was in the story itself.

The plot lacks a central theme to hold the film together. Instead, the story meanders as randomly as an episode of "The Simpsons" but regrettably, at a slower rate. Everyone in the film has their own story, and it seems as though the director was trying to give everyone, from Mitchum's character down to young Ruby, their 15 minutes of fame. The result was a story that left me asking "so what?" at the end.

Overall, as I said, not terrible at all, but the tedious production detracted greatly from what could have been a stunner. Still watchable, though, and still better than most of what comes out of Hollywood today...

I was a bit disturbed to see a rather vitriolic, negative review of this film. The Sundowners has its faults, and is probably not in "must see" category, but it entertains, pleases and amuses. Its genre should probably be called "adventure lite"...the drama keeps you engaged, but doesn't get the adrenaline going.

The acting is solid (in particular, Ustinov really "completes" the cast nicely), the cinematography is excellent and all in all, it's a good film for a rainy night. I'd agree with the poster who pointed out that you probably won't want to watch it over and over again, but to me, this isn't necessarily a knock on it; after all, think how tedious it would be if all films were as arcane as, say, "Pulp Fiction."

A solid 7 out of 10.

It's my bias that any film should have some point to its creation. It can amuse, excite, titillate, move to romantic tears, etc. But...is it really enough for a film simply to depress one to death?

Even "Angela's Ashes," heretofore the most depressing film I've ever seen, had its rare high points, notably in the epilogue in which the protagonist post-caps his positive life events after the film's ending (this doesn't count as a spoiler, does it?). "But Long Day's Journey" gives us NOTHING to hold onto at the end, with the possible exception of gratitude that we the viewers aren't more like the characters.

I was also quite unimpressed with the acting (except for Hepburn)...overacting seemed to be the rule, possibly because it was the only way to squeeze some life from the trite, tired lines.

Sorry, guys, and I know that I'll get flayed for this, but this is not a keeper in my book. And to top it all off...it's way too long!

This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.

The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it.

I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).

I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).

"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.

My first thought when this film ended was, "thank goodness it's over!" My second thought was that the director must have really fallen in love with his own work. Any film that runs three hours or more had better have a good reason for it...this one, simply put, had no reason at all.

This film is just BEGGING to be cut, with tons of unnecessary footage that makes each scene seem drawn-out and tedious. It's almost as though the director was trying to make this a long movie. What made it even worse was the gritty and unpleasant nature of most of the film, which creates viewer unease that the film length only protracts. Sheesh. Good acting, mediocre story and terrible editing add up to a thoroughly so-so experience. Truly a waste of time unless nothing bad enough is on TV.

Like another reviewer, I too was motivated to see this film for its representation of a part of history I find interesting, the Great Depression. In this regard, the movie satisfies: the sets, costuming and other details give a vivid (and probably pretty faithful) rendition of a bleak period.

Unfortunately, the film had little else to offer (other than possibly an opportunity for the director to exorcise some personal demons). The story rambled, the characters failed to endear or inspire, and I found my interest languishing. Fans who take an interest in pre-war Great Britian are well advised to watch "Angela's Ashes" instead for a better-developed story and a more satisfying outcome. "Liam" is missable unless one has a fondness for well-known stereotypes being beaten into the ground.

Gary Cooper and an otherwise undistinguished cast take a simple plot (based on a real-life character) and imbue it with enough charm, humor and mild drama to be well worth the watch. Die-hard fans of war films might be disappointed if they're expecting a lot of shooting and bombing, as the film doesn't enter the war until about 90 minutes is gone, and the war action is sparse, but this doesn't detract from its quality.

Cooper isn't at his best in this film (I imagine it's hard to give much depth to such a simple role), but he definitely stamps it with his trademark integrity, determination and old-school approach to life. The film does drag in spots; some aggressive editing could have reduced this to two hours and improved the more tedious scenes, but overall this is a fine project and very well deserving of the three stars it received.

...that truly excellent novels shouldn't be made into movies. Actually, Joseph Wambaugh (the author of _The Choirboys_ had several bad experiences with Hollywood directors mangling his work (The New Centurion, The Blue Knight), to the extent that he blasted the film biz in his scathing _Glitter Dome_.

In defense of director Robert Aldrich, Wambaugh's humor must be nearly impossible to convey through acting, but by the same token, it doesn't even appear that a good effort was made in this film, which seems to attempt to capitalize on a few lurid episodes of the novel that, when woven into the overall story, do much to characterize rarely-seen sides of police life, but when portrayed sheerly for shock value, kick this film squarely into "B" movie territory. It's a shame, since some decent acting performances (such as Louis Gossett Jr's) are evident, but they founder in this effort.

Overall: instead of renting the movie, buy the paperback. Infinitely more entertaining.

...about the historical accuracy of the film. So, I did a few minutes of online research, and what I found was mildly distubing: the story borrows from history the names, dates and significant events (the conquering of Germania), but the plot is essentially fact-free, at least as far as what we know of Roman history can tell us.

I find this somewhat irksome because it's using just enough history to sound as though it's telling a fact-based story, when in fact it's fiction. Admittedly, there are others who take far more egregious liberties with the truth (Oliver Stone comes to mind) but the taking of names from history seemed pointless and a little misleading.

This is admittedly a nit against a tremendous film that deserved all the critical acclaim it received, but I do wish directors would be a little more discerning when it comes to blending fact and fiction.

This is an awful film, if for no other reason than the sense of attempted brainwashing that permeates the effort. The director's premises are flawed, his logic spotty and he is intellectually dishonest to boot. Sure to be a hit with those who are incapable of individual thought, this film is a total waste of time unless there's nothing bad enough on TV...

I suppose I'd have given this film more credit if it weren't so, uh..."versatile." Some scenes are poignant, others hilarious, and still others just plain sappy. And while the story tells itself well enough (with the occasional august overvoice of John Huston at his deadpan best), the unevenness of the scenes, and the abrupt transitions between them, make it difficult to know how to feel about the film overall.

High points are the performances by Nolte and Winger, who, while occasionally descending into caricatures of themselves, deliver excellent efforts and are highly entertaining. Also stellar is the soundtrack which comes closer than anything else to capturing the sweet, syrupy yet sad texture of the story. Low points are occasional scenes in which supporting cast members are given almost embarrassingly bad lines.

On the whole, very watchable (once) and good fun as long as you're not in a mood to think too much.

Despite what another reviewer might want to believe, there is *nothing* inherently wrong with this film. It might never end up on anyone's list of favorites, but the biodrama is never slow, Cagney is excellent as a charismatic-but-driven Cohan, and the plotline requires little to digest. Admittedly, the song-and-dance routines wear a little thin at times, but if you weren't in the mood for such frivolity, what the h*ll were you watching this for in the first place?!